Team Monotype Premier League III - Midseason Week

Status
Not open for further replies.
Midseason Week

Halfway through the round robin, we're having a midseason week. We'll be taking a break from standard play and having some fun. Again, this week is all just for fun, so don't take it too seriously.

Our main event is the All-Stars showcase where the best players (their schedules permitting) for each metagame battle it out.

Slateport Sultans
SM: Anty | Bloom Doom Glooms | 3 - 1
SM: p2 | Mauville Memers | 2 - 0
SM (Best of 3): Clearly | Petalburg Porygons | 3 - 1
ORAS: Hammy | Petalburg Porygons | 3 - 1
ORAS: Ridley | Petalburg Porygons | 3 - 1
BW: Pearl | Hearthome Honchkrows | 3 - 1
BW: Freeroamer | Meteor Falls Miniors | 3 - 1
Monothreat: Moosical (aka Torkool) | Bloom Doom Glooms | 3 - 1

Mossdeep Monarchs
SM: Leru | Hearthome Honchkrows | 2 - 0
SM: Level 56 | Mauville Memers | 2 - 0
SM (Best of 3): TheThorn | Littleroot Lotads | 3 - 1
ORAS: Bushtush | Amber Aeros | 2 - 0
ORAS: Shiba | Bloom Doom Glooms | 2 - 1
BW: Void | Meteor Falls Miniors | 2 - 1
BW: Haund | Blackthorn Bucks | 2 - 1
Monothreat: SirSkit | Hearthome Honchkrows | 2 - 1

All-Stars
Rules
Spreadsheet


The type for Monothreat is Ground

Slateport Sultans (0) vs. Mossdeep Monarchs (0)
SM: Anty vs Leru
SM: p2 vs Level 56
SM (Best of 3): Clearly vs TheThorn
ORAS: Hammy vs Bushtush
ORAS: Ridley vs Shiba
BW: Pearl vs. Void
BW: Freeroamer vs. Haund
Monothreat: Moosical (aka Torkool) vs. SirSkit

This is a week for fun. Just play. Deadline is obviously by the end of the week but come on.

If you want to play your matches in best of 3 instead of best of 1, go for it! Also if Torkool and SirSkit want to agree to play a different type for Monothreat, that's also fine (but let us know)!​
 

Acast

Ghost of a Forum Mod & PS Room Owner
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Staff Alumnus
Should've made the Monothreat type something fun like Dragon.
Slateport Sultans vs. Mossdeep Monarchs
SM: Anty vs Leru - idk Leru, but Anty is amazing if someone passes her a good team
SM: p2 vs Level 56 - idk either of them personally, but they're both doing well.
SM (Best of 3): Clearly vs TheThorn - Clearly is good, but I spent more time trying to convince Anttya to trade Thorn than I spent trying to convince Misaka to trade Clearly
ORAS: Hammy vs Bushtush - I didn't think Hammy would do as well as he is. Definitely underestimated him.
ORAS: Ridley vs Shiba - I'll be cheering for Shiba, but I think Ridley has a little more experience.
BW: Pearl vs. Void - Idk these people
BW: Freeroamer vs. Haund - former RO > Italian PU player
Monothreat: Moosical (aka Torkool) vs. SirSkit - They're both good, but Torkool knows the meta better.
 
Since I can't reply to the locked thread I'll reply here. Eien

My old main alt is ArVaDa- . Alts being used in tours is a way to get cheap top 5 ringers. Anyone who knows me, including smogon itself, can see I haven't posted / been active since December 2015 on that alt.

I had talked with Celticpride a while ago in a discipline appeal that I had made to confirm smogon is okay with me having a dead alt. He thought I shouldn't receive punishment simply for having multiple forum accounts since I've shown no use of the other.

I am the same as johnjohn1234, completely fair "new" user that has been active since the end of last year when sun and moon came out. Balto knowing who I am is the same as knowing your own brother or friend irl and drafting them just because they are your friend. In fact I was nominated by Lax because he is my friend (who was unaware at the time).

Biggest point is, none of the managers would've drafted me based on my nomadderwhat name for the S/M metagame! Maybe for ORAS someone could say they would've picked me up for it, but I didn't even sign up for oras and don't want to play it so I don't see what my past has on the draft in general.

TLDR; firmly believe ruling should be over turned, way more looking for trouble than there is trouble.
 
I had talked with Celticpride a while ago in a discipline appeal that I had made to confirm smogon is okay with me having a dead alt. He thought I shouldn't receive punishment simply for having multiple forum accounts since I've shown no use of the other.
I said you shouldn't receive a Multiple Accounts infraction, and was assuming that you were not using your new alt maliciously. A) Optics are fluid and B) my ruling in that instance does not protect you from further rulings in different situations. PM me if you wanna talk more about this.
 
Honestly A little bit unbelieavable. You're banning me for 3 weeks because I drafted an alt?re evaluate yourself eien.

I had no concrete proof Arvada was madder when I drafted them. I did have my suspicions, which is why I waited til the very end of the draft to make a bid. I knew madder had a good reputation for their building and play on side server, so it was a safe draft.

However, punishing me for drafting someone on a premier league with no meaning is stupid. I had no 'secret information' and had barely spoke to madder pre draft. My team does better than expected, and ofc MPL staff has to step in and fix that!

To clarify, there was no 'elaborate plan' to draft arvada. The 'better knowledge' I had was the same as everyone else. If the clearly corrupt staff says otherwise, I strongly encourage them to actually provide evidence.

Edit:also want to point out the staff made no effort to talk to me whatsoever about this. Eien never said a word to me in private asking for my side, but just completely blindsided me with a forum post.
 
Last edited:

Crestfall

levitate, levitate, levitate, levitate
I wasn't aware Smogon had a Good Samaritan law (which wouldn't even apply here as he didn't 'know' anything for certain). It's Baltos duty to inform the host and other managers that someone might be an alt of an already existing user? Is this forreal?
 
Last edited:
Because the main discussion thread is locked, I'll allow some of the questioning of the decision here. Obviously, you may not break any rules. I would like not to overshadow midseason week with this drama.

nomadderwhat
Not only is having multiple accounts on Smogon prohibited, signing up for a team tournament under an alt is even more specifically prohibited.
Half the reason we chose to do signups on Smogon instead of on a google sheet like last year is to specifically avoid this possibility. Managers have a right to know exactly who they're buying. If you sign up as an alt, there is no way for managers to know, without prior information, that it is you. Because I've had managers come to me regarding this specific issue and the fact that they would have wanted to bid on you, I know you are definitely not a "johnjohn1234". There's simply no two ways about it. First, you may not sign up for Smogon on multiple accounts. Second, you may not join team tours on an alt. These are both facts and you broke both rules. Regardless of whether or not you are punished for breaking the first (global Smogon) rule, you still broke the second (tournament-specific) rule. If you can show that you are not in fact an alt and did not sign up on an alt for this tournament, then I will review your disqualification. However, given that you admit to being an alt in your response, I don't believe this is possible. As a result, there is no reason I would reverse the ruling and it stands.

