Imagine going to walmart, paying for a TV, going at home and finding out the TV isn't working, and then when asking for a refund you get told
"The TV working is an option, not the TV itself. You paid for the TV"
Sounds really fucking illogical to me
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
SPL IX - Commencement Thread
- Thread starter OP
- Start date
- Status
"The TV working is an option, not the TV itself. You paid for the TV"
Sounds really fucking illogical to me
there is precedent, though it obviously can be argued that the faulty retain wasn't in any way an error on the part of management unlike that situation, and that the trade could (should, i think) be overturned
.
Television has a brand, if you buy a broken television thats the brands fault and you can get your money back or another television. Thats something the brand offers you and its something mandatory by law to protect the customer. The responsibility of offering a functional tv is on the brand.
Tricking is not a product being offered, he is a human being and not made by a brand, if he got banned thats his own fault for erratic behavoir. The spl or the scooters are not responsible for this. You made the choice of buying him, why should scooters lose their 4k for something they didnt do?
This is a better analogy: imagine chelsea pays real madrid 80 mil for a player and the player gets 3 month banned for racism, and then chelsea is like yo i want the money back. :|
Imagine trading for a player, having him fail the medical test or failing to meet any other of the countless clauses written in the legally binding contracts, and then voiding the trade because the conditions weren't met.
Welcome to the the world of football, where that happens on a regular basis during trade windows. Teams pay for the rights to let players play for them, if that's not an option the trade doesn't happen.
In special cases, like Barcelona buying Suarez during his ban, the team knowingly agreed to buy the banned player as long as their conditions were met.
Excellent analogy, glad you picked an imaginary option based on nothing but your personal beliefs instead of one the countless cases which would support my side. I'm certain trades worth millions on dollars are much harder to cancel than spl trades for 4k imaginary credits, it's not like teams have 2 weeks to adapt to an unexpected change of circumstances.
Welcome to the the world of football, where that happens on a regular basis during trade windows. Teams pay for the rights to let players play for them, if that's not an option the trade doesn't happen.
In special cases, like Barcelona buying Suarez during his ban, the team knowingly agreed to buy the banned player as long as their conditions were met.
Excellent analogy, glad you picked an imaginary option based on nothing but your personal beliefs instead of one the countless cases which would support my side. I'm certain trades worth millions on dollars are much harder to cancel than spl trades for 4k imaginary credits, it's not like teams have 2 weeks to adapt to an unexpected change of circumstances.
Ok, so unless Im wrong, this is the first public post I have ever made about an awful decision TDs have made vs Sharks in the recent SPLs. I didn't do it when Outrage timed out and he didnt get a rematch in spite of submitting his team (a decision that made us miss POs), or when I did not get Ben Gay despite SG bidding again after more than 24hs from my bid in last SPL midseason, but this decision is terrible and unfair for Sharks as a team in so many ways.
Lets start with Tricking's ban.
1) Tricking got banned because he forfeitted in a ladder game vs Bro Kappa when they were both using their cycle 4 accounts.
There are precedents of people "cheating" in OLT and not getting tour banned, but apparently now forfeitting a ladder game of OLT is reason enough to tourbanned (note that this is not a qualified account or an old account, it was the account Tricking was using to ladder)
The reason? We dont know the reason, we dont know if it is because Tricking lucked him and they agreed to rematch so Tricking returns him the win, or if Bro Kappa timed out and Tricking allowed him to have a win, or because Tricking wanted to help his friend.
Note that this should NOT be allowed in OLT and should be sanctioned, as has been in the past with a DQ from OLT or a forum infraction (Zamrock case), but a tournament ban of 1 month seems overkill to me. This is a ladder game and you need to win much more to qualify. This is not the last smogon tour where a single win can make you qualify.
Also Bro Kappa did not qualify, so the win meant nothing.
Tricking should definitely be infracted for giving a free win, but a tournament ban based on common sense and precedents is overkill. A ban from next OLT would have been much more fairer (instead of a tournament ban).
But ok, lets assume this is reason enough to tournament ban a user for 1 month
2) Tricking had already joined SPL, he has been involved in a trade and he had already been retained (was never posted before this situation happened shortly after), which means Tricking had already participated in the tournament and therefore was a Shark member.
Logic says there are 2 options here.
a) A tournament ban is an entry and participation ban. Since Tricking was already a Shark officially before the ban, the "entry" part would't affect him, and he would be banned from playing games in any tournament. When his tournament ban ends his participation ban also ends, so he can continue participating in tournaments, in this case in SPL.
