-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
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.
Wi-Fi Blacklist: as of January 30th, 2014
- Thread starter Wild Eep
- Start date
- Status
It's alright dude, no hard feelings! =)
I'd like to report Kingm16 for disconnecting during a battle. The battle started with him sending out his swampert and me sending out my azelf. I switched into my breloom, and he gets his rocks up. On the second turn, he switches into his metagross, and it gets put to sleep. It had a lum berry, so it woke up right away. I put it to sleep again, sub up, and kill it. After the metagross dies, he sends in his gallade. Since I still had my sub up, I was able to put gallade to sleep, get my sub up again, and kill it. After his gallade faints, he disconnects on me. I threaten to report him, and then he claims that I broke sleep clause (see comment on my page). In reality, this is not true because his metagross fainted before I put his gallade to sleep.
lmitchell0012
FC 2665 0699 0580, failer of following the rules of the OU battle, putting ma pokemon to sleep at the same time which isn't right at all, siwtch out out to put gallad with ma metagross back in.
FC 2665 0699 0580, failer of following the rules of the OU battle, putting ma pokemon to sleep at the same time which isn't right at all, siwtch out out to put gallad with ma metagross back in.
You did not have two pokemon asleep at the same time. I KO'd the metagross (the first pokemon I put to sleep) and then I put gallade to sleep after I fainted the metagross.
yes I did my metagross was asleep and then I siwtch for gallad which you put to sleep.
Stop lying. You know you sent in your gallade AFTER I KO'd your metagross.
Why would i lie about something like that huh which you brak the rules.
He d/c'd so the video could not be saved.
Well Kingm16 never bothered saying sleep clause in his battling post, nor his sig, nor any other referenced post. So it's his own fault. Case closed.
My point exactly
isn't sleep clause implied?
That's what I would think. If someone asked for a standard OU battle (or something along those lines), I would think that person meant with all the normal clauses. (Sleep/Evasion/OHKO etc) I think here it depends somewhat on who challenged who (and the wording used in the challenge), and the fact remains that kingm16 disconnected in the middle of the battle.
Everybody STOP.
Without enough evidence either way, both of you are on notice.
For future reference, Sleep Clause is implied in the standard rules.
This means you can't have two *alive* sleeping Pokemon at the same time.
Without enough evidence either way, both of you are on notice.
For future reference, Sleep Clause is implied in the standard rules.
This means you can't have two *alive* sleeping Pokemon at the same time.
Username: dragonboy52
Setting: Standard UU/NU Match
Reason for blacklist nomination: Disconnecting during battle in which I was in the process of winning
When did he disconnect? After I destroyed his special monster attacker Sceptile (choice spec leaf storm set)
Backstory: We set the game as best 2 out of 3. We both won 1 battle each and this incident took place during the final battle to decide who would win. We used the same 6 pokemon each time. Everytime his sceptile would destroyy 2-3 pokes of mine because I had no one to counter it. But this time, I managed to counter it without losing a vital poke so the user decided to disconnect.
After the Battle: The user obviosuly blames his wifi for disconnecting when clearly anyone could see a losing player disconnecting because they were losing.
Setting: Standard UU/NU Match
Reason for blacklist nomination: Disconnecting during battle in which I was in the process of winning
When did he disconnect? After I destroyed his special monster attacker Sceptile (choice spec leaf storm set)
Backstory: We set the game as best 2 out of 3. We both won 1 battle each and this incident took place during the final battle to decide who would win. We used the same 6 pokemon each time. Everytime his sceptile would destroyy 2-3 pokes of mine because I had no one to counter it. But this time, I managed to counter it without losing a vital poke so the user decided to disconnect.
After the Battle: The user obviosuly blames his wifi for disconnecting when clearly anyone could see a losing player disconnecting because they were losing.
I swear I did not disconnect. I was having fun in that battle I even tried re-connecting after that but it did'nt work.
If "clearly anyone" could see it was intentional, then why did you ask him if he had done it? It makes no logical sense to ask the question unless you believed it was a realistic possibility (unless you intended all along to respond to a claim of unintentional disconnect with "You lie.")
then why did you ask him if he had done it?
The board says to get both sides of the story so I wanted to know honestly from him if he disconnected because he was losing. I kind of figured it was not a wifi disconnection because from my perspective he lost the majority of his pokemon and was on the road to a 100 percent loss.
The board says to get both sides of the story so I wanted to know honestly from him if he disconnected because he was losing. I kind of figured it was not a wifi disconnection because from my perspective he lost the majority of his pokemon and was on the road to a 100 percent loss.
whoever happens to be leading at that point will accuse the other player of an intentional disconnect.
He knew he was going to lose...it would have been positively obviously to anyone watching ... if only I record every battle with a camera . His sceptile was the key player on each game because it made a HUGE dent on every pokemon of mine because I had no one to resist its leaf storm. In this battle I took it down without losing ANY poke, and I predicted wisely. He didnt like that so he disconnected.
He knew he was going to lose...it would have been positively obviously to anyone watching ... if only I record every battle with a camera . His sceptile was the key player on each game because it made a HUGE dent on every pokemon of mine because I had no one to resist its leaf storm. In this battle I took it down without losing ANY poke, and I predicted wisely. He didnt like that so he disconnected.
That's not called "being plainly obvious," that's called "circumstantial evidence." A professor once told me never to say something is obviously true or clearly true, because that's code for "I have no evidence."
Consider this - a few years ago, I borrowed someone's Manaphy to get its Pokedex entry. When I tried to return it, WFC would repeatedly drop in the middle of the tradeback. According to you, it'd be obvious that I'm trying to steal this guy's Manaphy. (By the way, after umpteen tries, I eventually WAS able to return it.)
Consider this - a few years ago, I borrowed someone's Manaphy to get its Pokedex entry. When I tried to return it, WFC would repeatedly drop in the middle of the tradeback. According to you, it'd be obvious that I'm trying to steal this guy's Manaphy. (By the way, after umpteen tries, I eventually WAS able to return it.)
No this is a plainly obvious . This is very different from your scenario . Keyword: The user was LOSING. That is my evidence. So after his key pokemon faints, his wifi magically disconnects on him? He knew he had no chance of winning considering he already knew all 6 of my pokes. I applaud you for trying to defend this user but it was clear that he disconnected on purpose.
1) Are you stating that it is impossible for WFC to disconnect someone when they are in a disadvantageous position? If not, then you need more evidence. If so, then I'd love to hear your reasoning.
2) If the same thing happened today, but the positions were reversed, would you come here confessing?
3) Is it really that distinguishable? In both cases, WFC just HAPPENS to clonk out at the ideal time.
Let me be clear, it certainly IS circumstantial evidence. But hardly a prima facie case.
2) If the same thing happened today, but the positions were reversed, would you come here confessing?
3) Is it really that distinguishable? In both cases, WFC just HAPPENS to clonk out at the ideal time.
Let me be clear, it certainly IS circumstantial evidence. But hardly a prima facie case.
- Status