question about eligibility/squadhopping

[Lofty]

3.01 Double-squadding for Players: Any player found to be joined to either two Trench Wars Leagues Squads or a Trench Wars Leagues and a Trench Wars Divisions Squad, will be subject to suspension from Trench Wars Leagues for the remainder of the season. If they played in any games the week of discovery, the Squad that had the double-squadder will forfeit those games.

This rule explains your hypothetical. I don't believe it is vague to the point of interpretation either. - Randedl

You just indirectly reiterated an example parallel to our current situation (as was the point when I brought up the example myself), and I'm dissapointed with how that apparently completely eluded you.

The point I was making with the example was that due to a lack of information or understanding, TWL Op's made a decision, which, as the rules state, is final.

Both examples contain this. In our current example they made a choice lacking the understanding of how the rule is applied, and allowed players to play illegally. In the doublesquadding scenario, they lacked information to confirm that the players in question were doublesquadding and therefore the appeal was denied, also allowing illegal players to have played therefore.

Both examples also contain the same set of variables to imply that your logic concerning one scenario would be applicable in the other scenario as well. Which variables are those? The fact that both examples have rules that are enforced through punishment, and according to the logic in your last post, punishment overrides the TWL Op's final choice upon confirmation of rule breaching.

For the doublesquadding scenario, as you so clearly pointed out, the rules state that it is illegal to doublesquad and doing so is punished. For the current scenario, the rules state that it is illegal to play players without a cooldown round and doing so is punished as well.

You attempted to make a point by saying that in the doublesquadding example the TWL OP's initial decision to deny the appeal due to lack of information that players doublesquadded would later be overridden by punishment that is stated in the rules to apply towards doublesquadders once the information is uncovered that the players doublesquadded. Why then, wouldn't the same logic apply towards this scenario (punishment overriding the TWL Op's decision once it is uncovered that players did illegally play?) The scenarios, as I have said, are comprised of parallel elements, and even though the punishment for doublesquadding is stated in the rules, and the punishment for our current example isn't, that doesn't in any way alter the parallel aspect which allows your logic to apply to both scenarios equally.

[Adeon]

2dragons, I do apologize if you felt my post "lacked tact".

Not really. But I thought you'd like that. 3 out of the last 5 sounds right. It is good to know that every post which is agreeable to you has tact, while those that don't find you in such favor lack it. Thank you for clearing that up. I sense Mattey's going to get a firm lashing. Black leather, long whips.. the works, baby. $

Make that 4 of the last 6 soon, if you haven't notched that up already.

I belittle no one; you only interpret the words in that way if you wish

If we are to be so tiresomely technical, I never stated that you were belittling anyone. Merely that you were belittling their points. Which, "Appeal denied, TWL Op sanctioned, complaints vetoed. Case closed." (basically, "The powers that be ruled against you, so you're wrong, get over it."), is precisely doing. Oh, that isn't how you meant it, you say? Come on, all you lack there is a "Gg." at the end, for the typical TW burn. I think we've all had enough of these transparent semantic games for one thread.

Things didn't go my way buddy; I simply showed up and did what I was allowed to do.

Things did go your way, not necessarily in being able to play the game(s), but in the appeals process, afterwards. Had the appeal been accepted, a rematch would've been granted, because of you, and you, as a TWL Op, would've looked quite foolish for breaking your own rules and being the cause of a rematch. With the appeal denied, however, you supposedly have the backing of the rest of the ops and the ability to construct abstract hypothetical justifications as to why you were able to play two consecutive rounds on different squads, when the majority of players had thought this absolutely unacceptable. Of course, the rematch thing doesn't matter now, except to reiterate that things did, indeed, go your way. To say otherwise.. to pretend that your actions would be just as, or more validated had the appeal been accepted, and a rematch granted, leaving you out to dry without the backing of your colleagues, is just silliness.