The "sign ups are not valid until signups thread closes" is bs because in order to retain a player, the condition is that the player needs to have signed up in the tournament. If sign ups were not valid until the thread closes, no retains would be valid until that moment, which is not the case.
Also this option was supported by 4/6 of the unbiased (read: exclusing team managers and retained players of other teams) TDs, which are: QQ (the host), IFM, Malekith and Mazinger (who is now apparently an ex TD, something nobody other than Jirachee and TDK knew until yesterday, but its fine because it is still 3/5)
b) Since the trade was made with good faith assuming that Tricking was in SPL, and since the sign up is apparently not valid (which is bs), the trade should be nullified. When Valencia CF signed up Rodrigro Caio and it was discovered that he had a huge knee injury, the trade was nullified. There are also precedents of trades being nullified in SPL.
3) This set ups a terrible precedent.
Tricking case happened this summer, but it was not revealed to TDs until now, when Tricking misses Championship (a tournament he had worked hard for) and SPL. I am not sure if I am the only one that sees how terrible this precedent can be.
I will explain it with an example. Lets say I saw a big player asking for a win in an OLT ladder game (I have played in the last OLT and I have seen people doing that), or forfeitting and giving a free win to a friend for X reason (which is the case). What do I do? I could do nothing, or I could report it to TDs so they take some action (a ban according to this precedent), or I could wait for a good moment to reveal the game, for example just before SPL or Wcop playoffs, so I can severely weaken a team and give my team a huge advantage.
This kind of action (giving wins etc) should give bans that only affect the tournament where the infraction was done, or some serious shit could happen if someone does what I said, unfairly affecting multiple other people (which is the case here)
4) About the Alexander precedent.
When the Alexander ban happened for giving a free win in a smogon tour he was also tourbanned for 1 month. However there are some key differences.
a) Every Smogon Tour game is public, so every cheating attempt is also public, so my issue in my point 3 does not exist.
b) I was only fine with his ban (even if I thought it was harsh) because it only affected Smogon Tour, the tournament where the infraction happened. In Tricking case it does not affect OLT at all, but other 2 unrelated tournaments, one of them a team tournament
c) The impact of giving a win in the last smogon tour is much greater than the impact of giving a win in a OLT ladder game
TLDR: Since this is smogon.com, I made a meme about this.
So Tricking forfeitted a OLT ladder game in August and someone told TDs in the middle of SPL sign ups after a trade involving him had already happened, what will TDs do?
Lets start with Tricking's ban.
1) Tricking got banned because he forfeitted in a ladder game vs Bro Kappa when they were both using their cycle 4 accounts.
There are precedents of people "cheating" in OLT and not getting tour banned, but apparently now forfeitting a ladder game of OLT is reason enough to tourbanned (note that this is not a qualified account or an old account, it was the account Tricking was using to ladder)
The reason? We dont know the reason, we dont know if it is because Tricking lucked him and they agreed to rematch so Tricking returns him the win, or if Bro Kappa timed out and Tricking allowed him to have a win, or because Tricking wanted to help his friend.
Note that this should NOT be allowed in OLT and should be sanctioned, as has been in the past with a DQ from OLT or a forum infraction (Zamrock case), but a tournament ban of 1 month seems overkill to me. This is a ladder game and you need to win much more to qualify. This is not the last smogon tour where a single win can make you qualify.
Also Bro Kappa did not qualify, so the win meant nothing.
Tricking should definitely be infracted for giving a free win, but a tournament ban based on common sense and precedents is overkill. A ban from next OLT would have been much more fairer (instead of a tournament ban).
But ok, lets assume this is reason enough to tournament ban a user for 1 month
2) Tricking had already joined SPL, he has been involved in a trade and he had already been retained (was never posted before this situation happened shortly after), which means Tricking had already participated in the tournament and therefore was a Shark member.
Logic says there are 2 options here.
a) A tournament ban is an entry and participation ban. Since Tricking was already a Shark officially before the ban, the "entry" part would't affect him, and he would be banned from playing games in any tournament. When his tournament ban ends his participation ban also ends, so he can continue participating in tournaments, in this case in SPL.
The "sign ups are not valid until signups thread closes" is bs because in order to retain a player, the condition is that the player needs to have signed up in the tournament. If sign ups were not valid until the thread closes, no retains would be valid until that moment, which is not the case.
