39 replies to this topic

[Unladen Swallow]

Nortom - I think everyone has realised that by now. Thank you for your contribution nonetheless.

Edited by Unladen Swallow, 05 May 2017 - 01:33 PM.

[Lonello]

I answered there was no room for interpretation - the rules did not need to be interpreted - they were clear.

If you are willing to ignore/over-ride/retrospectively change rules - then this would in most cases make rules less useful, but that is not to say that using the rules merely as guidelines would never be the best course of action.

And to correct you, sevenseas was asked if he would be willing to play the game (as TC did consider all options available before making a decision).

 

OK then I had faulty information. Fake news. But the point remains if TC I (past) and TC III (future) see room for interpretation, then TC II (present) can keep arguing there's retrospectively changing rules needed all they want.

 

All the merrier that even TC II apparantly did investigate thouroughly the option to have the game played. I think TC II as less as I want to retrospectively change rules. So maybe there's room for interpretation in that room for interpretation.

 

Anyway, even with the option I endorsed an unwilling sevenseas would have caused Nortrom to win fair&square too so the win was, is and always will be his. And I guess this is no longer about the Alias Register so I better shut up while I'm ahead    Lo OUT !

[Unladen Swallow]

And to correct you, sevenseas was asked if he would be willing to play the game

 

This is false. Alex had a conversation about the final match with me, but apart from that I heard nothing from TC officially.

 

Even if I were asked, I would decline. I do not see why a DQ'ed player should be re-enlisted as a tie breaker. TheO's TC alienated me, and there never was a warm welcome back or even an acknowledgement (the rule 'Banned players may not participate' was silently removed). I have to remain incognito. The situation was hot for 1/2 days but then it cooled down, and admin went on their regular 2 month sabbatical. 

 

It's all because of the rules fetishism (Lo's words, not mine). Common sense should always prevail, even if it means changing a rule mid-tourney

Edited by Unladen Swallow, 05 May 2017 - 05:32 PM.

[TheOptician]

i can't remember the source, but we thought you had said you would play.

I'm sorry you feel isolated by TC. We had to consider that the situation was hot and any action perceived as contradicting admin might invoke further trouble for the committee. We did voice public opinion against the decision and the feedback we got from admin privately was there was zero chance of any reversal of decision. We were also aware that TC may have been seen to favour their own member had we over-ridden a rule.

[GaryLShelton]

Just letting you know that John Collasky, as distinct from Collasky, is an unlisted alias of Loris Collart, aka Yangus. I played him two years ago in the WCO when there was still a Skype requirement for that Tournament.

[TheOptician]

Just letting you know that John Collasky, as distinct from Collasky, is an unlisted alias of Loris Collart, aka Yangus. I played him two years ago in the WCO when there was still a Skype requirement for that Tournament.

 

When players sign the Alias Register they are given the option to request the account be deleted rather than declaring it (many players did exercise this option). John Collasky is one such example - this account does not exist anymore, so in the eyes of the Alis Register this does not constitute an unlisted alias or further infringement.

[GaryLShelton]

I see. Thanks for that. I didn't check the leaderboard. But now that I do I see that you're right. John Collasky doesn't appear on them anywhere, while Collasky does. John Collasky does show up in a gameside friend search, though, and that was my error. The friend search function, although it's quick on the phone and that's why I use it (particularly as the Leaderboards don't work so well in Chrome on an Android phone), is never complete. For example, even waterfall appears in a gameside friend search today, though he's been gone from the Leaderboards for years now.

[GaryLShelton]

Name: Unladen Swallow
Timezone: GMT+1
Country: United Kingdom
Nationality: British

Aliases:

Old username was 'sevenseas', and I had more aliases too but these are inactive.

My new accounts:
-Unladen Swallow
-YourBiggestFan
-Hopeless N00b

.

A new/old account appears posting in the forum today for Unladen Swallow.

evenseass

If this was an "inactive" account, then shouldn't all the other "inactive" accounts should be posted?

