-
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 2024 Smog Awards!
SPL IX - Commencement Thread
- Thread starter OP
- Start date
- Status
I really couldn't care less about what some court of law has to say on the matter, nor do I have a horse in this race, but our policy as a community towards situations like these should always be one of sympathy. Apparently no one had any inkling that Tricking was gonna be tourbanned (for boosting one game in OLT no less), and since he doesn't have a history of being infracted/tourbanned there was no way for Sharks management to see this coming. Put yourself in their shoes and I think you'll realize their reactions are pretty normal. Just refund them the 4k and be glad it wasn't your team getting screwed.
Ruiners: https://pastebin.com/g8aGqC3n
Tigers:
Classiest: https://pastebin.com/k34yg7Vm
Cryonicles: https://pokepast.es/95f05c25d4776963
Tyrants: https://hastebin.com/eqojoyutam.sm
BIGS: http://pokepast.es/c828f2936f510e52
Scooters: https://pokepast.es/4bfeffe9f4e6ed4d
Sharks: http://pokepast.es/d21e12931dad8b24
Raiders: https://hastebin.com/wokuqozaxa.nginx
Wolfpack: https://hastebin.com/raw/axoxanayul
Last edited:
this was fucking hilarious bro. thank you so much for posting this, really made my night.
Now I do have time to post sit down and post properly
Since when are retains rights defined as "options"? If that was truly the case why does this line exist: "When trading retainer rights, the players of the rights being traded must also confirm their intent to play for their team-to-be at the time of trade."
Why do players need to confirm they are willing to play for the team they are being traded to? If it was just an option, that's a completely unnecessary step as it's the managers responsibility to make sure the player is willing to play for them; ie: "there is a risk to picking up any player". That safeguard was created to protect managers from shit they have no control of after the "Noodlez precedent" Zeb brought up (which wasn't 2 weeks before the auction). Why is creating another safeguard to make sure no one is getting dicked completely out of the question? why does the "definition" (which afaik has never been official) go one way, while the the requirements to make trade official tell us a different thing?
You are overthinking an extremely simplistic analogy that explains why not getting what you paid for and not getting any sort of refund is fucking stupid. If you want a different one:
You pay to reserve an hotel room for 8 weeks; you aren't paying to own the room, you are paying to be allowed to use it. When you are doing the check-in you are told your room flooded and that it will be unavailable for 4 weeks, but that you can use it after that without any problem, or you can outright lose almost a third of the money you were planning to pay for that room and get nothing in exchange. There are no additional options; it's a lose-lose for you and the room flooding isn't the hotel's fault. Do you think those two options are fair for you?
"There must be a law to protects people in that kind of situation" - Probably, yeah. So why don't we have any policy to protect managers / teams from similar situations?
The sports analogy is bad, not only because it ignores countless examples or trades being voided in all sports, but because you are comparing a sport that moves million of dollars with every trade, all of them with specific clauses to protect all parties, made by lawyers to ensure they follow countless laws, with a small Pokemon tournament in the internet, 4k imaginary credits trade and literally made up policies made by members of the community. You want to bring the legal aspect to a discussion that has no business being about legal shit.
In reality, all analogies are bad because this is a very specific problem for a very niche tournament on the internet.
Exactly where are retains being defined? I can easily say "A retain is by definition buying an asset. This is quite clear in the fact that the player whose retains right are being traded must agree to play for the team they are being traded, otherwise the trade isn't official"
You want to read what you want to read. There's no hard definition of retains and you are using SOME lines in those threads to try to justify your personal opinion.
Overly analyzing a simple analogy and ignoring the point behind it.
This is the part where this post gets fucking rich.
Where was this opinion when Omfuga got banned during Snake? I only recall your team quite literally asking me non-stop to get involved to help you, fuga's ban being appealed to let him play in Snake, the TD team going out of their way to change tournament policy to let Fuga play (policy created by M Dragon btw, who wasn't in your team), when the policy as they wanted was shutdown (the revised version didn't let fuga play in Snake) I was contact again, after directly telling your co-manager how to tackle the situation, I argued with the rest of the admins to let Fuga play and got the "exception" approved.