Also this option was supported by 4/6 of the unbiased (read: exclusing team managers and retained players of other teams) TDs, which are: QQ (the host), IFM, Malekith and Mazinger (who is now apparently an ex TD, something nobody other than Jirachee and TDK knew until yesterday, but its fine because it is still 3/5)
b) Since the trade was made with good faith assuming that Tricking was in SPL, and since the sign up is apparently not valid (which is bs), the trade should be nullified. When Valencia CF signed up Rodrigro Caio and it was discovered that he had a huge knee injury, the trade was nullified. There are also precedents of trades being nullified in SPL.
3) This set ups a terrible precedent.
Tricking case happened this summer, but it was not revealed to TDs until now, when Tricking misses Championship (a tournament he had worked hard for) and SPL. I am not sure if I am the only one that sees how terrible this precedent can be.
I will explain it with an example. Lets say I saw a big player asking for a win in an OLT ladder game (I have played in the last OLT and I have seen people doing that), or forfeitting and giving a free win to a friend for X reason (which is the case). What do I do? I could do nothing, or I could report it to TDs so they take some action (a ban according to this precedent), or I could wait for a good moment to reveal the game, for example just before SPL or Wcop playoffs, so I can severely weaken a team and give my team a huge advantage.
This kind of action (giving wins etc) should give bans that only affect the tournament where the infraction was done, or some serious shit could happen if someone does what I said, unfairly affecting multiple other people (which is the case here)
4) About the Alexander precedent.
When the Alexander ban happened for giving a free win in a smogon tour he was also tourbanned for 1 month. However there are some key differences.
a) Every Smogon Tour game is public, so every cheating attempt is also public, so my issue in my point 3 does not exist.
b) I was only fine with his ban (even if I thought it was harsh) because it only affected Smogon Tour, the tournament where the infraction happened. In Tricking case it does not affect OLT at all, but other 2 unrelated tournaments, one of them a team tournament
c) The impact of giving a win in the last smogon tour is much greater than the impact of giving a win in a OLT ladder game
TLDR: Since this is smogon.com, I made a meme about this.
So Tricking forfeitted a OLT ladder game in August and someone told TDs in the middle of SPL sign ups after a trade involving him had already happened, what will TDs do?
THE_IRON_...KENYAN?
Banned deucer.
The only tricking pulled here was the devil making people believe he doesnt exist
pasy_g
Banned deucer.
There was a legal case with something similar to this: someone arranged a trade for a cow with someone else thinking it was sterile, and then it became pregnant and the person with the cow tries to retract the trade; the court ruled that the person could not retract the trade
delete
I was hoping to go quietly into the night but this implicates me on a few levels so just for the record I told rachee (and a few others) a while ago that I'd be resigning for activity reasons and left it up to him when to make this official (I guess recent events make this my quit post; I'd say it's been fun but it hasn't)
also the midseason retain is wonky but it's essentially throwing the sharks a bone given the invalid retain (I don't necessarily agree with voiding the retain but worse things have happened)
also my spl decisions were flames and lord outrage is a jokeman (these facts are tangential but felt worth mentioning)
oh and the tv analogy is real bad
also the midseason retain is wonky but it's essentially throwing the sharks a bone given the invalid retain (I don't necessarily agree with voiding the retain but worse things have happened)
also my spl decisions were flames and lord outrage is a jokeman (these facts are tangential but felt worth mentioning)
oh and the tv analogy is real bad
Pokemon Court - A Screenplay
THE CAST
MDragon - Our protagonist, a fiery defendant who is down with the kids. Word on the street says that he has visited the mad scientist DestinyUnknown and has acquired something which he believes will help his case...
The Bag: There's something strange about MDragon's bag, what's with that fluid dripping out of the bottom...
Tricking - The accused, wishes only to atone for his heinous crimes on "The Ladder".
OP - MDragon's arch-nemesis in the court room, as the arbiter of justice he has ruled that Tricking is to be tourbanned.
Hikari - An Ex-TV salesman turned lawyer arguing the case for an unknown cause.
The Teal Six - Little is known about the 6 masked men, but somehow they have all been called up for jury duty and support OP's ruling.
Plot: MDragon fights to revert the decision
ACT 1, SCENE 1: Court In Session
[A Sandstorm begins to rage in the court room, Tricking shivers sensing the impending north wind...]