Balto
Regardless of who the player in question was or how your team was doing, the fact is that the situation is still unfair to the other managers. To put it in perspective for you as the only manager who was not unfairly limited: if another highly regarded player, say a certain former council member that qualified for OLT and was drafted for SPL 8, signed up under a hidden alt and got drafted for just about minimum bid, I know you would be up in arms about it even if they didn't have an amazing record. This is why alts cannot be allowed in MPL. Alts give some managers an unfair advantage over others, and the spirit of competition relies on fairness between all of the competitors. The question is not where the alt comes from or how well they or your team does during the tournament.

If you will excuse a metaphor, if you receive an answer key to an upcoming test and choose not to inform the professor about it and instead used it to your advantage, regardless of how you received that answer key, how certain you were the answer key was legitimate, why you used the answer key, and how well you did on the exam, you are still going to be punished for cheating and inappropriate conduct. I can't know your intentions, but I can know the result of your actions, which cannot be permitted. It doesn't matter whether you intended on gaining an advantage or whether your result was better than others. You did gain an advantage that you could have fairly dealt with and that is the problem.

In a previous week, I refused to tolerate dishonesty and deceit from a different manager that unfairly gave an advantage to one side over another. That manager similarly failed to disclose very relevant information to other managers that would have changed their decision making, so I overruled the dealing in the spirit of sportsmanship and fairness. I refuse to tolerate any form of advantage that a manager can gain by failing to disclose, so in this case as well I cannot allow you to withhold information to gain an advantage. Other managers' decision making on drafting or not drafting nomadderwhat was done for them when you decided not to provide the information. I will note that I considered barring you from managing in future iterations of MPL in addition to being banned for three weeks. However, I didn't have proof that you did this out of malice instead of negligence, so I chose against seeking such sanctions, even though I am aware some people do believe you did in fact do this intentionally. I also momentarily considered banning you from this year's tour outright instead of for only three weeks, but I felt that it was too harsh of a punishment as a result of my view on your intentions. You can be assured if I had indisputable evidence that it was done to gain an advantage instead of simply negligence, that both of these harsher punishments would have been given instead.

I really shouldn't need to explain this, but since you believe there is bias because I'm on a different team, I spoke with a Smogon TD, a former TD, and a former SPL host regarding my decision before posting it to make sure I wasn't blowing something out of proportion because I specifically knew there would be backlash from you in this vein. All three of them agreed both that the situation is unfair and that there needed to be something done. You might think it's overkill to speak to three separate and independent people that are not connected with this tournament at all, but I want it to be very clear that my decisions were not made because "your team is doing better than expected" or because "my team is losing!" (After all, I have a co-host that I discuss all decisions with who is also not on my team, so why would my team's performance even register in my decision making? Seems illogical to me, since my co-host shouldn't care whether my team is doing poorly or not). Your team does not receive a replacement pick for nomadderwhat based on precedence. I cited the decision made in SPL 4 when an alt was found and a replacement was given. However, in that decision, the replacement was for specifically users that are banned prior to the tournament beginning. nomadderwhat was banned after the tournament begun and the ruling made in that year was that alts banned after the tournament begins are not replaced. This ruling was upheld in SPL 8 when another alt was found and banned as well. I am not arbitrarily withholding a replacement pick because of some bias; I'm looking at how prior tournaments handled the situation and following their precedent. If you still believe I made a biased decision in spite of the independent review and past precedent, then there's not much more I can show you. This is the ruling you would receive regardless of your team's performance or mine. I brought the situation and my decision to outside users that are the authority on official tournaments, and I received no indication that I was incorrect. If you can show that I incorrectly referred to the SPL 4 precedence and SPL 8 precedent, then I will review the possibility of replacement.

Naturally, I am also not punishing you out of bias either. The case is simply very cut and dry. A manager was unsportsmanlike and gained an unfair advantage over the others. Necessarily, regardless of who it is and which team they manage, I cannot be tolerant of it as the host. If someone chooses to cheat in any function that I oversee, then other details simply don't matter. You're not being punished because your team is doing well. The issue at hand is your actions, or lack thereof.
 
Because the main discussion thread is locked, I'll allow some of the questioning of the decision here. Obviously, you may not break any rules. I would like not to overshadow midseason week with this drama.

nomadderwhat

Half the reason we chose to do signups on Smogon instead of on a google sheet like last year is to specifically avoid this possibility. Managers have a right to know exactly who they're buying. If you sign up as an alt, there is no way for managers to know, without prior information, that it is you. Because I've had managers come to me regarding this specific issue and the fact that they would have wanted to bid on you, I know you are definitely not a "johnjohn1234". There's simply no two ways about it. First, you may not sign up for Smogon on multiple accounts. Second, you may not join team tours on an alt. These are both facts and you broke both rules. Regardless of whether or not you are punished for breaking the first (global Smogon) rule, you still broke the second (tournament-specific) rule. If you can show that you are not in fact an alt and did not sign up on an alt for this tournament, then I will review your disqualification. However, given that you admit to being an alt in your response, I don't believe this is possible. As a result, there is no reason I would reverse the ruling and it stands.

Balto
Regardless of who the player in question was or how your team was doing, the fact is that the situation is still unfair to the other managers. To put it in perspective for you as the only manager who was not unfairly limited: if another highly regarded player, say a certain former council member that qualified for OLT and was drafted for SPL 8, signed up under a hidden alt and got drafted for just about minimum bid, I know you would be up in arms about it even if they didn't have an amazing record. This is why alts cannot be allowed in MPL. Alts give some managers an unfair advantage over others, and the spirit of competition relies on fairness between all of the competitors. The question is not where the alt comes from or how well they or your team does during the tournament.

If you will excuse a metaphor, if you receive an answer key to an upcoming test and choose not to inform the professor about it and instead used it to your advantage, regardless of how you received that answer key, how certain you were the answer key was legitimate, why you used the answer key, and how well you did on the exam, you are still going to be punished for cheating and inappropriate conduct. I can't know your intentions, but I can know the result of your actions, which cannot be permitted. It doesn't matter whether you intended on gaining an advantage or whether your result was better than others. You did gain an advantage that you could have fairly dealt with and that is the problem.