Not only you post tons of unnecessary fluff that add nothing, but your hypocrisy is quite transparent. Feel free to tell me you had nothing to do with that, it was only half of your team and your co-manager, Tony. (who's also a TD now and can verify all those claims btw. I do have all logs as well)
The principle established nowhere. I'm yet to see an official post defining retains or an explanation of why there's a safeguard to protect managers if that goes against the "retains are only the rights to buy someone" definition.
Yes, there are no legally binding contract in SPL. In case you haven't realized that, this applies to absolutely everything SPL related. There's no "legal" reason to undo the trade, but there are no "legal" reasons to not undo the trade either. Comparing a system regulated by laws with a Pokemon tournament with made up rules is exactly why the sports analogy is bad. I'm sorry if my 2 min post made from my phone failed to get that message across.
Two quick notes:
"Injuries beyond the control of the player do not equal racism within his control"
Medical checks aren't just for injuries, it's to make sure the player is up to the physical standards of the team that wants to buy him. Medical checks are the last safeguard for teams to make sure they are getting exactly what they want. The terms for the trade have been agreed by both teams and the player has agreed to the trade, but if the player doesn't pass the medical, the whole thing falls off. If you want to read more about the subject: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30269991
Obviously there is no direct comparison between this and SPL. But one system has multiple measures to prevent bullshit, while the other does the bare minimum.
"A contract will most likely not have a racism ban contingent in place."
Moral clauses are literally a thing pretty much everywhere, including sports. I'm sure you can find countless examples of contracts being terminated for that reasons if you google it; shit isn't uncommon by any means.
If you think that sassy response insults anyone's intelligence, that seems like a you problem. Calling an analogy bad or an obvious statement obvious isn't an insult to anyone's intelligence, but by all means feel free to be offended on rewer's behalf. I'm not getting paid to not post sassy posts, in fact I'm not getting paid at all, and unless that changes at some point in the future, expect more sassy posts.
I would rather be sassy than a blatant hypocrite. You can take this as an insult and please note I'm completely willing to share all logs regarding the decision behind letting Omfuga play in Snake, just letting you know in case you want to talk more in depth about that incident.
==
There are more than two solutions here, implying "you are throwing us a bone" while forcing us to pick between a turd or a smaller turd is KINDA underselling the options you are giving us. There are solutions that don't dick any team, there are ones that will have consequences over other trades, there are solutions that don't affect the integrity of the tournament.
Rules and policy have been changed in the past to make sure no one is getting dicked. You can't follow precedents when the situations aren't remotely close to being the same, you must create new policy to deal with new problems. There's more than enough time to deal with issues in such way no one gets punished unfairly for things outside of their control.
Also don't fucking tell me mid-seasons retains are a "good and fair" idea.
Since when are retains rights defined as "options"? If that was truly the case why does this line exist: "When trading retainer rights, the players of the rights being traded must also confirm their intent to play for their team-to-be at the time of trade."
Why do players need to confirm they are willing to play for the team they are being traded to? If it was just an option, that's a completely unnecessary step as it's the managers responsibility to make sure the player is willing to play for them; ie: "there is a risk to picking up any player". That safeguard was created to protect managers from shit they have no control of after the "Noodlez precedent" Zeb brought up (which wasn't 2 weeks before the auction). Why is creating another safeguard to make sure no one is getting dicked completely out of the question? why does the "definition" (which afaik has never been official) go one way, while the the requirements to make trade official tell us a different thing?
There's also a precedent for undoing a trade. Obviously the circumstances are completely different, but so are the circumstances regarding Tricking and Noodlez, which includes the time constraint of the latter and the fact the auction for this SPL is in two weeks, which is a fair amount of time.
You are overthinking an extremely simplistic analogy that explains why not getting what you paid for and not getting any sort of refund is fucking stupid. If you want a different one:
You pay to reserve an hotel room for 8 weeks; you aren't paying to own the room, you are paying to be allowed to use it. When you are doing the check-in you are told your room flooded and that it will be unavailable for 4 weeks, but that you can use it after that without any problem, or you can outright lose almost a third of the money you were planning to pay for that room and get nothing in exchange. There are no additional options; it's a lose-lose for you and the room flooding isn't the hotel's fault. Do you think those two options are fair for you?
"There must be a law to protects people in that kind of situation" - Probably, yeah. So why don't we have any policy to protect managers / teams from similar situations?