OP: Tricking will be barred from participating in SPL 9 until midseason, after his tourban has expired. The Stark Sharks keep Tricking's retention rights and may choose to retain him at midseason, provided he has a valid signup. Fiat justitia ruat cælum!
Hikari: Have you ever bought a TV before, that's not how this works! If you were to buy a new Sony TV with a 4K HDR Processor X1 Extreme for ultimate realism OLED lighting to deliver unprecedented black contrast and colour, then you would feel entitled to return it upon learning it was broken rendering you unable to follow sports transfers.
[Audible muttering from The Teal Six as they debate amongst themselves for the best response]
The Teal Six: We side with Supreme OverJustice OP on the ruling, perhaps next you should go with an LG television to watch the football transfer window.
MDragon: [With thunderous authority] Enough about damn televisions! Tricking's actions on the ladder are not worthy of a tourban and I can prove it!
OP: [Visibly shaken by our hero's conviction] V-very well, present your case.
MDragon: [Unzipping the bag and pulling out a near overflowing vat with a human brain inside] What lies in this vat is the physical embodiment of truth and logic. When posed with a conundrum the brain you see before you will grow in size and begin to glow as it issues increasingly ridiculous statements regarding the problem at hand. I dare you Tournament Directors of the court, pose the brain of truth a question regarding the case!
OP: What should we post regarding the Tricking outcome.
The Brain: [Stage 1 - Tiny and dull] TRICKING IS BANNED FROM THE NEXT OLT
The Brain: [Stage 2 - Normal Size, neurons starting to glow faintly] TRICKING IS TOURBANNED. HE HAS ALREADY BEEN RETAINED AND CAN PLAY AFTER HIS BAN ENDS
The Brain: [Stage 3 - Swelling to the point where the liquid is being displaced from the vat the light is now uncomfortable to look at] TRICKING IS TOURBANNED. HIS SIGNUP IS INVALID SO THE TRADE IS ALSO INVALID
The Brain: [Stage 4 - The light from the brain is so bright it's now impossible to discern its size, one can only assume it has grown a uncanny amount] TRICKING IS TOURBANNED. THE TRADE IS VALID AND CANNOT PLAY UNTIL MIDSEASON BECAUSE FUCK SHARKS
MDragon: [Now wearing sunglasses he had prepared, well aware of the brain's power] I rest my case.
THE CAST
MDragon - Our protagonist, a fiery defendant who is down with the kids. Word on the street says that he has visited the mad scientist DestinyUnknown and has acquired something which he believes will help his case...
The Bag: There's something strange about MDragon's bag, what's with that fluid dripping out of the bottom...
Tricking - The accused, wishes only to atone for his heinous crimes on "The Ladder".
OP - MDragon's arch-nemesis in the court room, as the arbiter of justice he has ruled that Tricking is to be tourbanned.
Hikari - An Ex-TV salesman turned lawyer arguing the case for an unknown cause.
The Teal Six - Little is known about the 6 masked men, but somehow they have all been called up for jury duty and support OP's ruling.
Plot: MDragon fights to revert the decision
ACT 1, SCENE 1: Court In Session
[A Sandstorm begins to rage in the court room, Tricking shivers sensing the impending north wind...]
OP: Tricking will be barred from participating in SPL 9 until midseason, after his tourban has expired. The Stark Sharks keep Tricking's retention rights and may choose to retain him at midseason, provided he has a valid signup. Fiat justitia ruat cælum!
Hikari: Have you ever bought a TV before, that's not how this works! If you were to buy a new Sony TV with a 4K HDR Processor X1 Extreme for ultimate realism OLED lighting to deliver unprecedented black contrast and colour, then you would feel entitled to return it upon learning it was broken rendering you unable to follow sports transfers.
[Audible muttering from The Teal Six as they debate amongst themselves for the best response]
The Teal Six: We side with Supreme OverJustice OP on the ruling, perhaps next you should go with an LG television to watch the football transfer window.
MDragon: [With thunderous authority] Enough about damn televisions! Tricking's actions on the ladder are not worthy of a tourban and I can prove it!
OP: [Visibly shaken by our hero's conviction] V-very well, present your case.
MDragon: [Unzipping the bag and pulling out a near overflowing vat with a human brain inside] What lies in this vat is the physical embodiment of truth and logic. When posed with a conundrum the brain you see before you will grow in size and begin to glow as it issues increasingly ridiculous statements regarding the problem at hand. I dare you Tournament Directors of the court, pose the brain of truth a question regarding the case!
OP: What should we post regarding the Tricking outcome.
The Brain: [Stage 1 - Tiny and dull] TRICKING IS BANNED FROM THE NEXT OLT
The Brain: [Stage 2 - Normal Size, neurons starting to glow faintly] TRICKING IS TOURBANNED. HE HAS ALREADY BEEN RETAINED AND CAN PLAY AFTER HIS BAN ENDS
The Brain: [Stage 3 - Swelling to the point where the liquid is being displaced from the vat the light is now uncomfortable to look at] TRICKING IS TOURBANNED. HIS SIGNUP IS INVALID SO THE TRADE IS ALSO INVALID
The Brain: [Stage 4 - The light from the brain is so bright it's now impossible to discern its size, one can only assume it has grown a uncanny amount] TRICKING IS TOURBANNED. THE TRADE IS VALID AND CANNOT PLAY UNTIL MIDSEASON BECAUSE FUCK SHARKS
MDragon: [Now wearing sunglasses he had prepared, well aware of the brain's power] I rest my case.
THE_IRON_...KENYAN?
Banned deucer.
its pretty clear that people are using a mans tragedy of getting banned from his favorite sport of tournament pokemon in order to farm likes and gain "cred" among their peers. this place is brutal. it really is a race to the TOP on whoever back you can climb on. ghost them one day, sell them out later. ask help to build a team, then reveal that persons team to their opponent. you all disgust me. absolutely disgusting. farming likes over a mans tragedy
Italian on Italian crime is a myth people. It was created by conservative media outlets as a means to put them down.
#Staywoke
#Staywoke
Bkc is the Jake Paul of smogon.
So it appears there has been a misunderstanding as to fundamentally what a retain is. A retain is by definition an option. This means buy purchasing trickings retains you bought the option to buy tricking for the upcoming spl. You did not however buy the asset himself. This is quite clear in the fact that retains must first be traded and then the player is purchased. If you wish to see examples of this occuring I would like to refrence you to the following threads
1) http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...retention-and-sellback-announcements.3621885/
2) http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...retention-and-sellback-announcements.3588269/
3) http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...retention-and-sellback-announcements.3557183/
4) http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...ion-and-sellback-announcement-thread.3523242/
5) http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...ion-and-sellback-announcement-thread.3494357/
6) http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/official-trade-announcement-thread.3475450/
7) http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/smogon-premier-league-3-trade-thread.3459998/
So now that what a retain is by definition has been clarified I would like to proceed to talk about the arguments that have been presented.
1) Not one single person on this planet cares that this is the first time you have felt the need to post regarding a TD decision. You call the TD's decision bias yet bias has been extremely evident up till this point on the sharks behalf. If you are going to try and frame your argument against this decision using cliché emotional backdrops and what you consider to be poor past decisions I and everyone else in this thread should stop reading your post right here.
2) Subjective argument regarding the severity of the ban does not belong in this thread and other arguments proposed I already addressed. I'm not even going to dignify this with a response here nor should a TD. Take it to where it belongs. Thank you.
3) The addressed issue regarding signups is a valid one until you realize that their are several counter arguments which you are seemingly ignoring in principle due to the assuming you are basing point "A" off of. By saying that sign ups are valid upon immediate posting and thus the player is now involved in the tour you must now consider anyone who deletes their signup post retracting from said tour as causing a large enough problem to justify possible infractions or bans from tournaments. I admit that this is a jump but by making each signup valid upon immediate posting this a legitimate situation you are faced with under current rules that if someone "Cancers" off a team they receive a swift tour ban and possible SPL ban for life (See gr8astard catching the ban). I do not understand what instance you are referring to where retains have been deemed valid before sign-ups are closed and would like further evidence to support this claim before bothering to address it. It is not exactly something that can be generally assumed when the given rule is sign ups are in fact not valid until the threads closed. Part B decides to bring up the asset vs option purchasing fallacy once more which at this point if it needs to be addressed again can only be explained via crayons.
4) So essentially in this paragraph you are advocating for tour bans to be singular ones. So if someone cheats in SPL they can play Classic/Ost/Smogtour without any repercussions due to all of these tours overlapping. A similar scenario arises from the schedule of Wcop into Slam/Snake/Smogtour. This precedent sounds far worse than following coherent rules where if you are caught cheating you receive a ban at the time of discovery. If you wish to cite examples please refer to common law practices and other such activities where similar issues may arise. Oh, and cite relevant, unbiased ones please. Id rather not have to look up further evidence showcasing petulant posting.
5) Addressing points A, B, and C. Publicity should not affect banning. Essentially point A discusses adding a statute of limitations to bans and in this instance a very short one. So your issue in point 3 does not exist anyways. Point B starts with more subjectivity regarding your own personal stance and not the facts of the situation or the fact the decision occurred anyways. Once again you reiterate that having an effect on one tour was taken into account in the decision making process for this ban. If this was in fact the case then the TD team at the time seriously needs to reevaluate the criteria of how long a tournament ban can be. This precedent has been set regardless and with no evidence supporting the claim that apparently now the timing of your ban and how it will affect you is relevant to the decision making process it stands. When you get to point C of it only affecting one tour it implies you do not lay any great significance on ladder boosting during an official tour which uses the ladder as the method of qualification. This is the exact same situation. You are demeaning OLT as a tour by stating this and as an ex TD you should have a much better grasp of the word official. It is used to describe tournaments such as SPL, Grand Slam, OST, Smogon Tour, Snake, and OLT. These tours are defined as equals by Smogon and thus instance of cheating should be treated as equal across tournaments. Cheating during a qualification match in this method warranted a one month ban in SmogTour, thus it warrants the same for cheating in a qualification match in OLT.
TLDR: Your arguments against this decision are about as bad as your meme. Stop confusing the purchasing of an option to buy with buying the asset itself. No refund being given is justified. I wholly recommend you respect this decision and choose not to make further fools of yourself.
1) http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...retention-and-sellback-announcements.3621885/
2) http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...retention-and-sellback-announcements.3588269/
3) http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...retention-and-sellback-announcements.3557183/
4) http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...ion-and-sellback-announcement-thread.3523242/
5) http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...ion-and-sellback-announcement-thread.3494357/
6) http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/official-trade-announcement-thread.3475450/
7) http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/smogon-premier-league-3-trade-thread.3459998/
So now that what a retain is by definition has been clarified I would like to proceed to talk about the arguments that have been presented.
So the point you are making here is based on the fact you have purchased an asset already being the T.V. This is objectively and definitively wrong due to you in actuality buying an option to purchase this asset. I don't think you require a simple and more accurate version of your analogy to understand this point so I wont insult you by deciding to post something that takes away from the notable facts (of which are not stated in this post) and only serves to talk down to the argument presented by Teal which I myself am in agreement with if you have not yet linked this posts theme with Teals.
Purchasing a player comes with inherent risks. These risks must be weighed vs the rewards by management to conclude whether or not a player is worth the sum of the proposed investment. Are we now to say that management essentially neglecting a key facet of player analysis is not their fault? These decisions are dissimilar in that how the players were banned differ but the precedence supports this TD decision in a scenario where we value good management skills over poor ones.
Due to the established principle that a retain is not in fact a player once again the above analogy does not make sense. Even if you were to be bullheaded and retain the notion that somehow purchasing a retain equals purchasing the player (which it fundamentally is not) then Rewer's above example of the racism ban is far more applicable than medicals which will be used in future quotes by Sharks management. We'll get to why later.
Legally binding contract- Would you care to show the contract agreement you had with scooters stating that your purchase of tricking was contingent on him not getting himself tour banned. Sure, you could infer that this is the case but I do not think a jump in logic no matter how small is a definitive contract, nor is it binding. This is due to these jumps being entirely dependent upon the parties involved viewpoints and good luck proving that any kind of inferred agreement between yourselves and Scooters occurred regarding this. Welcome to the world of shitty analogies. Where citing examples of iron clad contracts drawn up professionally by solicitors apparently equates to a trade deal with no official contract contingencies ever put in place. If this is not the case feel free to dispute by proving that all of the elements of a contract have been followed by yourself clearly stating where the buying of Tricking was contingent on him not being banned (This is why Rewer's example fits better. A contract will most likely not have a racism ban contingent in place. Injuries beyond the control of the player do not equal racism within his control). By the way this is still assuming you are going to choose to ignore the fact that you did not buy Tricking but you bought the options to buy him. Why would the option to buy someone be refundable? If you were to bring it in football terms as right now I'm starting to doubt that logical understanding is possible for this discussion with some awful analogy. Big clubs pay for the option to buy a player first at multiple stages of their career. These options allow the club to be given a choice to buy them or not. If they choose to not exercise the option it is not refundable. If the choose to exercise the option to purchase it still is not refundable. This a separate deal to the actual purchasing of the player. This is what you bought. I'm glad you continue to choose wrong, imaginary options in order to further your own personal beliefs, allowing emotion to cloud your judgement on what is an open and shut case.