In a previous week, I refused to tolerate dishonesty and deceit from a different manager that unfairly gave an advantage to one side over another. That manager similarly failed to disclose very relevant information to other managers that would have changed their decision making, so I overruled the dealing in the spirit of sportsmanship and fairness. I refuse to tolerate any form of advantage that a manager can gain by failing to disclose, so in this case as well I cannot allow you to withhold information to gain an advantage. Other managers' decision making on drafting or not drafting nomadderwhat was done for them when you decided not to provide the information. I will note that I considered barring you from managing in future iterations of MPL in addition to being banned for three weeks. However, I didn't have proof that you did this out of malice instead of negligence, so I chose against seeking such sanctions, even though I am aware some people do believe you did in fact do this intentionally. I also momentarily considered banning you from this year's tour outright instead of for only three weeks, but I felt that it was too harsh of a punishment as a result of my view on your intentions. You can be assured if I had indisputable evidence that it was done to gain an advantage instead of simply negligence, that both of these harsher punishments would have been given instead.

I really shouldn't need to explain this, but since you believe there is bias because I'm on a different team, I spoke with a Smogon TD, a former TD, and a former SPL host regarding my decision before posting it to make sure I wasn't blowing something out of proportion because I specifically knew there would be backlash from you in this vein. All three of them agreed both that the situation is unfair and that there needed to be something done. You might think it's overkill to speak to three separate and independent people that are not connected with this tournament at all, but I want it to be very clear that my decisions were not made because "your team is doing better than expected" or because "my team is losing!" (After all, I have a co-host that I discuss all decisions with who is also not on my team, so why would my team's performance even register in my decision making? Seems illogical to me, since my co-host shouldn't care whether my team is doing poorly or not). Your team does not receive a replacement pick for nomadderwhat based on precedence. I cited the decision made in SPL 4 when an alt was found and a replacement was given. However, in that decision, the replacement was for specifically users that are banned prior to the tournament beginning. nomadderwhat was banned after the tournament begun and the ruling made in that year was that alts banned after the tournament begins are not replaced. This ruling was upheld in SPL 8 when another alt was found and banned as well. I am not arbitrarily withholding a replacement pick because of some bias; I'm looking at how prior tournaments handled the situation and following their precedent. If you still believe I made a biased decision in spite of the independent review and past precedent, then there's not much more I can show you. This is the ruling you would receive regardless of your team's performance or mine. I brought the situation and my decision to outside users that are the authority on official tournaments, and I received no indication that I was incorrect. If you can show that I incorrectly referred to the SPL 4 precedence and SPL 8 precedent, then I will review the possibility of replacement.

Naturally, I am also not punishing you out of bias either. The case is simply very cut and dry. A manager was unsportsmanlike and gained an unfair advantage over the others. Necessarily, regardless of who it is and which team they manage, I cannot be tolerant of it as the host. If someone chooses to cheat in any function that I oversee, then other details simply don't matter. You're not being punished because your team is doing well. The issue at hand is your actions, or lack thereof.
im not questioning you removing nomadder from the tournament in any way. I sorta doubt you presented the situation correctly to TDs since you definitely didn't in your administrative post. My main point here is that you lack sufficient evidence, which most of the people i've spoken to about this agreed with. There was no 'dishonesty', here. If I intended to draft nomadder for a lower price, why was I not the one who nom'd him? Again, this goes back to my main point of that had you spoken to me about this, and presented reasoning, I would've dropped nomadder myself, which makes sense. Instead, you're removing two players from our team, which really lowers our chance of even making it into playoffs, period. However, punishing me because i have nonexistent 'special information' that I somehow withheld from everyone, makes no sense at all. I myself was not sure that was even arvada, you're banning me purely on speculation.
 
I like how quickly this turned to "This is matchups for Midseason" to "Lets shit on Balto and his team for a simple mistake" If anything should Balto be punished? if Madder(And his other account) are punished then I see why Balto who had no knowledge of this during drafting should be punished...

Also as far as I can tell there was a lack of communication between the mods of the tournament and Balto before hand, saying this information publically before contacting and attempting to solve the issue before the public gets hold of it would have been the smart decision.
 

Crestfall

levitate, levitate, levitate, levitate
I'd just like to preface this post with my opinion that this shouldn't be reversed or overturned (despite me disagreeing with it) by a(ny) higher authority. A tournament host's decisions are to be final and even moderators/leaders of this section should NOT be overruling them. Good or bad these [decisions] need to be final (barring scenarios where proof is found to directly contradict the evidence that led to a decision). That's the point of being a host - these administrative decisions lie with you for better or worse. Being given the role of host (even for a non-official) is a decision/action of trust by the Mono/OM leaders and should be treated with respect even if you don't agree with everything s/he [the host] does during the period of the tournament.

That being said I'd still like to voice my opinion on why I find this incorrect. Doubt it will sway anyone on the 'anti-Balto'/'pro-Eien decision' side but still feels worth saying.

If you will excuse a metaphor, if you receive an answer key to an upcoming test and choose not to inform the professor about it and instead used it to your advantage, regardless of how you received that answer key, how certain you were the answer key was legitimate, why you used the answer key, and how well you did on the exam, you are still going to be punished for cheating and inappropriate conduct. I can't know your intentions, but I can know the result of your actions, which cannot be permitted. It doesn't matter whether you intended on gaining an advantage or whether your result was better than others. You did gain an advantage that you could have fairly dealt with and that is the problem.
The big difference here is that in this scenario you are telling us (the readers) he for sure had the answer key - thus we can all fairly deal a 'verdict' of him being guilty of cheating on this exam. This is not equivalent since from what I've seen and read you actually have no evidence that isn't circumstantial/hearsay.

---------

You say in these logs (https://hastebin.com/mofowohuda.vbs if anyone misses that it's a hyperlink) a few things that I'd like to address.

  • Eien - Today at 6:07 PM No Misaka Managers were in a call during draft When nomadderwhat got bought, half the call was roasting Balto for it You know what his response was? Almost word for word direct quote: "You guys literally don't even know who that is" "They'll (forgot if he said he, she, or they) show you guys"
This is literally no hard proof at all. He could have said this for any myriad of reasons. Such as - having played him before, having spoken to him about his thoughts on the meta, teambuilding, or general understanding of mons/monotype. He could have said this because everyone has an ego with their decisions and I doubt there is a single manager in this tour (or others) who bid on someone they thought was bad - it makes no sense to do this. Of course it stands to reason he is going to defend his own purchase. Why wouldn't he? All I'm reading in that quote is a simple profession of faith in the person he SPENT credits on to buy for his team. I'm not saying you specifically Eien did this, but given how 'shady' those quotes are it's much easier to jump on the bandwagon that it proves he is guilty. It proves nothing at all. This is entirely hearsay and you are extrapolating a meaning from this that is purely subjective.

