Page 30 of 35 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 350

Thread: Tournament Collusion & Bribery: HXE's Official Stand

  1. #291
    Quote Originally Posted by Chark View Post
    I normally wouldn't respond to incendiary remarks like this, but because you have an official sounding forum title and an image, I'd hate for people to think that your assumptions on how long it takes us to reach decisions internally have some sort of basis in reality.

    The fact of the matter is that you have zero insight into our decision making process.
    First of all, I am not attempting to be incendiary. If I came across that way, I apologize. I certainly feel very strongly about all of this, but I am not trying to be inflammatory, nor am I attempting to smear anyone, nor am I attempting to claim inside knowledge of your decision-making process or timelines. If anyone here or on twitch got the impression that I was speaking out of personal knowledge of any of the behind the scenes discussions, then I will state here explicitly that that was not the case. The opinions I have stated in this thread are my personal ones, and have no relation or association with my volunteer work for Hex, past or present.

    My comment on the timeline was based on your guys' own posts in this thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Chark View Post
    We're going to take at least another business day to make sure we have all of the information for this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phenteo View Post
    Since it is going to take a little longer than originally expected. We're re-opening for discussion.
    It is reasonable to conclude from these posts that the matter was still being openly discussed, as opposed to the fact that a decision was reached quickly and easily, but not communicated to all parties concerned due to timezone / availability - lacking that information, I believe my conclusion and statement were reasonable, though perhaps inaccurate in hindsight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chark View Post
    Your argument is rooted in a false premise that this was somehow a difficult decision for us to reach. We allow ourselves additional time both to make decisions and to inform all stakeholders, including those that may be in other time zones.
    My argument has nothing to do with the difficulty of the decision for you, aside from my misapprehension about how much time you took, which was only a small factor. The crux of my feelings and my argument center around the inequity of the decision and application of the rules. Whether the company reached a decision on what the policy should be easily or not, many of us feel very strongly that you have unfairly applied Rule 5d to this situation.

    If one person violated the spirit of the game, then they both did. The compensation was discussed and agreed to by both parties. If one of them receives punishment, but the other does not, that is not an equitable application of the rules, even your catch-all rule. Colin has openly admitted in this thread that he attempted to make a similar deal with the OP, but was rejected. Is he guilty of attempted violation of the exact same spirit of the game? Will he be punished in some fashion for attempting the exact same action? If not, then once again, the rule has not been applied equitably, but is in fact being used subjectively, to make a point or example of someone.

    It seems to me and others as though you are attempting to come down unnecessarily harshly, to deter this sort of behavior in the future, but that is not necessary. Nobody was acting maliciously here. Nobody was attempting to subvert the system. It was an offer for a deal, made in good faith, to the satisfaction of both parties, mutually agreed to and carried out. If this policy stands, fine - that's the policy moving forward. But punishing only a single person under 5d is not actually going to deter anyone, it is just making people upset, and nervous of how the same rule might be applied to them for some other unperceived infraction in the future.

    In reality, since Sithos lost not only the items he made the deal for, and the items he agreed to trade away for them, in addition to this, his reputation has been tarnished by your implicit condemnation of his specific actions in particular (as opposed to the actions of any player in general). He has actually been triply punished for this event, which is not a light punishment at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chark View Post
    The reality is that we aren't going to be held hostage to the "you didn't explicitly put this in the rules, so you can't punish me" arguments. Ddosing someone is also not explicitly in the rules, but falls under what we "[consider] contrary to the 'essence' of the HEX Game," so if we see you posting about doing this, you think it's going to stop us from taking action against your account?
    Nobody is holding you hostage. You have all the power. But don't think for a second that how you wield that power is not being watched, and that it won't have downstream consequences. You can ban any of us at any time as you deem fit, as outlined in the TOS we've all agreed to. You can take away my volunteer status if I step too far out of line (or hell, just because you feel like it). You can even delete my account. I have no power whatsoever to control your actions, and neither does anybody else in the community, aside from the power of our words to convince you to see things our way, and the power of our wallets, to walk away if you push us too far.

    I am not saying Sithos should not be punished because there was no explicitly worded rule saying "don't do this." I am saying he should not be punished because I believe your reasons for calling on 5d were flawed, and the application of the punishment to only one of the two parties involved is further unjust. Either they were both wrong, or neither of them were (and IMO, neither of them were).

    And I know things are a little heated right now, and I'm sure you meant "you" generically as opposed to me specifically when you talk about "if we see you posting about DDoSing someone," but given the current climate, the statement comes off a little bit threatening... even aside from the fact that I would never be stupid enough to talk about something like that even if I were the type of person who would try something like that.

    Again, if I came across as inflammatory or incendiary earlier, I apologize. I am not here to stir up trouble. I am here to try to get you guys to rethink this position, and look at it objectively. Maybe we would all benefit from taking a step back, and re-evaluating what everyone has been saying. Don't be hasty, master Meriadoc.
    --ossuary

    "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
    - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well

  2. #292
    Chark's main argument seems to be that it should have been common-sense that what Sithos did (bribery) is wrong. The catch-all clause in the ToS is there so HXE may punish such "common-sense" violations when they feel it is warranted.