Thanks for the sassy response btw. I didn't know that once again insulting someones intelligence over actually arguing is a quality attribute of a Senior Staff member.
Thanks for the behemoth of a post that reiterates everything your assistant manager has already stated but at least has actual cited examples attempting to support your argument and is phrased in a much less condescending manner and with a lack of the thematic sassy element that Hikari brings to every post he makes. Continuing on, analyzing this post through each paragraph is probably best.
1) Not one single person on this planet cares that this is the first time you have felt the need to post regarding a TD decision. You call the TD's decision bias yet bias has been extremely evident up till this point on the sharks behalf. If you are going to try and frame your argument against this decision using cliché emotional backdrops and what you consider to be poor past decisions I and everyone else in this thread should stop reading your post right here.
2) Subjective argument regarding the severity of the ban does not belong in this thread and other arguments proposed I already addressed. I'm not even going to dignify this with a response here nor should a TD. Take it to where it belongs. Thank you.
3) The addressed issue regarding signups is a valid one until you realize that their are several counter arguments which you are seemingly ignoring in principle due to the assuming you are basing point "A" off of. By saying that sign ups are valid upon immediate posting and thus the player is now involved in the tour you must now consider anyone who deletes their signup post retracting from said tour as causing a large enough problem to justify possible infractions or bans from tournaments. I admit that this is a jump but by making each signup valid upon immediate posting this a legitimate situation you are faced with under current rules that if someone "Cancers" off a team they receive a swift tour ban and possible SPL ban for life (See gr8astard catching the ban). I do not understand what instance you are referring to where retains have been deemed valid before sign-ups are closed and would like further evidence to support this claim before bothering to address it. It is not exactly something that can be generally assumed when the given rule is sign ups are in fact not valid until the threads closed. Part B decides to bring up the asset vs option purchasing fallacy once more which at this point if it needs to be addressed again can only be explained via crayons.
4) So essentially in this paragraph you are advocating for tour bans to be singular ones. So if someone cheats in SPL they can play Classic/Ost/Smogtour without any repercussions due to all of these tours overlapping. A similar scenario arises from the schedule of Wcop into Slam/Snake/Smogtour. This precedent sounds far worse than following coherent rules where if you are caught cheating you receive a ban at the time of discovery. If you wish to cite examples please refer to common law practices and other such activities where similar issues may arise. Oh, and cite relevant, unbiased ones please. Id rather not have to look up further evidence showcasing petulant posting.
5) Addressing points A, B, and C. Publicity should not affect banning. Essentially point A discusses adding a statute of limitations to bans and in this instance a very short one. So your issue in point 3 does not exist anyways. Point B starts with more subjectivity regarding your own personal stance and not the facts of the situation or the fact the decision occurred anyways. Once again you reiterate that having an effect on one tour was taken into account in the decision making process for this ban. If this was in fact the case then the TD team at the time seriously needs to reevaluate the criteria of how long a tournament ban can be. This precedent has been set regardless and with no evidence supporting the claim that apparently now the timing of your ban and how it will affect you is relevant to the decision making process it stands. When you get to point C of it only affecting one tour it implies you do not lay any great significance on ladder boosting during an official tour which uses the ladder as the method of qualification. This is the exact same situation. You are demeaning OLT as a tour by stating this and as an ex TD you should have a much better grasp of the word official. It is used to describe tournaments such as SPL, Grand Slam, OST, Smogon Tour, Snake, and OLT. These tours are defined as equals by Smogon and thus instance of cheating should be treated as equal across tournaments. Cheating during a qualification match in this method warranted a one month ban in SmogTour, thus it warrants the same for cheating in a qualification match in OLT.
TLDR: Your arguments against this decision are about as bad as your meme. Stop confusing the purchasing of an option to buy with buying the asset itself. No refund being given is justified. I wholly recommend you respect this decision and choose not to make further fools of yourself.
- Status