  • And furthermore In private chatrooms He has been talking about this for weeks now
From what I've been told (do note I could be wrong since I have not seen/read logs myself and am going off the words of others) that Balto never once directly stated anything with regards to knowing he's an alt. Suspecting someone is an alt is not something that needs to be reported. I don't belive there is a rule for this - correct me if I'm wrong. He did have his suspicions but he has no duty to investigate this or let anyone know. He bought someone who he thought was skilled enough to be worth purchasing. In fact ANY time there is a newcomer on smogon who performs well (especially in official tours - re: bloo/style) people get suspicious. That doesn't mean every single low-post/random/'unknown' user who does well is an alt. Sometimes the person is just a new user who is good. I don't see how Balto was expected to know he was an alt and just because there are insinuations (in your opinion) that he knew he was an alt there is still no hard proof of it.

  • I had reasonable suspicion and it is actually beyond reasonable doubt given what he says and his attitude throughout the past month
You have no concrete proof and you're still claiming it's "beyond reasonable doubt"? I don't intend for this to come off as condescending but are you properly familiar with this term? It represents being sure of something to a very, very, very high amount. As I learned it myself 95% likelihood/confidence in your thoughts is enough to be beyond reasonable doubt. There is a reason criminal cases (in the US) have the requirement for the jury to be beyond reasonable doubt, because when accusations this heavy are being levied against anyone you need to be damn sure you are right. And what I've seen is that you have things that cast suspicion on Balto (fair) but have not found anything (that I'm aware of) that shows directly his knowledge of nomadder being an alt. Furthermore you did not even address Balto or ask him anything about this case. He wasn't even given a chance to have an opinion. This is not a cookie cutter case of "I have logs of you ghosting thus you are banned." You based this decision - which has major repercussions for Balto - entirely on extrapolating an opinion from subjective material. I don't see how anything you used to come to this conclusion (excluding your conversations with TDs as no one has access to that) "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Is it likely Balto knew? Idk. Is there reason to be suspicious of him? Yes. Are these suspicions beyond a reasonable doubt? Absolutely not.

  • I also talked with most managers that I believed had any sort of stake in the situation and had any relevance to my decision making
Don't see why this was necessary. Am I saying the managers you spoke with are not trustworthy and aren't free of bias? No. Can we know for certain? Ofc not. There is little to no reason to not agree with this decision. The benefit is removing a player who is one of the team's only BW players from being able to participate. I'm not saying anyone did this - but we can't know. These decisions should be executive and left to you/Dirpz (and if you really wanted to consult I'd have gone with the section leaders only if necessary). I don't see how asking people who COULD have an inherent bias is wise.

  • I take my responsibilities as a host pretty damn seriously, I'm not running around making decisions without thinking them through and getting second opinions from independent people
Managers =/= independent people. Literally the opposite. Anyone IN the tour should not have any influence on this decision (excluding you as the Host). In fact they shouldn't have even known about this decision or investigation. They are inherently biased parties - which you the host should assume. Ultimately it's a tournament and everyone wants to win. This may be a negative way of looking at things but it's the only way to keep things as unbiased and untainted as possible. You have to assume the worst because it's a possibility. Only you as the unbiased Host needs to be involved or other TRULY unbiased and un-involved parties (like the TDs you spoke to).

  • Afaik (and according to the logs) Balto wasn't even the one who nommed nomadder :|
Speaks for itself.

Eien said:
I really shouldn't need to explain this, but since you believe there is bias because I'm on a different team, I spoke with a Smogon TD, a former TD, and a former SPL host regarding my decision before posting it to make sure I wasn't blowing something out of proportion because I specifically knew there would be backlash from you in this vein.
If anyone (including my teammates) think this was made out of bias they are simply wrong. Sorry for any and all the flame you've taken for this Eien. I find it hard to believe the person chosen to be host - especially when they consulted 3 respected users in the Tournament community did this out of bias. Based on the proof you've posted I see why you investigated into this, though I obviously don't agree.


E1: Sorry for the 'essay' but it's a lot of quoting/spacing stuff too. And if you don't bother reading the full thing please refrain from responding since I literally won't care about a not-fully-informed response.

E2: You may think I'm biased since it directly affects me and the Porygons but if this same scenario occurred to ANYONE - including an opponent I'd have made this post.
 
Last edited:

Kev

Part of the journey is the end
is a Community Leader Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I don't exactly agree with the nomadder decision, but I can see where it came from so I won't really argue with that.

However, I think the Balto decision was completely mishandled whether it be because of misunderstandings or on purpose.

Here's some points that I want to address:

1. Nomadder was nominated by the Amber Aeros and not Balto. While he is being accused of "hiding information to gain advantage", he wasn't even the one that first brought up the user in draft. Despite that, he is the only being brought up because he decided to up bid another team. Before anyone jumps at me, no I do not think Lax and Arifeen should be banned. What I'm trying to point out is that both that pair and Balto had the same knowledge on Nomadderwhat: An interesting player they saw on a sideserver with maybe a suspicion of being ArVaDa- because of the similarities.

2. It is basically impossible for Balto to know that Nomadderwhat was ArVaDa-. Despite hanging around the same group of people as Nomadderwhat, I had no clue about his old alt until around the first week when certain other managers/mpl players constantly asked him in a room. Prior to that, only two people knew about Nomadderwhat's previous alt: ArkenCiel and SaNeski. For Balto to have knowledge of the fact, one of those 3 users would of had to tell him which doesn't make sense. What is my proof? While I don't have physical evidence, the same can be said about the argument saying he secretly knew.

To use your own metaphor: If you guess the questions of an exam, does that mean you cheated?

3. The identity of Nomadderwhat became public somewhere around the first week of MPL, but the issue only came up by the fifth week. Not much to say here other than why did it take so long to be brought up? If this was such an issue why didn't you approach immediately before Nomadder got 3 games into MPL? And yes, this was very public information as Nomadder was openly called ArVaDa- in his MPL matches (at least one of them). I'd find it hard to believe if you said you didn't hear about it beforehand knowing that the people you hang around knew about it. If there was substantial evidence that was gathered I'd understand, but what you have given us so far is simple suspicion.

I am not accusing you of being some corrupt tour owner who is trying to sabotage our team, but I just think you aren't really handling this the way it should of been. I appreciate the initiative of asking 3 experts about the situation, but I don't think you presented it to them properly.

4. Another manager gave us these logs: http://imgur.com/a/xBqzK
When they tried defending the case, they simply got shot down without even consideration. The decision is solely based on Eien despite there being two hosts.