    That's all well and good but the community largely disagrees that this violation was "common-sense". Why? Because every single comparable game out there has explicit rules about this sort of thing - or in your words Chark "expanded policy". And one can infer that because HXE had chosen not to have such rules stated anywhere in its tournament PDFs, ToS, that this sort of behavior is indeed allowed.

    This wasn't some small point brought up by the community which needed minor clarification. This is an issue which HXE not only had previously remained 100% silent about in all the threads that popped up since Alpha, but also dropped the ball by not including it in the $100k tournament rules. Would be nice for HXE to accept some of the responsibility here instead of making an example of a community-loved streamer by applying a clause which should rarely have to be used - if at all.

  3. #293
    I heard a lot of comments regarding Sithos and how he shouldn't have been punished. It may be also remembered that I was one who early on in this thread wanted to take the 'heat' off Sithos and attempted to bring a lot of different scenarios to light. Even with that being said, I want to state that I agree with his QTs being removed.

    My personal reason is for one and only reason... Sithos is a good player and God forbid if he actually won that Qualifer's Tournament--We would never hear the end about this... EVER!!! This would be a smudge forever for Hex. So for this reason and this reason only, if rules were to be implemented (and they were https://www.hextcg.com/road-to-the-100000-tournament/ ), then Sithos needed his QTs yanked and he needs to chalk up this experience to lessons learned. While I had no part in any decision what-so-ever, I would have done the exact same thing given the circumstances. Smart move on CZE's part on this matter. Well done.

  4. #294
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahes View Post
    This is the precendent you have set.
    I'll play devil's advocate once again here.

    An idea put forth by someone on Reddit suggested that not dealing a punishment would also set a precedent where unless something is stated explicitly in the rules, it's okay to get away with it the first time.

    Imagine if there was a scenario down the line where something beyond common sense but not explicitly against the rules occurred - maybe someone's account was compromised and subsequently used to earn rewards. It's unclear how that should be dealt with according to the rules but not dealing with it would be equally hazardous. This may not be the best example as I'm generating a random scenario on the fly, admittedly.

    Sithos' situation was unique in that it was atypically public and the phrasing and subsequent explanation suggested that he 'bought' his final round win. This is contrary to what a split should have been. And I suspect it's for that reason, and possibly with other information the public does not have, that this decision was derived.

    ---

    Regardless, as we all agree that Sithos is not a bad player, and I've recently heard he has earned his QPs now, there's nothing to think about further. Even I had suggested that while no punishment should occur, I did suggest that Sithos compensate by earning additional QPs to counter the ones he bought. The end result now is the same except that Sithos may have lost out on what he paid.

    If you feel strongly about Sithos' tangible loss, feel free to send him stuff. Nothing's stopping you.

    The reality is that Sithos is a capable HEX player and it's great to see him show off his skills legitimately. The only thing we can do is focus on the positives.

    We now have rules clarification and the situation is over.

  5. #295
    Quote Originally Posted by chromus View Post
    This wasn't some small point brought up by the community which needed minor clarification. This is an issue which HXE not only had previously remained 100% silent about in all the threads that popped up since Alpha, but also dropped the ball by not including it in the $100k tournament rules. Would be nice for HXE to accept some of the responsibility here instead of making an example of a community-loved streamer by applying a clause which should rarely have to be used - if at all.
    Well, to be fair. A ton of stuff on the forums, and in reports have been discussed and have not been addressed by HXE. I think we need to be mindful that this is still a beta product, and the team is still small. They are trying their best, and making the best decisions they can. If they feel something needs to be done, and do it, regardless of what others think, if it's in the best interest of the company and the game, so be-it. In this situation, not much was lost on either end, and clarification has been provided. If the person that blasted himself on social media can deal with it, so can I.

    Wish I could play in most of the QLs, but sadly I can't, GL to all those that earn the tickets and make it!

  6. #296
    Master Theorycrafter
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    535
    Thanks for clearing everything up

  7. #297
    Quote Originally Posted by nicosharp View Post
    Well, to be fair. A ton of stuff on the forums, and in reports have been discussed and have not been addressed by HXE. I think we need to be mindful that this is still a beta product, and the team is still small. They are trying their best, and making the best decisions they can. If they feel something needs to be done, and do it, regardless of what others think, if it's in the best interest of the company and the game, so be-it. In this situation, not much was lost on either end, and clarification has been provided. If the person that blasted himself on social media can deal with it, so can I.

    Wish I could play in most of the QLs, but sadly I can't, GL to all those that earn the tickets and make it!
    If Colin's attempted bribe and the Sithos' successful one had any weight whatsoever for HXE to finally make an official ruling on this, then we can all thank Colin and Sithos as the game is better off for it. I wouldn't let this tarnish Sithos's reputation just as I wouldn't let Colin's attempted bribe undermine the mountains he has moved for the good of this community and game. HXE's position is a difficult as they must make the tough decisions but our isn't: We still love you Sithos and Colin!

  8. #298
    So now we just need an official rule book. No excuses now that the lawsuit is over with.

  9. #299
    [SNIP]

    Sithos is a good player. He will get the tickets for the qualifier and will probably participate in all 12 qualifiers with tickets to spare. I agree that the IQ tickets should be removed, but the trade (which is 100% trackable) should be reversed as well. 3 sentences.
    Last edited by Kami; 10-08-2015 at 07:04 PM. Reason: Let's keep it civil please

  10. #300
    The new policy is fine and so is Sithos' punishment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •