BuzzerBeater Forums

Discussing this with you seems pointless, as neither I nor Lemon need to justify anything we've said to you. However, I stand by my post, which I feel was both reasonable, and logical. Using observation of past events and comparing them to one happening now isn't specious at all.

What might be specious would be if I said you were only responding here in order to cause an argument in order to get all these posts deleted. But I'd never think that.

None of us knows and I'm sure there is a reason for what happened, but the lack of information and these kind of situations damage the game as a whole and entire communities, much more than design flaws. I hope you do realise this.

It seems like you floated this before and it was answered:

The fact that people will not know in details what happened will just make things worse (....) So you could rename the point: "More transparency" or whatever you like

If we explain why an user is ban, it means that other users will know more how to cheat without getting caught.

No point in beating a dead horse.

The fact this debate has been allowed to go this far without deletion shows that even the GMs suspect a mistake may have been made.

Hogwash. The fact that this rant has been allowed to go this far without deletion shows how incredibly tolerant the GM's are of unsupported speculation, wild rumor and conspiracy theories.

Hogwash. The fact that this rant has been allowed to go this far without deletion shows how incredibly tolerant the GM's are of unsupported speculation, wild rumor and conspiracy theories.

I've only taken an example to make a point. My point is relevant to this thread: it's that the lack of transparency and the suspicion something against the stated rules is allowed and tolerated by the GMs/staff, while something that is not against the stated rules (and in the example was fine for 20 straight seasons) is banned is incredibly bad and I would like to have the option to vote for improvements in the area. I, for one, am much more likely to quit today than I was yesterday because of it.

As to which improvements, without compromising other aspects, I'm open to ideas and thinking about it myself. I did stop at CaptainTeemo's suggestion which, as usual, seemed very reasonable, I decided to follow the line he recommended and to end it there and then. However since you, as you normally do, decided to ignore other people's points, I can repeat here the same concept above as many times as it takes for you to actually write something somehow relevant to it.


Last edited by Lemonshine at 1/5/2015 11:02:23 PM

Also, I never said in previous messages that we are lacking GMs. Either I can't make myself clear in english or you are putting the words you want to hear in my mouth.

This is on me, not on Gully, and it's my misunderstanding. No reason to get upset, it was an honest mistake: it was Manon's point (in another thread) that GMs dedicate their own free time without getting paid coupled with your point (here) that there is 30ish of you that prompted my misunderstanding. Apologies.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 1/5/2015 10:46:25 PM

Also, I never said in previous messages that we are lacking GMs. Either I can't make myself clear in english or you are putting the words you want to hear in my mouth.

As Lemon has pointed out already he said that and not me. Both you and your countryman seem to find it difficult to distinguish between me and another English based manager.

I've reread what I posted originally. I've not criticised the GMs, so I don't really understand why I receive such a condescending and arrogant reply. I know you're known for your sarcasm, but this really wasn't warranted.

You can go on twisting my words to suit your purposes and of course you can accuse me of saying things other managers have said to "prove" your point.

I reiterate, I worded my post in a very diplomatic way. Your response is disappointing.

I'm really not sure what to say about holding a community hostage. Frankly you're being silly.

Thanks for picking this up Nickleon. I read all the 124 posts and I see there were several users and GMs who actually participated in that thread. That is refreshing.

The whole point Charles was making is that these decisions are by nature subjective, the amount of time they take is not as straightforward as Perpete was trying to make it look, as many cases constitute a gray area and need solid proof. He talked about needing evidence, yet in my example a user who has been around since S3 was banned, likely for something which was well known to everybody for years. If the GMs were doing their free and unpaid job responsibly, how come the "overwhelming evidence" Charles mentioned has been overlooked for 5 actual years? It is suspicious to say the least, wouldn't you agree? Either 30+ GMs made a mistake for 5 years by not not taking action or a GM made a mistake now. I'm sorry but this completely undermines the GM near infallibility/honesty/resposibility dogma that Perpete keeps repeating like a mantra.

Charles himself did concede:

3) Some sort of feedback in response to cheating reports might be helpful, if there is a way to do it that doesn't lead to debates about what does or doesn't constitute cheating.

For the record I think the points of those who argued in favour of a pillory were significantly more credible and, out of all the people who posted in that thread, I think only RiP made a solid argument in the against camp (which consisted of a couple of users and several GMs) which is similar to what I incorrectly assumed Perpete was making. However, considering the bans (and likely reports) are 1/10 of what they were back then, I think even RiP's point becomes weaker nowadays.

Reading this coming from Perpete, who was already a GM back then, was priceless, though:

I know it's frustrating. I made cheatind report for more than 18 months without knowing what happened to the teams, but I kept doing that, because what was really frustrating was the fact that cheaters were stacking money. I was also enjoying doing my own inquiry. Not knowing if X or Y was sanctionned was a little annoying, but not that much.

As I said it's kind of pointless to beat around the bush any longer. I'll open another thread in Suggestions if I come up with something that had not been clearly proposed back then, but after what happened I just can't think it is reasonable for Perpete to expect and demand blind trust from users.

I think we should go under cover before someone takes our vibrant disagreements on the national forums as evidence we are the same person with multiple personality disorder :). I'm in Italy at the moment and have been in Romania recently, so that would require some investigation of epic proportions!