What I meant by any normal player in your situation being "amply dealt with by now" was that 1) They would not have been allowed to play the game(s) you played at all in the first place or 2) Had they somehow been allowed to play, and it was discovered that they had played the previous round with a different squad, the match would've been void, and a rematch given. In short.. no TWL Op involved = Appeals:granted

There would be none of this ridiculous discussion of technicalities about what time you joined the new squad during the round, or how many matches you played during the rounds, or whether those matches were lb, lj, or ld, etc etc., which should all be completely irrelevant according to the rule. The only relevant fact would be that you played in two consecutive rounds, for two different squads, which lacks any cool down period.

Lastly, you may not have "agreed", in writing, to anything in this thread. But it is not your statements that are in question. In fact, whether you posted here at all is of no consequence to this argument. It is your action in TWL that are being subject to agreeing or disagreeing. And that action is, quite simply, playing in consecutive TWL rounds on two different squads. And, as I said before, a conspicuous majority of players were under the impression that this was not to be allowed under the rules of TWL. Thus, they disagree with you, your actions, your "helpless puppetry under extreme duress".. however you want to put it. They disagree that what you did was compliant with the stated rules.

I must say, though, it is somewhat disappointing that a total of uh... 2 TWL Ops have showed up in this thread. Then again, 2 isn't bad. But perhaps, Rand, you should've requested verification from "any TWL Op who wasn't directly and personally involved in this incident", eh? Beggars can't be choosers, I guess.

[Epinephrine]

Adeon:

1) 2dragons isn't a TWL Op.
2) Even if anyone else did the same thing, the result would have been the same... it would be allowed. Why? Because that's how the real TWL Ops see the rule as meaning.

[Darkmoor]

Even if anyone else did the same thing, the result would have been the same... it would be allowed. Why? Because that's how the real TWL Ops see the rule as meaning.

Then why do we have rules if they don't mean the same as is written?

Also, would a TWL Op explain what other rules there are that could possibly have an entirely different meaning as is written. This is nitpicking now, but just to be sure that we don't get any nasty surprises. After all, double squadding could be suddenly allowed eventhough the rules say it isn't. But who knows, the rule may actually mean that it is allowed.

That is exactly what has happened now, a rule which has an entirely different meaning as is written. Eventhough the meaning of the actual rule would be different, you should still use the actual written rule. Just to avoid arguing over it and change it for the next season to actually mean the thing it was supposed to mean. This also raises many more questions, but I'll let them be for now.

[genocidal]

Genocidal got his feelings hurt and is back for more? What's with calling me different names? Did I hit a nerve that bad? =P

Don't flatter yourself thinking I care enough to notice whether you are genocides or genocidal or whoever.

That's nice, and I would really care if you fell off of a cliff onto some jagged rocks.

Copy/Pasting and italicizing someone's post rather than using the quote button does not make you cool, different, emo, punk, or interesting. - genocidal

Stop overestimating my intentions. I'm used to arguing in places where there is no quote button therefore I'm used to the style and don't care to change it. Get over it already and try to find a more legitimate point to attack, even if it is pretty hard =P

It is pretty funny, I think, that you consider not pressing a button a style. Excuse me for thinking you are a normal human being with a large enough brain capacity to be able to use a quote button on one forum and then your own cool thing on another. I bet that can get confusing.

and, I think, it does make sense at some level. - genocidal

It doesn't make sense on any level. Hence my point about the weak comprehension =P

Sirius., you are probably never going to be able to see how proceeding round, within a round on a weekend, can still mean the round that is happening that weekend since proceeding rounds are still on that weekend. Conversely, I am probably never going to agree with you that there is only one way to interpret this rule. So can we reach a middle ground and say that the rule should be ammended and a clear brightline as a to what constitutes the cool down period and the proceeding weekend be made? I hope so.

the TWL Ops (who make and enforce the rules) were asked about this specific rule, that no rule has been broken because the sole enforcers declared it legal.

How many more times are you going to get it wrong? TWL Op's may be in charge of making rules, but that doesn't mean they can just abracadabra and pull shit out of their ass in the middle of seasons; they construct a rule list like the one we have and then abide by it.

See my above comment. Obviously it is only in your mind that they just consciencely decided to break this rule because they felt like it. That is how they interpreted it and despite the fact you disagree with the interpretation hopefully you can at least acknowledge one was made; or else you're much stupider than your posts lead everyone to believe.

my intervention is fairly emotionless - contrary to your's. - genocidal

If chuckling or laughing at some of your poorly constructed retorts makes my intervention emotional then I guess it is. Aside from that though, you became emotional the minute I began to point at shortcomings you happen to blatantly demonstrate in your posts. But hey, don't blame me for that =P and by all means, continue if you feel the urge =P

You aren't pointing out any shortcomings of mine here. We are completely disagreeing on one small point and neither of us are budging and probably won't. But if you think your not-so-witty comments about me not being able to comprehend your argument constitutes you pointing out my shortcomings then I suppose this argument completely doomed to stalemate.

[Randedl]

3.01 Double-squadding for Players: Any player found to be joined to either two Trench Wars Leagues Squads or a Trench Wars Leagues and a Trench Wars Divisions Squad, will be subject to suspension from Trench Wars Leagues for the remainder of the season. If they played in any games the week of discovery, the Squad that had the double-squadder will forfeit those games.

This rule explains your hypothetical. I don't believe it is vague to the point of interpretation either. - Randedl

You just indirectly reiterated an example parallel to our current situation (as was the point when I brought up the example myself), and I'm dissapointed with how that apparently completely eluded you.

The point I was making with the example was that due to a lack of information or understanding, TWL Op's made a decision, which, as the rules state, is final.

Both examples contain this. In our current example they made a choice lacking the understanding of how the rule is applied, and allowed players to play illegally. In the doublesquadding scenario, they lacked information to confirm that the players in question were doublesquadding and therefore the appeal was denied, also allowing illegal players to have played therefore.

Both examples also contain the same set of variables to imply that your logic concerning one scenario would be applicable in the other scenario as well. Which variables are those? The fact that both examples have rules that are enforced through punishment, and according to the logic in your last post, punishment overrides the TWL Op's final choice upon confirmation of rule breaching.

For the doublesquadding scenario, as you so clearly pointed out, the rules state that it is illegal to doublesquad and doing so is punished. For the current scenario, the rules state that it is illegal to play players without a cooldown round and doing so is punished as well.

You attempted to make a point by saying that in the doublesquadding example the TWL OP's initial decision to deny the appeal due to lack of information that players doublesquadded would later be overridden by punishment that is stated in the rules to apply towards doublesquadders once the information is uncovered that the players doublesquadded. Why then, wouldn't the same logic apply towards this scenario (punishment overriding the TWL Op's decision once it is uncovered that players did illegally play?) The scenarios, as I have said, are comprised of parallel elements, and even though the punishment for doublesquadding is stated in the rules, and the punishment for our current example isn't, that doesn't in any way alter the parallel aspect which allows your logic to apply to both scenarios equally.

i stopped reading halfway through because your diction just annoys me sometimes.

the twl ops had all the information they needed to make a decision this past weekend. if they got it wrong, nobody is perfect. in sports games refs blow calls all the time. games are not replayed because of it. maybe this isn't similar, but judgement was passed.

pirates went to the trouble of asking if the two players were eligible. the twl ops said yes. on appeal, they still say it is okay. they have yet to say anything differently. my thread was about clarification, not inspiring a crusade to get your squad a rematch.

are you interested in getting an answer for the betterment of the league, or getting the best answer for your squad?

we (pallies) lost a game and filed an appeal in week 2. it was denied along with a couple more. we let it go. obviously we believed in our case if we had filed the appeal but there is nothing to be done after that aside from show up and not lose 50-26. even i, as much a supporter of teamwork and every player having an impact as there can be, fail to see the impact that 2dragons had on that ld. you are looking for a free pass here, not for a rectification.

if anything should be happening, pirates should be petitioning for a replay of the lb. 2d had a far greater imact (being the terr) on that game, and they only played him under (assumedly) false pretenses.

[Randedl]

i just finished reading your post and i think you misinterpreted my prior post.

the rule i quoted

3.01 Double-squadding for Players: Any player found to be joined to either two Trench Wars Leagues Squads or a Trench Wars Leagues and a Trench Wars Divisions Squad, will be subject to suspension from Trench Wars Leagues for the remainder of the season. If they played in any games the week of discovery, the Squad that had the double-squadder will forfeit those games.

directly says that the only games that will be effected are the games that said players are involved in during the week of discovery.

if you play a game in week 2, complain, get denied, and then are proven correct in week 4. the rules still implies that any games played before week 4 are counted.

[2dragons]

Useless Ramblings....(not a poem)

everything always seems so pointless.... life seems pointless... isolation is the perfect brain.... it brings about everything that matters, in your head. there's no point in writing this... just to see my neverending complaints in actual form.... thoughts roam my head, wondering why i'm here.... and i am the last one to know. i lose everything, the next day, i have everything.... and never have i felt whole...i've never had a happy day, everyday always has a stain. people tell me how much i mean to them, but then when i'm in need of them... they're gone. i'm lonely... i'm hateful, i'm alone. i feel like nothing could make me wake up from this... this, who cares what i call it... this useless rambling i guess. you're probably wondering to yourself right now, 'why am i reading this?' ... and i really don't blame you, i don't see how my thoughts have worth. who cares what i think. you make this all go away, and i don't even know who 'you' is... i wish i could find you, but i don't care to look, or maybe i look too much, but happiness evades me, lonliness seems like my bitch, i turn to it when i only feel the need. but of course no one knows this side of me, because i'm so bold and prideful that i shrug when they ask me what's wrong, and i know i just want a little bit of attention and it'll probably make me feel less like killing myself, but i don't tell them. so i guess that's what makes me hollow, i don't even have the self respect to admit i'm not happy, and to find happiness, so without that happiness, i am hollow. but i don't care... i guess.... i don't know.
empty, alone, torn, scattered, nothing, broken, lonely.......... hollow

By hollow

[2dragons]

I'd like to reply, but I fear this poem will get more consideration, enjoy.

[Lofty]

It is pretty funny, I think, that you consider not pressing a button a style. - genocidal

Why do you think so highly of me that you keep having this incessant desire to overestimate or overinflate any of my actions; style is just a word I used in terms of the default definition -

style Audio pronunciation of "style" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl)
n.

1. The way in which something is said, done, expressed, or performed: a style of speech and writing.

What is pretty funny though is how quickly you misinterpret it as being a secondary meaning of the word -

The combination of distinctive features of literary or artistic expression, execution, or performance characterizing a particular person, group, school, or era.

Keep taking notes; by the time I'm done with you you'll command the english language much better.

Excuse me for thinking you are a normal human being with a large enough brain capacity - genocidal

I can't help but snicker at your delusion. Typically people who try to insult me do so in regards to relatively legitimate reasons, such as me being unneccesarily aggressive about something or being too lofty, but they aren't dumb enough to diss points like intelligence unconditionally like 5 year olds =P

Obviously it is only in your mind that they just consciencely decided to break this rule because they felt like it. - genocidal

If you payed more attention to what is written in this thread, you'd notice that I said it could be a possibility. It's either that or that they simply didn't understand what the rule means, which still doesn't make their choice correct. And if you'd pay attention further, you'd notice that almost everyone in this thread who isn't on the rule-breaching side happens to agree with my side of the argument for one reason or another.


my thread was about clarification, not inspiring a crusade to get your squad a rematch. - Randedl

Why would you think I would believe you to have some other reason for starting a thread? I'm just figuring out why the no replay afterwards rule functions that way since all replays happen after the normal rounds anyway. I would understand it if it applied after the replay weekend passes.

are you interested in getting an answer for the betterment of the league, or getting the best answer for your squad? - Randedl

I think the fact that I didn't even send an appeal in answers that question.

you are looking for a free pass here, not for a rectification. - Randedl

Read above =P

[Nethila]

will it kill you to use the quote button?

