Jump to content


Photo

Brainysmurf the Threat


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#121 Gwynplaine

Gwynplaine

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Sergeant

Posted 29 December 2016 - 01:31 AM

See #120


Edited by Gwynplaine, 29 December 2016 - 01:32 AM.

"I try to think, but nothing happens!"

#122 Caesar101

Caesar101

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Miner

Posted 30 December 2016 - 04:21 AM

.                                    .


Edited by Caesar101, 30 December 2016 - 04:24 AM.


#123 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,498 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 30 December 2016 - 10:36 PM

TheO, can you give the TCs definition of an "alias"?  I think I am understanding the term a bit more generally than how it is being used in this case.  Is anyone who uses an alternate account, or an undisclosed alternate account, subject to disqualification?

 

An alias is any secondary account. The problem that aliases pose to tournaments concerns their anonymity.

 

So if an alias reveals to TC their primary account, then TC (as they have done in the past) will publicise the name of the primary account so that other participants know who they are playing.

 

If an alias refuses to reveal their primary account, then firstly this alias would have an advantage over other accounts (given that they are playing anonymously) and secondly TC cannot be sure that this player is abiding by the 'no multiple registrations rule'

 

So it is accurate to state that an undisclosed alternate account would be subject to DQ, whereas a disclosed alternate account would likely be accepted (and then publicised) provided that no other rules were broken (eg one account per player per season).


  • The Prof likes this

#124 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,498 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 30 December 2016 - 10:45 PM

The optician or javier or........(TC member)

If you haven't realized the way you were asking me was very insisting, provocative and annoying.The result was the answers that you were getting from me which you used the way you were taught to.I don't care about the tournament if you have excluded me or not.Can you understand that?
I just want everyone to realize the way you behave.

Question: Why you didn't ask me who i am at the begining of the tournament? Of this one or of some other? And where i am from.
I assume you didn't like that i was in the first 4 places? Maybe some didn't like the fact that i would have ensured my participation at the division of the next year.


However provocative/annoying you deemed the questions (TC didn't consider that any questions we asked were either of these things), the fact remains that the answers were woefully short of standing up to scrutiny. I imagine a shoplifter caught on camera claiming in his defence that the cameras were looking at him meanly. It bears no relevance to the weakness of the answers, and diminishes in no way the strength of the many reasons provided by TC.

'Question: Why you didn't ask me who i am at the begining of the tournament? '

This seems a similarly poor defence - 'why didn't you catch me sooner'?! Again this has no relevance to the decision. (We apologise for not catching you sooner, but thank you for reminding us that we need to be a little more vigilant to the possibility of aliases infiltrating tournaments)

I assume you didn't like that i was in the first 4 places?

We were enjoying your success prior to the events that revealed your aliasness - as new players (especially in Div 1) are important for tournament competitiveness.
  • KARAISKAKIS, texaspete09 and Master Mind like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users