Sorry if I got some things wrong, but I thought I should at the least point out what I think was wrong with this decision.

Some might say I am biased because it's my team. Of course, I am making this post because it effects me personally. However, even if Balto had decided to not up bid the Aeros and they were the ones being accused of manipulation, I wouldn't agree with them being banned based on these circumstances.
 
1. If Balto knew about the arvada situation before the draft, then I definitely agree with the decision you have made. The question is, did he actually know?

I was in that manager call and I didnt find anything sinister about the way he talked about nomadder. I was also in the room when ppl were questioning who it was, and arvada's name came up in the first week but I wasn't sure if it was actually true or a meme. After that nothing happened for 3 weeks, then he gets banned out of nowhere?

The way you presented it made it seem as if you knew 100% that Balto had cheated, but now it seems as if you have banned him off of a hunch. To echo the ppl above me, there's a reason you need to know beyond reasonable doubt, and that reason is that if you are wrong, an innocent man gets convicted. I personally have no idea whether Balto knew or not, and that's the whole point.
 
Eien your punishment of Balto is literally meant to screw over his entire team and not just him with no solid evidence he is guilty of what he is being accused of. It might be more reasonable to ban him from managing in future MPLs, but the way it stands now I don't see how you've convinced anyone that you acted without bias. your example of the spl 4 precedent makes literally no difference because you don't know if the team in question would've gotten a replacement had the alt been dqed after the season started. I would be surprised if you actually told the tds why you suspected balto of misusing an alt, instead of assuming he was implicitly guilty. how do you know lax wasn't aware that nomadder was an alt? you say you spoke to him–but oddly enough, completely neglected to talk to balto.
 
Crestfall I'll just respond point by point. I'll elect not to comment that the person that saved those logs didn't have a single word of refutation to my face. I'm happy to clarify a lot of the points here. Thank you for discussing this civilly. I did in fact read the whole thing, just confirming to you now.
The big difference here is that in this scenario you are telling us (the readers) he for sure had the answer key - thus we can all fairly deal a 'verdict' of him being guilty of cheating on this exam. This is not equivalent since from what I've seen and read you actually have no evidence that isn't circumstantial/hearsay.

This is literally no hard proof at all. He could have said this for any myriad of reasons. Such as - having played him before, having spoken to him about his thoughts on the meta, teambuilding, or general understanding of mons/monotype. He could have said this because everyone has an ego with their decisions and I doubt there is a single manager in this tour (or others) who bid on someone they thought was bad - it makes no sense to do this. Of course it stands to reason he is going to defend his own purchase. Why wouldn't he? All I'm reading in that quote is a simple profession of faith in the person he SPENT credits on to buy for his team. I'm not saying you specifically Eien did this, but given how 'shady' those quotes are it's much easier to jump on the bandwagon that it proves he is guilty. It proves nothing at all. This is entirely hearsay and you are extrapolating a meaning from this that is purely subjective.

From what I've been told (do note I could be wrong since I have not seen/read logs myself and am going off the words of others) that Balto never once directly stated anything with regards to knowing he's an alt. Suspecting someone is an alt is not something that needs to be reported. I don't belive there is a rule for this - correct me if I'm wrong. He did have his suspicions but he has no duty to investigate this or let anyone know. He bought someone who he thought was skilled enough to be worth purchasing. In fact ANY time there is a newcomer on smogon who performs well (especially in official tours - re: bloo/style) people get suspicious. That doesn't mean every single low-post/random/'unknown' user who does well is an alt. Sometimes the person is just a new user who is good. I don't see how Balto was expected to know he was an alt and just because there are insinuations (in your opinion) that he knew he was an alt there is still no hard proof of it.
I can understand why it looks like he's speaking out of faith and why it looks like he didn't "have the answer key". However, in the call I remember it very specifically because Balto's words were directed to me. I was with the managers in the call. When nomadderwhat was bought, I spoke up with regards to their skill based on things that user had done in the past, and Balto's response was very clear that I "didn't know who that is". This is not a single-time use of that phrasing. In other private chats, he used that phrasing at least one more time about how the rest of us just "don't know who that is". It's pretty clear first that, of the managers, Lax knows who that is because he nommed nomadderwhat in the first place. I made this exact admission myself when I talked with the TD: it's very possible that Balto could just be defending a sleeper pick that he found. However, it doesn't make sense to say those words at all. The rest of what he said at the time "They (he/she/they I forget) will show you" is perfectly normal and something anyone would say. Claiming that we "don't know who that is" is completely bizarre when we all knew who it was, excluding their identity as an alt. The way in which Balto responded any time anyone brought up nomadderwhat for any reason whatsoever, even if we weren't talking about their performance, was always in the same vein of as if he 'knew better than we did' about how good or bad that player was. It was like he needed to bring up that fact regardless of the topic. The TD and I both agreed that his behavior is just too suspicious.

You have no concrete proof and you're still claiming it's "beyond reasonable doubt"? I don't intend for this to come off as condescending but are you properly familiar with this term? It represents being sure of something to a very, very, very high amount. As I learned it myself 95% likelihood/confidence in your thoughts is enough to be beyond reasonable doubt. There is a reason criminal cases (in the US) have the requirement for the jury to be beyond reasonable doubt, because when accusations this heavy are being levied against anyone you need to be damn sure you are right. And what I've seen is that you have things that cast suspicion on Balto (fair) but have not found anything (that I'm aware of) that shows directly his knowledge of nomadder being an alt. Furthermore you did not even address Balto or ask him anything about this case. He wasn't even given a chance to have an opinion. This is not a cookie cutter case of "I have logs of you ghosting thus you are banned." You based this decision - which has major repercussions for Balto - entirely on extrapolating an opinion from subjective material. I don't see how anything you used to come to this conclusion (excluding your conversations with TDs as no one has access to that) "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I've taken a course on business law. I know what reasonable doubt is. It's not a numeric value at all for what it's worth. Reasonable doubt is having the facts and believing there's no way they can believe in a different conclusion. Based on my experiences with Balto over the past entire month, I look at the way he says things and the way he behaves. I literally cannot draw the conclusion that he didn't know. He's too steadfast in his belief that he knew better than the rest of us. The way he reacted to discussion about nomadderwhat being ArVaDa- was also incredibly suspicious. I'm not sure if I can leak private room logs and dealings, so I won't copy it directly, but he threatened the entire room not to leak (I found out 100% certainty that nomadderwhat was an alt through a different avenue) and as soon as someone brought up whether he knew before the draft or not, he immediately tried to deflect the topic away. Sure, I don't have a "Balto: I knew it was ArVaDa- and did it to get an advantage LOL got you guys", but the things he said in the room and in call are very damning to me in combination.