[genocidal]

It is pretty funny, I think, that you consider not pressing a button a style. - genocidal

Why do you think so highly of me that you keep having this incessant desire to overestimate or overinflate any of my actions; style is just a word I used in terms of the default definition -

style Audio pronunciation of "style" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl)
n.

1. The way in which something is said, done, expressed, or performed: a style of speech and writing.

What is pretty funny though is how quickly you misinterpret it as being a secondary meaning of the word -

The combination of distinctive features of literary or artistic expression, execution, or performance characterizing a particular person, group, school, or era.

Keep taking notes; by the time I'm done with you you'll command the english language much better.

If you characterize your methodology of posting on internet forums using the word "style" then all of what I said applies. You used to style to describe how you post on forums and I think that's laughable because any normal person would be able to adjust their "style" as per the features of the board. Regardless, your style of posting has had little to no effect on me until you started to get my forum name wrong. Regardless of whether or not you think you are too good to read the name of someone you are quoting is irrelevant - my point is it makes you look more like a stupid douche. And I'm pretty sure most people who have read this thread would agree with me. There is nothing wrong with my English at all and the fact that that is your primary facet of attack against my posts is also hilarious.

Excuse me for thinking you are a normal human being with a large enough brain capacity - genocidal

I can't help but snicker at your delusion. Typically people who try to insult me do so in regards to relatively legitimate reasons, such as me being unneccesarily aggressive about something or being too lofty, but they aren't dumb enough to diss points like intelligence unconditionally like 5 year olds =P

You do make one valid point in here - that you think way too highly of yourself. You aren't as smart as you think, your arguments aren't that logical, and your are narrowly one-sided in most of your thinking. That is as much as I can tell simply from this thread alone. Your lack of understanding leads me to believe you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed - even despite the fact you can extraneously quote the dictionary.

Obviously it is only in your mind that they just consciencely decided to break this rule because they felt like it. - genocidal

If you payed more attention to what is written in this thread, you'd notice that I said it could be a possibility. It's either that or that they simply didn't understand what the rule means, which still doesn't make their choice correct. And if you'd pay attention further, you'd notice that almost everyone in this thread who isn't on the rule-breaching side happens to agree with my side of the argument for one reason or another.

I align myself with no one, but I do agree with your argument insofar that you say the rule needs to be made more clear and a brightline established. I did read the your posts and this thread and most of your points are personally attacking the TWL Ops for not holding the same opinion as you concerning Rule 5.05. We are all sorry your appeal was denied and that your squad lost so badly to Pirates (where 2dragons's 6-5 had little to no bearing on the outcome) but the decision has been made and hopefully we can look forward to an amended and more clear rule.

[HellzNo!]

will it kill you to use the quote button?

it just might...

[genocidal]

it just might...

It is not his intraweb style you stupid fucks Hellz and Neth. Jesus fuck you can't expect the man to press a quote button on this forum that isn't on his Pokemon 2005 forum!

[Lofty]

We are all sorry your appeal was denied - genocidal

You keep missing points made in earlier posts, such as the fact that I didn't send in any appeals =P

If you characterize your methodology of posting on internet forums using the word "style" then all of what I said applies. - genocidal

And I will prompt you once again to read over the dictionary definition of the word style I provided, maybe a few times if necessary, so you can grasp the utter flop you demonstrated with your initial remark about it =P

You aren't as smart as you think, your arguments aren't that logical, and your are narrowly one-sided in most of your thinking. - genocidal

You keep reiterating the same hollow points over and over, and it's becoming boring replying to you. Though I suppose it is amusing watching you up the efforts in regards to replying to me - though in all seriousness you should up it about tenfold more if you want to begin making any valid points worth rebutting against. Keep trying and maybe I'll gain interest in this argument again =P