[evenseass]

i havent played any games on it since, but yes

 

it was used for the quick arena tournament at the beginning of 2017.

 

the game # on this account has been this way for probably a year now. admins can bring up game logs if they choose to do so

 

i've made a lot of accounts over the years, but i dont think its important now. TC agrees, only account that are active should be declared. plenty of others have exercised this option too. i can't edit UL's post, but if i could, you can add this account in too. i won't be playing any games with it though, as i can play on UL/n00b/yourbiggestfan again now. 

Edited by evenseass, 09 February 2018 - 04:59 PM.

[Master Mind]

i havent played any games on it since, but yes

 

it was used for the quick arena tournament at the beginning of 2017.

 

the game # on this account has been this way for probably a year now. admins can bring up game logs if they choose to do so

 

Why are you using it then if you don't use it anymore? 

[GaryLShelton]

I request today, 8 February 2018 to customer care to delete the following alias accounts of account roeczak : Marshal GiouriasUnforgiven Galen Erso Ultima Ratio Flag_HunterI will keep one to be able to play tournament matches, in case of bug with my main account : Blue Flame (which will not play any more ranked games).I hope that helps to solve the huge alias problem from this site.
I have edited my post in the Register.

.

This posting in the Alias Register does not get your accounts deleted as admins will not pay attention to it. If you haven't done so, roeczak, you must submit this request to customercare@stratego.com directly.

[evenseass]

Why are you using it then if you don't use it anymore? 

 

because i got banned from the forum, after i already served my 1 week ban from game.

 

i could use an unknown new account, but i choose to post on one that's known. for transparency. 

Edited by evenseass, 09 February 2018 - 04:46 PM.

[Master Mind]

All right, did not realise you were banned, because you posted with UL 16 hours ago

[evenseass]

. 

Edited by evenseass, 09 February 2018 - 04:53 PM.

[KissMyCookie]

. 

 

Hey Master Mind, will you please check your PM and reply to our question?   Thank you!

[Master Mind]

Hey Master Mind, will you please check your PM and reply to our question?   Thank you!

 

Sleepless nights because of this, men

[KissMyCookie]

Is that what it is? Your men in your company are taking away your time? Take them to the Marshal Bar, drop them off for a few minutes, and then work on your correspondence, please.    

 

We are looking forward to hearing back from you.

 

Bedankt!

 

KMC

[roeczak]

.

This posting in the Alias Register does not get your accounts deleted as admins will not pay attention to it. If you haven't done so, roeczak, you must submit this request to customercare@stratego.com directly.

I sent them an email yesterday.

[TheOptician]

Post moved from another topic:
 
 

I support the alias registered modification approved by the TC. However, I feel it will be difficult for the TC to enforce.

How can the TC verify that a player disclosed all the accounts that they requested deleted? This would seemingly require that customer care share player emails with the TC.

[TheOptician]

The main principle of the Alias Register is that tournament players may not play a game on an account that is not disclosed in the Alias Register (to de-incentivise anonymous aliases). At the start of the Alias Register we gave players the option to declare or delete accounts. Now whether a player actually e-mailed customer care and asked for the account to be deleted - or whether they simply just stopped using it altogether - I don't feel that personally is important provided that the account is completely inactive. And while we could canvas people for proof that the deletion was requested I don't think this is a good use of time when we would like admin to be sympathetic to more important requests.

 

Using the Exported Leaderboard Methodology (ELM) we are able to determine whether an account has played a game between two specific dates. February 2 2017 was chosen because that is one of the dates that TC have an exported leaderboard. So this aspect takes care of half of the process - determining which accounts have played a game.

 

The other half is much more challenging. We can identify the accounts that have played a game between two dates but there are limited methods available to identify whether Account X belongs to Player Y. And by limited methods I mean the occasional IP check by admin. So whenever we identify an account belonging to a certain player, we can check to see if they had played a game - that part is enforceable. It just won't have a very high conviction rate.