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.
Posted 05 May 2017 - 01:29 PM
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.
I used to play against a few drunken idiots in College and University. I just recently discovered this game online, playing my first matches against real-world opponents. After 100 games, I'm now one of the top 10 players in the world.
Posted 05 May 2017 - 01:45 PM
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
!
Posted 05 May 2017 - 04:48 PM
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.
I used to play against a few drunken idiots in College and University. I just recently discovered this game online, playing my first matches against real-world opponents. After 100 games, I'm now one of the top 10 players in the world.
Posted 05 May 2017 - 06:39 PM
Posted 19 November 2017 - 06:14 PM
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/
Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604
Posted 19 November 2017 - 07:34 PM
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.
Posted 19 November 2017 - 09:11 PM
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/
Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604
Posted 09 February 2018 - 04:37 PM
.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
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/
Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604
Posted 09 February 2018 - 04:39 PM
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.
Posted 09 February 2018 - 04:44 PM
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?
Posted 09 February 2018 - 04:44 PM
.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.
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/
Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604
Posted 09 February 2018 - 04:45 PM
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.
Posted 09 February 2018 - 04:46 PM
All right, did not realise you were banned, because you posted with UL 16 hours ago
Posted 09 February 2018 - 04:47 PM
.
Edited by evenseass, 09 February 2018 - 04:53 PM.
Posted 09 February 2018 - 04:53 PM
.
Hey Master Mind, will you please check your PM and reply to our question? Thank you!
Posted 09 February 2018 - 04:54 PM
Hey Master Mind, will you please check your PM and reply to our question?
Thank you!
Sleepless nights because of this, men
Posted 09 February 2018 - 06:01 PM
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
Posted 09 February 2018 - 11:27 PM
.
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.
Posted 07 June 2018 - 08:14 PM
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.
Posted 07 June 2018 - 08:31 PM
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.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users