The sports analogy is bad, not only because it ignores countless examples or trades being voided in all sports, but because you are comparing a sport that moves million of dollars with every trade, all of them with specific clauses to protect all parties, made by lawyers to ensure they follow countless laws, with a small Pokemon tournament in the internet, 4k imaginary credits trade and literally made up policies made by members of the community. You want to bring the legal aspect to a discussion that has no business being about legal shit.
In reality, all analogies are bad because this is a very specific problem for a very niche tournament on the internet.
Exactly where are retains being defined? I can easily say "A retain is by definition buying an asset. This is quite clear in the fact that the player whose retains right are being traded must agree to play for the team they are being traded, otherwise the trade isn't official"
You want to read what you want to read. There's no hard definition of retains and you are using SOME lines in those threads to try to justify your personal opinion.
Overly analyzing a simple analogy and ignoring the point behind it.
This is the part where this post gets fucking rich.
Where was this opinion when Omfuga got banned during Snake? I only recall your team quite literally asking me non-stop to get involved to help you, fuga's ban being appealed to let him play in Snake, the TD team going out of their way to change tournament policy to let Fuga play (policy created by M Dragon btw, who wasn't in your team), when the policy as they wanted was shutdown (the revised version didn't let fuga play in Snake) I was contact again, after directly telling your co-manager how to tackle the situation, I argued with the rest of the admins to let Fuga play and got the "exception" approved.
Not only you post tons of unnecessary fluff that add nothing, but your hypocrisy is quite transparent. Feel free to tell me you had nothing to do with that, it was only half of your team and your co-manager, Tony. (who's also a TD now and can verify all those claims btw. I do have all logs as well)
The principle established nowhere. I'm yet to see an official post defining retains or an explanation of why there's a safeguard to protect managers if that goes against the "retains are only the rights to buy someone" definition.
Yes, there are no legally binding contract in SPL. In case you haven't realized that, this applies to absolutely everything SPL related. There's no "legal" reason to undo the trade, but there are no "legal" reasons to not undo the trade either. Comparing a system regulated by laws with a Pokemon tournament with made up rules is exactly why the sports analogy is bad. I'm sorry if my 2 min post made from my phone failed to get that message across.
Two quick notes:
"Injuries beyond the control of the player do not equal racism within his control"
Medical checks aren't just for injuries, it's to make sure the player is up to the physical standards of the team that wants to buy him. Medical checks are the last safeguard for teams to make sure they are getting exactly what they want. The terms for the trade have been agreed by both teams and the player has agreed to the trade, but if the player doesn't pass the medical, the whole thing falls off. If you want to read more about the subject: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30269991
Obviously there is no direct comparison between this and SPL. But one system has multiple measures to prevent bullshit, while the other does the bare minimum.
"A contract will most likely not have a racism ban contingent in place."
Moral clauses are literally a thing pretty much everywhere, including sports. I'm sure you can find countless examples of contracts being terminated for that reasons if you google it; shit isn't uncommon by any means.
If you think that sassy response insults anyone's intelligence, that seems like a you problem. Calling an analogy bad or an obvious statement obvious isn't an insult to anyone's intelligence, but by all means feel free to be offended on rewer's behalf. I'm not getting paid to not post sassy posts, in fact I'm not getting paid at all, and unless that changes at some point in the future, expect more sassy posts.
I would rather be sassy than a blatant hypocrite. You can take this as an insult and please note I'm completely willing to share all logs regarding the decision behind letting Omfuga play in Snake, just letting you know in case you want to talk more in depth about that incident.
==
There are more than two solutions here, implying "you are throwing us a bone" while forcing us to pick between a turd or a smaller turd is KINDA underselling the options you are giving us. There are solutions that don't dick any team, there are ones that will have consequences over other trades, there are solutions that don't affect the integrity of the tournament.
Rules and policy have been changed in the past to make sure no one is getting dicked. You can't follow precedents when the situations aren't remotely close to being the same, you must create new policy to deal with new problems. There's more than enough time to deal with issues in such way no one gets punished unfairly for things outside of their control.
Also don't fucking tell me mid-seasons retains are a "good and fair" idea.
Last edited:
ok
my vote: 2. Ban Sand Rush, Swift Swim, and Chlorophyll
my vote: 2. Ban Sand Rush, Swift Swim, and Chlorophyll
am I doing this right?