In fact, I did actually ask him in the room before the decision, and he chose to deflect the question instead of answering. Yes, I did highlight him and he was active in the chat at the time. He can claim he was never confronted, but other people in the room were there and questioning him too. I'm really not sure why he's claiming he was never talked to about it. It's not even that he ignored the question, so to say he might have just not seen it. He typed a very clear sentence to push the topic away and made it clear we were not to leak their identity. He was asked about it back a few weeks ago (as even 1 True Lycan said) and I asked him directly about it this past week. I won't claim whether the TD I spoke with had reasonable doubt because I didn't bring up that phrasing, but I personally do not. I thought about this over two (three now?) days and I just cannot come to a conclusion based on what he's done over the past month.

Don't see why this was necessary. Am I saying the managers you spoke with are not trustworthy and aren't free of bias? No. Can we know for certain? Ofc not. There is little to no reason to not agree with this decision. The benefit is removing a player who is one of the team's only BW players from being able to participate. I'm not saying anyone did this - but we can't know. These decisions should be executive and left to you/Dirpz (and if you really wanted to consult I'd have gone with the section leaders only if necessary). I don't see how asking people who COULD have an inherent bias is wise.
I think you misunderstand what I said. What I'm saying is I talked to other managers about whether or not they knew before the draft either. If everyone knew before the draft and it was just me out of the loop, then that's just me being ignorant. That's why I brought up Lax in the very next line I said. Lax is the one that nommed nomadderwhat, and I wanted to know whether he knew they were ArVaDa-. I spoke with other managers about the knowledge. I absolutely did not discuss the punishment or even the problem with any managers at all. I only spoke with Dirpz and TDs regarding the decision. Other managers may have perhaps guessed based on my questioning, but I didn't leak this decision to anyone other than Misaka Mikoto, who is the other manager of the Petalburg Porygons, as I wanted to give her a heads up before I posted. She didn't know for even 24 hours before I posted.
Managers =/= independent people. Literally the opposite. Anyone IN the tour should not have any influence on this decision (excluding you as the Host). In fact they shouldn't have even known about this decision or investigation. They are inherently biased parties - which you the host should assume. Ultimately it's a tournament and everyone wants to win. This may be a negative way of looking at things but it's the only way to keep things as unbiased and untainted as possible. You have to assume the worst because it's a possibility. Only you as the unbiased Host needs to be involved or other TRULY unbiased and un-involved parties (like the TDs you spoke to).
Again, I'm not talking about managers when I refer to independent people. I'm talking about me going to talk to people outside of the tournament. That's why I spoke with a current TD, a former TD, and a former SPL host. They are all independent and outside of this tour. I didn't speak with anyone in this tournament about the decision other than exactly Dirpz, who is my co-host. I believe him to be as unbiased in this decision as I was. Only a couple of other people in this tour had any prior knowledge that I was looking into this situation, let alone making a decision at all in the first place. One was Misaka Mikoto, as I said I gave her a heads up. The others were people that directly complained to me when they found out about the nomadderwhat and ArVaDa- identity. I didn't consult with them about either making a decision at all, what my decision would be, or what the punishment decided upon would be. The only thing they knew was that I would look into the problem, not that I would do anything about it. I obviously cannot hide the investigation from the people that brought it up to me in the first place. From the time they brought it up until I posted, they had no more knowledge of whether I'd make a post or not.

And one last thing about Balto not nomming nomadderwhat. Why would he nom nomadderwhat early? He should want to nom them at the very end so he can get the buy safely and for as little as possible. I don't see how that's logic at all in defense of him.

As a whole, it looks like whoever gave you that pastebin didn't actually explain any context and, to no fault of your own, you had no way of having the extra information and interactions with Balto.

Regarding the comments of KevinELF, I didn't have 100% knowledge that nomadderwhat was ArVaDa-. I had speculation sure and Balto's very strange behavior. However, I'm not going to disqualify nomadderwhat without knowing 100%. It is partially my fault that I didn't pay attention to the infraction appeal that nomadderwhat references in their post because I would have acted at that time if I realized it.

Secondly, KevinELF, you brought up Discord logs from one week ago in your 4th point. You don't even know what that's discussing. That was a completely different decision and I know 100% that Dirpz would have called me out if I made a decision he disagreed with. You can ask the other people relevant to that decision Anttya Acast Bondie Dirpz to clarify what happened. All of the other managers in the tournament also know what happened but weren't directly related. Feel free to ask any of them as well. Anttya no doubt provided those logs to you and gave you absolutely no context in an attempt to hurt my reputation. The image has nothing to do with this decision. It's kind of saddening that Anttya would do that out of spite because I caught her doing something she shouldn't have and vetoed something before it even became official. I didn't make a formal administrative decision at the time because it was completely internal. Perhaps I should have to avoid this from coming up negatively. The case in that image is completely different, so it is very questionable that Anttya would try to pass it off as such. Note this: it says last Thursday. As I told Crestfall, no manager outside of those that asked me to do it knew I was even investigating, let alone making a decision. Anttya was not one of the managers that came to me and asked me to look into it. Thus, how could she have tried to argue the case? She couldn't because she didn't. That was from the past and actually before any manager actually even complained to me to begin with.

1 True Lycan, I don't know what to say other than I guess I paid more attention to his behavior? The moment he said those words to me I was already very suspicious but I had no proof. As a result, I was watching him pretty damn closely over the past month, which might be why I can recall this. I didn't get 100% absolute proved confirmation of nomadderwhat's identity until I made the administrative decision to disqualify them, so the delay between weeks 1 and 5 should be explained by that.
 
Crestfall I'll just respond point by point. I'll elect not to comment that the person that saved those logs didn't have a single word of refutation to my face. I'm happy to clarify a lot of the points here. Thank you for discussing this civilly. I did in fact read the whole thing, just confirming to you now.

I can understand why it looks like he's speaking out of faith and why it looks like he didn't "have the answer key". However, in the call I remember it very specifically because Balto's words were directed to me. I was with the managers in the call. When nomadderwhat was bought, I spoke up with regards to their skill based on things that user had done in the past, and Balto's response was very clear that I "didn't know who that is". This is not a single-time use of that phrasing. In other private chats, he used that phrasing at least one more time about how the rest of us just "don't know who that is". It's pretty clear first that, of the managers, Lax knows who that is because he nommed nomadderwhat in the first place. I made this exact admission myself when I talked with the TD: it's very possible that Balto could just be defending a sleeper pick that he found. However, it doesn't make sense to say those words at all. The rest of what he said at the time "They (he/she/they I forget) will show you" is perfectly normal and something anyone would say. Claiming that we "don't know who that is" is completely bizarre when we all knew who it was, excluding their identity as an alt. The way in which Balto responded any time anyone brought up nomadderwhat for any reason whatsoever, even if we weren't talking about their performance, was always in the same vein of as if he 'knew better than we did' about how good or bad that player was. It was like he needed to bring up that fact regardless of the topic. The TD and I both agreed that his behavior is just too suspicious.


