I'd like to question the validity of the tourban on undisputed because it makes no sense to me. Obviously lying about your IP by using a proxy is something that isn't good practice and obviously is worthy of a forum infract because using a proxy is against forum rules iirc. However, tourbanning someone for actions that they MAY take in the future makes no sense. Undisputed had not signed up for wcop when inquiring about his IP while using a proxy or during his interactions with the TDs at all, so the tourban was definitely a bit premature. Punishing a user based on possible motivations is basically just going on a witch hunt after potential cheaters just because you don't want to have future incidents. Undisputed is a valuable member of the tournament community that has been contributing positively to the community for years with a crystal clean record, so I believe he should get the benefit of the doubt here considering that he likely would've played for west anyways and hadn't signed up for the tournament that he was allegedly cheating in. I think that had he signed up for the tournament in question with US South as his intended team, then this would be a different story, but the current circumstances surrounding this tourban are dubious at best.
I'd like to question the validity of the tourban on undisputed because it makes no sense to me. Obviously lying about your IP by using a proxy is something that isn't good practice and obviously is worthy of a forum infract because using a proxy is against forum rules iirc. However, tourbanning someone for actions that they MAY take in the future makes no sense. Undisputed had not signed up for wcop when inquiring about his IP while using a proxy or during his interactions with the TDs at all, so the tourban was definitely a bit premature. Punishing a user based on possible motivations is basically just going on a witch hunt after potential cheaters just because you don't want to have future incidents. Undisputed is a valuable member of the tournament community that has been contributing positively to the community for years with a crystal clean record, so I believe he should get the benefit of the doubt here considering that he likely would've played for west anyways and hadn't signed up for the tournament that he was allegedly cheating in. I think that had he signed up for the tournament in question with US South as his intended team, then this would be a different story, but the current circumstances surrounding this tourban are dubious at best.
I'd like to question the validity of the tourban on undisputed because it makes no sense to me. Obviously lying about your IP by using a proxy is something that isn't good practice and obviously is worthy of a forum infract. However, tourbanning someone for actions that they MAY take in the future makes no sense. Undisputed had not signed up for wcop when inquiring about his IP while using a proxy or during his interactions with the TDs at all, so the tourban was definitely a bit premature. Punishing a user based on possible motivations is basically just going on a witch hunt after potential cheaters just because you don't want to have future incidents. Undisputed is a valuable member of the tournament community that has been contributing positively to the community for years with a crystal clean record, so I believe he should get the benefit of the doubt here considering that he likely would've played for west anyways and hadn't signed up for the tournament that he was allegedly cheating in. I think that had he signed up for the tournament in question with US South as his intended team, then this would be a different story, but the current circumstances surrounding this tourban are dubious at best.
whats a EUSince I haven't read anything about that here in this forum and you're obviously saving user IP adresses:
With the upcoming GDPR and ePrivacy laws you will no longer be allowed to save IP adresses from EU residants for more than a couple weeks. What will that mean for WCoP, since you're heavil relying on IP adresses for determining wether a player is allowed to play for a specific team/region or not?
The European Union. Never heard of?whats a EU
Citation for the GDPR being this blanket in the way it is written? I’ve done some digging on GDPR and IP addresses look to not be considered Personal Identifiable Information unless stored in combination with names, addresses, and related things. An IP adddress on its own cannot be used to identify you specifically. We, a web provider, do not store names, addresses, and similar information. An ISP however does.With the upcoming GDPR and ePrivacy laws you will no longer be allowed to save IP adresses from EU residants for more than a couple weeks.
we don't have things like that in america, sorryThe European Union. Never heard of?
Rate this big black cock from 1 - 10.we don't have things like that in america, sorry
Citation for the GDPR being this blanket in the way it is written? I’ve done some digging on GDPR and IP addresses look to not be considered Personal Identifiable Information unless stored in combination with names, addresses, and related things. An IP adddress on its own cannot be used to identify you specifically. We, a web provider, do not store names, addresses, and similar information. An ISP however does.
Read my link. Even if your site is based in the US, you have to follow the GDPR when it comes to dealing with data from EU residants.EU laws don't have jurisdiction over the United States
consideration and intent are two totally different things, hope you realize that. if he had intent he would have signed up with "other eligibility: us south", but did he? no"Undisputed spoke with Hogg about his potential eligibility for US South and mentioned he was moving to an [US South state]. Hogg explained at the time he wasn't eligible and that his future plans weren't enough to allow him play for South. undisputed tried different angles, but in the end he was told it would only be possible if he could establish residency in the aforementioned location before signing up and was explained how we checked IPs. "
>It's a known, stated fact that he intended to sign up for US South
>"Give him the benefit of the doubt, he would've played for West anyways"
What the fuck lmao
The decision post itself explains this in crystal clear words. "Undisputed fully intended to play for South". There was clear intent, you don't 'give the benefit of the doubt' when it's this obvious. I don't think you're going anywhere with trying to get this decision overturned, deal with it and don't cheat next time /shrugconsideration and intent are two totally different things, hope you realize that. if he had intent he would have signed up with "other eligibility: us south", but did he? no
Read my link. Even if your site is based in the US, you have to follow the GDPR when it comes to dealing with data from EU residants.
He never outright said he intended to play for south and he never signed up for south so his intention is still unclear and I thought the td’s were against making assumptions and logic jumping I thought that was one of the reasons it took so long to ban style/blooThe decision post itself explains this in crystal clear words. "Undisputed fully intended to play for South". There was clear intent, you don't 'give the benefit of the doubt' when it's this obvious. I don't think you're going anywhere with trying to get this decision overturned, deal with it and don't cheat next time /shrug
He never outright said he intended to play for south and he never signed up for south so his intention is still unclear and I thought the td’s were against making assumptions and logic jumping I thought that was one of the reasons it took so long to ban style/bloo