People laughed at me for watching gay porn in my Economics class back in high school. As a matter of fact, when my teacher saw me watching that exact episode one day, she asked me to leave the room and said "Aurora, you'll never amount to anything". I rolled my eyes and smirked, knowing how wrong she would turn out to be. As time wore on, I kept watching more and more gay pornography, learning about why laissez-faire economics is flawed and how revolutionary socialist economic reforms could solve the societal problems caused by capitalism. Eventually, I got a Band 6 in Economics and my friends and teacher were left in awe. What fools... how I pity them.
Now, I am Professor of Economics at the University of Sydney with several doctorates and I have just finished my application to be President of the IMF. I am almost certain to succeed in this endeavour. When my students ask me how I got so good at the subject, I look them dead in the eye and wink. Some things are just too good to divulge.
Now, I am Professor of Economics at the University of Sydney with several doctorates and I have just finished my application to be President of the IMF. I am almost certain to succeed in this endeavour. When my students ask me how I got so good at the subject, I look them dead in the eye and wink. Some things are just too good to divulge.
It’s a mr.e
Since when are retains rights defined as "options"? If that was truly the case why does this line exist: "When trading retainer rights, the players of the rights being traded must also confirm their intent to play for their team-to-be at the time of trade."
Why do players need to confirm they are willing to play for the team they are being traded to? If it was just an option, that's a completely unnecessary step as it's the managers responsibility to make sure the player is willing to play for them; ie: "there is a risk to picking up any player". That safeguard was created to protect managers from shit they have no control of after the "Noodlez precedent" Zeb brought up (which wasn't 2 weeks before the auction). Why is creating another safeguard to make sure no one is getting dicked completely out of the question? why does the "definition" (which afaik has never been official) go one way, while the the requirements to make trade official tell us a different thing?
There's also a precedent for undoing a trade. Obviously the circumstances are completely different, but so are the circumstances regarding Tricking and Noodlez, which includes the time constraint of the latter and the fact the auction for this SPL is in two weeks, which is a fair amount of time.
You are overthinking an extremely simplistic analogy that explains why not getting what you paid for and not getting any sort of refund is fucking stupid. If you want a different one:
You pay to reserve an hotel room for 8 weeks; you aren't paying to own the room, you are paying to be allowed to use it. When you are doing the check-in you are told your room flooded and that it will be unavailable for 4 weeks, but that you can use it after that without any problem, or you can outright lose almost a third of the money you were planning to pay for that room and get nothing in exchange. There are no additional options; it's a lose-lose for you and the room flooding isn't the hotel's fault. Do you think those two options are fair for you?
"There must be a law to protects people in that kind of situation" - Probably, yeah. So why don't we have any policy to protect managers / teams from similar situations?
The sports analogy is bad, not only because it ignores countless examples or trades being voided in all sports, but because you are comparing a sport that moves million of dollars with every trade, all of them with specific clauses to protect all parties, made by lawyers to ensure they follow countless laws, with a small Pokemon tournament in the internet, 4k imaginary credits trade and literally made up policies made by members of the community. You want to bring the legal aspect to a discussion that has no business being about legal shit.
In reality, all analogies are bad because this is a very specific problem for a very niche tournament on the internet.
Exactly where are retains being defined? I can easily say "A retain is by definition buying an asset. This is quite clear in the fact that the player whose retains right are being traded must agree to play for the team they are being traded, otherwise the trade isn't official"
You want to read what you want to read. There's no hard definition of retains and you are using SOME lines in those threads to try to justify your personal opinion.
Overly analyzing a simple analogy and ignoring the point behind it.
This is the part where this post gets fucking rich.
Where was this opinion when Omfuga got banned during Snake? I only recall your team quite literally asking me non-stop to get involved to help you, fuga's ban being appealed to let him play in Snake, the TD team going out of their way to change tournament policy to let Fuga play (policy created by M Dragon btw, who wasn't in your team), when the policy as they wanted was shutdown (the revised version didn't let fuga play in Snake) I was contact again, after directly telling your co-manager how to tackle the situation, I argued with the rest of the admins to let Fuga play and got the "exception" approved.