I've taken a course on business law. I know what reasonable doubt is. It's not a numeric value at all for what it's worth. Reasonable doubt is having the facts and believing there's no way they can believe in a different conclusion. Based on my experiences with Balto over the past entire month, I look at the way he says things and the way he behaves. I literally cannot draw the conclusion that he didn't know. He's too steadfast in his belief that he knew better than the rest of us. The way he reacted to discussion about nomadderwhat being ArVaDa- was also incredibly suspicious. I'm not sure if I can leak private room logs and dealings, so I won't copy it directly, but he threatened the entire room not to leak (I found out 100% certainty that nomadderwhat was an alt through a different avenue) and as soon as someone brought up whether he knew before the draft or not, he immediately tried to deflect the topic away. Sure, I don't have a "Balto: I knew it was ArVaDa- and did it to get an advantage LOL got you guys", but the things he said in the room and in call are very damning to me in combination.

In fact, I did actually ask him in the room before the decision, and he chose to deflect the question instead of answering. Yes, I did highlight him and he was active in the chat at the time. He can claim he was never confronted, but other people in the room were there and questioning him too. I'm really not sure why he's claiming he was never talked to about it. It's not even that he ignored the question, so to say he might have just not seen it. He typed a very clear sentence to push the topic away and made it clear we were not to leak their identity. He was asked about it back a few weeks ago (as even 1 True Lycan said) and I asked him directly about it this past week. I won't claim whether the TD I spoke with had reasonable doubt because I didn't bring up that phrasing, but I personally do not. I thought about this over two (three now?) days and I just cannot come to a conclusion based on what he's done over the past month.


I think you misunderstand what I said. What I'm saying is I talked to other managers about whether or not they knew before the draft either. If everyone knew before the draft and it was just me out of the loop, then that's just me being ignorant. That's why I brought up Lax in the very next line I said. Lax is the one that nommed nomadderwhat, and I wanted to know whether he knew they were ArVaDa-. I spoke with other managers about the knowledge. I absolutely did not discuss the punishment or even the problem with any managers at all. I only spoke with Dirpz and TDs regarding the decision. Other managers may have perhaps guessed based on my questioning, but I didn't leak this decision to anyone other than Misaka Mikoto, who is the other manager of the Petalburg Porygons, as I wanted to give her a heads up before I posted. She didn't know for even 24 hours before I posted.

Again, I'm not talking about managers when I refer to independent people. I'm talking about me going to talk to people outside of the tournament. That's why I spoke with a current TD, a former TD, and a former SPL host. They are all independent and outside of this tour. I didn't speak with anyone in this tournament about the decision other than exactly Dirpz, who is my co-host. I believe him to be as unbiased in this decision as I was. Only a couple of other people in this tour had any prior knowledge that I was looking into this situation, let alone making a decision at all in the first place. One was Misaka Mikoto, as I said I gave her a heads up. The others were people that directly complained to me when they found out about the nomadderwhat and ArVaDa- identity. I didn't consult with them about either making a decision at all, what my decision would be, or what the punishment decided upon would be. The only thing they knew was that I would look into the problem, not that I would do anything about it. I obviously cannot hide the investigation from the people that brought it up to me in the first place. From the time they brought it up until I posted, they had no more knowledge of whether I'd make a post or not.

And one last thing about Balto not nomming nomadderwhat. Why would he nom nomadderwhat early? He should want to nom them at the very end so he can get the buy safely and for as little as possible. I don't see how that's logic at all in defense of him.

As a whole, it looks like whoever gave you that pastebin didn't actually explain any context and, to no fault of your own, you had no way of having the extra information and interactions with Balto.

Regarding the comments of KevinELF, I didn't have 100% knowledge that nomadderwhat was ArVaDa-. I had speculation sure and Balto's very strange behavior. However, I'm not going to disqualify nomadderwhat without knowing 100%. It is partially my fault that I didn't pay attention to the infraction appeal that nomadderwhat references in their post because I would have acted at that time if I realized it.

Secondly, KevinELF, you brought up Discord logs from one week ago in your 4th point. You don't even know what that's discussing. That was a completely different decision and I know 100% that Dirpz would have called me out if I made a decision he disagreed with. You can ask the other people relevant to that decision Anttya Acast Bondie Dirpz to clarify what happened. All of the other managers in the tournament also know what happened but weren't directly related. Feel free to ask any of them as well. Anttya no doubt provided those logs to you and gave you absolutely no context in an attempt to hurt my reputation. The image has nothing to do with this decision. It's kind of saddening that Anttya would do that out of spite because I caught her doing something she shouldn't have and vetoed something before it even became official. I didn't make a formal administrative decision at the time because it was completely internal. Perhaps I should have to avoid this from coming up negatively. The case in that image is completely different, so it is very questionable that Anttya would try to pass it off as such. Note this: it says last Thursday. As I told Crestfall, no manager outside of those that asked me to do it knew I was even investigating, let alone making a decision. Anttya was not one of the managers that came to me and asked me to look into it. Thus, how could she have tried to argue the case? She couldn't because she didn't. That was from the past and actually before any manager actually even complained to me to begin with.

1 True Lycan, I don't know what to say other than I guess I paid more attention to his behavior? The moment he said those words to me I was already very suspicious but I had no proof. As a result, I was watching him pretty damn closely over the past month, which might be why I can recall this. I didn't get 100% absolute proved confirmation of nomadderwhat's identity until I made the administrative decision to disqualify them, so the delay between weeks 1 and 5 should be explained by that.
yes, I definitely did know better of that user than most of the captains. i'll elaborate more on that to clear that up. Myself and Lax were the only two captains who bid/nommed nomadder, and were ridiculed for doing so. Why is that?Nomadder was a very popular player on the side server, and was well known for their ladder peak with a fighting variant/their position in the arbiter league on the side server. When i said 'you don't have any clue who that is', i didn't mean that the way you interpreted it. None of the other captains knew of madder's reputation on the side server, and referred to them as a 'random' iirc. There's a pretty large divide between the smogon monotype community, and the side server one. I was well aware none of the captains spent any time on the side server, and had no clue what nomadder was actually like as a player, hence the words. This goes back to my point about you actually bothering to discuss these things with me before jumping to a conclusion on your administrative decisions.
Edit:
regarding KevinELF 's post, yes that was for a different scenario from last week. That ruling is still relevant to the tour though, as it shows dirpz literally say 'whatever eien says goes'. Really active participation from both hosts, right?
 
Half the reason we chose to do signups on Smogon instead of on a google sheet like last year is to specifically avoid this possibility. Managers have a right to know exactly who they're buying. If you sign up as an alt, there is no way for managers to know, without prior information, that it is you. Because I've had managers come to me regarding this specific issue and the fact that they would have wanted to bid on you, I know you are definitely not a "johnjohn1234". There's simply no two ways about it. First, you may not sign up for Smogon on multiple accounts. Second, you may not join team tours on an alt. These are both facts and you broke both rules. Regardless of whether or not you are punished for breaking the first (global Smogon) rule, you still broke the second (tournament-specific) rule. If you can show that you are not in fact an alt and did not sign up on an alt for this tournament, then I will review your disqualification. However, given that you admit to being an alt in your response, I don't believe this is possible. As a result, there is no reason I would reverse the ruling and it stands.
Nah I can't. If it is black and white to the point that over a year of good mundane behavior can't fix because people would've drafted me on name alone, I am kinda out of ammo. Sorry porygons thats my bad, if I was smart enough to declare relevant alts (never suited my style to make a scene) like some others did in the sign ups I wouldn't have put you guys under pressure. Don't have much else to say, I'll take the managers who wanted to draft me as a compliment and move on. Those who did care should say hi to me at least since you would've enjoyed my company. I wouldn't mind reacquainting myself with old buddies. Its not a trap I swear haha, some of you were going to college / just entered the work force and I genuinely wouldn't mind catching up if you are interested. You have the no roast guarantee, cross my heart and swear to die!
 
i've never heard of a td case where a ban was made based on trying to interpret someone's words. are you a psychology major or something? bans are done based on concrete proof, such as screenshots. it seems to me like your refusal to disclose private room logs means you care more about people not seeing a few lines of circlejerking or not taking heat for "leaking" rather than defending a decision which is not solid to begin with. and for god's sake stop using "the TD said this" in your argument. why does the TD care about the outcome of this decision? why would they have any reason to disagree; your "evidence" is shaky enough, in fact, you have a grand total of one, maybe two lines of what you HEARD balto say, and are unwilling or unable to provide more. what makes you think a td would be better informed? as for deflecting when you asked him about nomadder; again you can't provide any logs or evidence. maybe he suspected nomadder might be an alt, but didn't want to potentially create more drama? maybe nomadder has been performing, so he'd rather not him come under scrutiny? these are all things i'd expect any manager to do, and none of which are against the rules.
 
yes, I definitely did know better of that user than most of the captains. i'll elaborate more on that to clear that up. Myself and Lax were the only two captains who bid/nommed nomadder, and were ridiculed for doing so. Why is that?Nomadder was a very popular player on the side server, and was well known for their ladder peak with a fighting variant/their position in the arbiter league on the side server. When i said 'you don't have any clue who that is', i didn't mean that the way you interpreted it. None of the other captains knew of madder's reputation on the side server, and referred to them as a 'random' iirc. There's a pretty large divide between the smogon monotype community, and the side server one. I was well aware none of the captains spent any time on the side server, and had no clue what nomadder was actually like as a player, hence the words. This goes back to my point about you actually bothering to discuss these things with me before jumping to a conclusion on your administrative decisions.
Edit:
regarding KevinELF 's post, yes that was for a different scenario from last week. That ruling is still relevant to the tour though, as it shows dirpz literally say 'whatever eien says goes'. Really active participation from both hosts, right?
All I'll say is I'm glad you confirm that you said those words to the people that might not believe me. I and our room attempted to discuss it with you and you chose to exert your authority to prevent it.

Nah I can't. If it is black and white to the point that over a year of good mundane behavior can't fix because people would've drafted me on name alone, I am kinda out of ammo. Sorry porygons thats my bad, if I was smart enough to declare relevant alts (never suited my style to make a scene) like some others did in the sign ups I wouldn't have put you guys under pressure. Don't have much else to say, I'll take the managers who wanted to draft me as a compliment and move on. Those who did care should say hi to me at least since you would've enjoyed my company. I wouldn't mind reacquainting myself with old buddies. Its not a trap I swear haha, some of you were going to college / just entered the work force and I genuinely wouldn't mind catching up if you are interested. You have the no roast guarantee, cross my heart and swear to die!
Nothing against you personally. It's a shame because I'm sure if you were on your main or alerted someone none of this would have happened. I know managers would have bid on you, and it's just not fair to them. Sorry that this had to happen like this. I'd be more than happy to see you participating next year. I was simply confused that you would make that appeal knowing you shouldn't have alts but not explain to the hosts of the tour that you're on an alt.

Dominatio let me just blanket respond to you because a lot of what you said is really bizarre. First, my interpretation of the cited precedent was confirmed by people relevant to it. So maybe I don't know 100%, but the way it's written makes it very clear to me:
In the future if a user gets physically removed from the team's roster (like to host the tour), the manager has the option to take 3k towards midseason pickups, or autopick from the remaining users who signed up. This is to prevent situations in which the team drops below the minimum requirement of 14 players to participate in SPL (12 tiers and 2 subs). In addition, the autopicks should have been awarded earlier and will be award immediately in the future. The team is granted a pick only from the list of people who signed up at the beginning of the season, not during midseason. The order of autopicks is decided by the order the players were banned. Finally, this rule only applies to people who get banned before the season begins.
Maybe you read this differently, but as far as I can tell, you only get an autopick if they were banned before the season begins. nomadderwhat was banned after the season began, so the Porygons don't get an autopick.

Rule #1 of private rooms is not to leak logs. That's why I'm unwilling to release them. It certainly isn't an inability.

Also, I refer to TDs because people are making the claim that I made a unilateral decision. They have no immediate jurisdiction over a subforum tournament as far as I know, but they are independent parties that are experienced with their own tours. I consulted with them to see if my decision was appropriate and obviously consulted with Dirpz. I'm not granting TDs authority over this tournament. I'm a co-host, so I make the decisions (e: with my co-host as well, since I'm absolutely sure people will misconstrue this after the ridiculous thing KevinELF posted). The only consultation was whether my decisions and punishments were proper or not, not asking them to judge this issue. They're not related outside of being a consultant. I would appreciate it if you actually read my posts instead of criticizing me in ways that have false premises and aren't sound.

Due to the quality of certain responses so far by certain people, I'm going to close discussion of this topic. My PMs are always open on Smogon or on Discord. Feel free to PM me your concerns after reading in full what I have said on the matter. Further posting of this topic in this thread meant for midseason week will be deleted.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top