Not only you post tons of unnecessary fluff that add nothing, but your hypocrisy is quite transparent. Feel free to tell me you had nothing to do with that, it was only half of your team and your co-manager, Tony. (who's also a TD now and can verify all those claims btw. I do have all logs as well)
The principle established nowhere. I'm yet to see an official post defining retains or an explanation of why there's a safeguard to protect managers if that goes against the "retains are only the rights to buy someone" definition.
Yes, there are no legally binding contract in SPL. In case you haven't realized that, this applies to absolutely everything SPL related. There's no "legal" reason to undo the trade, but there are no "legal" reasons to not undo the trade either. Comparing a system regulated by laws with a Pokemon tournament with made up rules is exactly why the sports analogy is bad. I'm sorry if my 2 min post made from my phone failed to get that message across.
Two quick notes:
"Injuries beyond the control of the player do not equal racism within his control"
Medical checks aren't just for injuries, it's to make sure the player is up to the physical standards of the team that wants to buy him. Medical checks are the last safeguard for teams to make sure they are getting exactly what they want. The terms for the trade have been agreed by both teams and the player has agreed to the trade, but if the player doesn't pass the medical, the whole thing falls off. If you want to read more about the subject: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30269991
Obviously there is no direct comparison between this and SPL. But one system has multiple measures to prevent bullshit, while the other does the bare minimum.
"A contract will most likely not have a racism ban contingent in place."
Moral clauses are literally a thing pretty much everywhere, including sports. I'm sure you can find countless examples of contracts being terminated for that reasons if you google it; shit isn't uncommon by any means.
If you think that sassy response insults anyone's intelligence, that seems like a you problem. Calling an analogy bad or an obvious statement obvious isn't an insult to anyone's intelligence, but by all means feel free to be offended on rewer's behalf. I'm not getting paid to not post sassy posts, in fact I'm not getting paid at all, and unless that changes at some point in the future, expect more sassy posts.
I would rather be sassy than a blatant hypocrite. You can take this as an insult and please note I'm completely willing to share all logs regarding the decision behind letting Omfuga play in Snake, just letting you know in case you want to talk more in depth about that incident.
==
There are more than two solutions here, implying "you are throwing us a bone" while forcing us to pick between a turd or a smaller turd is KINDA underselling the options you are giving us. There are solutions that don't dick any team, there are ones that will have consequences over other trades, there are solutions that don't affect the integrity of the tournament.
Rules and policy have been changed in the past to make sure no one is getting dicked. You can't follow precedents when the situations aren't remotely close to being the same, you must create new policy to deal with new problems. There's more than enough time to deal with issues in such way no one gets punished unfairly for things outside of their control.
Also don't fucking tell me mid-seasons retains are a "good and fair" idea.
First off, Thanks for responding in a more comprehensive manner without the use of, in your own words, bad analogies. So into the actual problem.
1) The "Noodlez precedent" only does not redefine what you have bought. The player by agreeing to the trade is giving you the express permission to purchase the option to buy him with the intent he will play for your team. Phrasing is key here. It is not a completely unnecessary step because it does do as intended. It safeguards managers. If the problem is the fact you do not think that buying a retain is an option then this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_option explains exactly what an option is. It is by very definition, an option. This should not have to be wrote down somewhere on site when it is clearly implied by SPL retention formatting through out the years.
2) You brought up contracts first. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you have flip flopped on the idea that discussion of real world situations which are in deed applicable to the situation should be used by people. It only further perpetuates the attitude of "I'm right and you're wrong" in your posts. Why should we not uphold ourselves to the same standard as other mediums of trade?
3) You cannot quite easily say that "A retain is by definition buying an asset. This is quite clear in the fact that the player whose retains right are being traded must agree to play for the team they are being traded, otherwise the trade isn't official". In this scenario you are being given the players intent to play for you if you were to buy his options and activate them. This does not redefine the definition. I'm not ignoring your point or any points for that matter, I am addressing it quite clearly. What you are doing is using a logical leap to alter a definition.
4) I did not over analyze your point. I analyzed it using criteria that was established by you, and my argument against that. If you have a problem with an intellectual conversation which actually discusses everything brought forward how can you possible expect to be reasonable in a debate such as this?
5) If you would like to provide evidence of myself messaging you or any of SS regarding Omfuga's ban (Which has no place in this discussion by the way) then feel free to try and justify me being hypocritical. This is not the case though. I disagreed with certain elements regarding Omfuga's ban and was justifiably annoyed by it but my only involvement was writing his initial ban appeal. I did not message any of SS or TD's and attempt to influence the decision on Omfuga. Users such as Tony may have but I did not. Do not hold me accountable for actions of an individual acting alone. If you had a problem with that decision why are you bringing up the issues with it now? Are you saying you only supported the decisions made regarding Omfuga because members of my team who are friendly with you messaged you to support? If so this is a far greater moral issue than one of hypocrisy. This entire paragraph is dedicated to attacking the man and not the point. We drafted Omfuga knowing the risks involved with him. We drafted ABR knowing he brings with him his ability to fuel a fire. We drafted The Trap God knowing the communities opinion of him would most likely reflect badly on the team. These are issues management have to consider. This is the point being made. I in no way demonstrated a hypocrisy in aiding Omfuga by writing his ban appeal. I helped a member of my team undo what was deemed to be an overly long ban in hindsight. The real issue brought up from this is your character and how you make decisions.
6) Again, the Noodlez precedent does not redefine what you are buying. If you still believe it does for whatever reason we can stop posting here because you will never change you point of view and this will go on forever. If you believe a provision should be put in place to safeguard managers against a situation such as this then that is fine. Just realize that there currently is not one.
7) You slam legally binding contracts yet I was merely addressing what you said about them. I don't see a problem with discussing them either. Real world practices should always be used as a reference point in order to create a working framework by which TD's and staff may refer to. Unless you're suggesting that we make decisions arbitrarily ignoring how other operations conduct themselves.
8) Morality clauses do not usually address refunds. You say so yourself. In exceptional circumstances they might but it is exceptional. If that is a provision yourself and Scooters agreed upon then by all means take your refund but exceptional provision cannot be taken as inferred by the Scooters management in this scenario.
9) You are not just calling an analogy bad. The whole tone of the post is unnecessarily aggressive. That was my issue with it. People attempt to engage in a discussion and you demean their argument by being condescending. This dissuades people from posting and actually enhancing the discussion or contributing to it at all. We should strive for community input on situations such as these but you put people down before they've even got up. This is a personal issue with it and was just a one line response to a one line response. It probably didn't have a place in the thread either but hey, if SS can do it why can't the regular Joe.
10) The solutions you propose which would mean refunding the Stark Sharks negatively affect the Scooters and Classiest. This is not just a you issue. The 4k received by Scooters for Tricking is theirs. The Scooters now feel secure in trading for Lycans retention rights from Classiest trading for 3k. The Classiest now have an extra 3k auction credits. By refunding the Stark Sharks a scenario is created where Lycans trade to the Indie Scooters is compromised. Now you could allow Scooters the option to cancel this trade due to the 4k they will be losing but that now compromises the Classiest's draft plan which may require that extra 3k auction credits. If there is an alternative solution that does not create havoc for all teams involved then propose it. Simply giving the auction credits back to the Stark Sharks is unfair on at least 2 other teams. Any arguments regarding the integrity of the tournament are a philosophical issue and subjective meaning they are debatable but will likely lead nowhere.
11) The issue may indeed be resolved before SPL but unless all parties involved are equally satisfied by the solution and managers and TD's approve the decision then retro active implementation of new policy regarding this incident is not the solution. I know rushing the a possible solution may benefit the Sharks in the short term but the long term repercussions are troublesome. Objectively there is no need to rush any policy decision regarding this as the current one is at present the most fair option to the majority of parties until an amicable solution is found.
12) This is why people are saying you have been in your own words "thrown a bone". I think most people will resonate that a mid-season retain is not a good idea and would advocate for you being unable to do that AND not be refunded. Quite honestly if this the decision stands then your last line here could effectively contribute to your own demise.
The noodles precedent doesn't define anything, however, there's no definition of anything anywhere. A financial definition of a term, which doesn't refer to any sort of "retain" and isn't used in any sport, doesn't mean anything here. Tricking isn't a TV, a football player, a cow or a commodity, and SPL isn't the stock market. The very definition of retain is:
There's nothing about retain = option.
It obviously should be wrote down somewhere, considering there's not a single official smogon definition of retains posted anywhere that comes close to addressing situations such as this.
I brought up contracts as a reply to a person talking about million dollar trades involving legally binding contracts and why that analogy doesn't work. At no point I have said "Scooters are legally obligated to refund Sharks, as they weren't able to met the conditions of our contract. It's not "flip flopping" when are you arguing against comparing SPL and football transfer windows in all your posts. At no point I implied the TV analogy was completely flawless and perfectly applicable either, or implied that "since it works for TVs, you must refund my tricking money", and the first thing I did when I got home and was able to write a proper post was call it shitty.
I made a shitty simplistic analogy, rewer made another shitty analogy; I talked with him a bit more about that in VM. I can admit when I use shitty examples. The only person here bending over backwards to defend shitty analogies is you.
"Why should we not uphold ourselves to the same standard as other mediums of trade?"
Because selectively applying very specific standards used in very specific situations, while ignoring major context, ends up with a shitty system. SPL isn't governed by international laws or treaties, SPL trades and retains aren't legally binding for anyone, there are absolutely no economic risks in play here, and we don't involve lawyers in every single one of our decisions.
Should we really uphold ourselves to the same standard as other mediums of trade?
Can the TD team prove beyond any reasonable doubt Tricking sent those PMs to Bro Kappa? can they guarantee the screenshots weren't forged? can they guaranteed tricking himself was using the tricking account when those PMs were sent? should we start making legally binding contracts before any trade? should we sue any manager or player that breaches the clauses in those legally binding contracts?
"Upholding ourselves to the same standards" sounds like a good idea until you realize it doesn't apply to a single aspect. We can use real life examples as as base to create our own standards, but at no point we are going to be in a position to claim we are upholding ourselves to the same standards as other mediums of trade.
I'm not buying tricking to be able to say "I can retain him", I'm buying because he is going to play for me. No one is making trades for a possibility.
You are applying your own definition again.
It's a one liner that talks about walmart, not the very definition of intellectual argument.
You see, at no point I implied you asked, but your team and your co-manager did. Where was your opinion regarding "risk management" back then when it negatively affected you, your team, and your possibility of winning a trophy? That's the hypocrisy. When it benefits you, not a single word from you, but when it's completely unrelated you suddenly decide to chime in. You blame your co-manager and teams just to say yo had nothing to do with that, as if that makes it any less hypocritical.
Where was your post saying "but the precedence supports this TD decision in a scenario where we value good management skills over poor ones" when your team was punished for poor management skills?
I was supporting Omfuga before the ban even happened, I also was the one who killed the original policy (written by my main manager) that would have allowed Omfuga to play in Snake without needing an exception, and the exception was suggested by me (to your co-manager) because it was consistent with smogon policy. I support what's fair, not what benefits me or what other people tell me to do. Protecting the integrity of snake and not dicking your team for things outside of your control was important to me, and so was blocking a policy I believe was flawed. Unlike you, I consistently support my ideals.
Talk with your team before asking me to snake them publicly. I don't like throwing people under the bus when it's convenient.
Your own definition is as irrelevant as the Noodlez precedent.
I do believe we need safeguards to protect manager and I have asking for something like that in this thread and on discord
I said how they worked in real life situations?
Using RL as a reference is good, selectively applying specific things while completely ignoring the reasons why do they exist is completely different. In the end, most of the smogon policies in general, including TD policies, are arbitrary; there's absolutely no legal base for half of the things that get passed off as policies on this site.
Usually is the key word, although refunds aren't really a thing in football, or in any transaction involving millions. However "contracts being called off before going through all the hurdles to get them approved" is extremely common. In the end we are still comparing imaginary credits with millions of dollars and fuck load of legal hurdles.
Implying I don't know tricking isn't sentient being is quite condescending. You want to defend rewer, sure, but don't imply his post was just nice and friendly. I don't have actual beef with him and I had a short convo with him in VM last night, but it is what it is. If people give me shit, I give them shit. I don't need someone to defend me and pretty sure neither did him.
There are more solutions than just canceling the trade. My post only refers to that one directly, but others have been discussing and supported by a good number of managers, both in this thread and outside of it. I don't need to spell it out to the TDs or hosts. The more time we waste, the harder everything gets, and we are only this late into December because the tricking decision was dragged for so long.
I have absolutely no problem with calling an idea or policy shit even if it benefits me. I'm not a dog, I don't want shitty bones thrown at me. Losing 4k isn't "my own demise", it's just a stupid handicap and a shitty half assed fix doesn't make me happy.
- Status