Curse

Demesis · Sep 02, 2006, 07:31 AM // 07:31

Anet hasn't really have any justification to ban whoever for the ladder manipulation. Because they chose not to elaborate on the rules, people will abuse the loopholes.

Hell, there was a vague rule about scammers in the EULA. Not to cause distress to other players. Anet rarely took action against these people.

There were absolutely NO rules governing GvG about this type ladder manipulation. It's like getting arrested for a nonexistent law. What? You mean it's illegal to steal from a shopping mall? Of course not, and it's common sense. But some people don't follow common sense, sometimes they are even fully aware of their actions. Putting up rules and law doesn't discourage unfair gameplay. But it does GIVE YOU THE RIGHT to prosecute those abusing as such.

That's why it is so important to make sure you (Anet) have a detailed and foolproof rule system. Because the rules were vague or nonexistent people abused it. For that, you have absolutely no power to ban them, because TECHNICALLY they haven't broken any rules.

Fanta · Sep 02, 2006, 08:42 AM // 08:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadOnion

I completely agree with this post. While losing intentionally to another team might be considered morally wrong to most people, if it (or anything closely related) is not directly stated in the rules, it shouldn't be bannable. I seriously doubt any of the guilds in question would have asked opposing teams to resign had they known that doing so was against the rules.

Do understand though that some of these guilds actually had pug guilds ready on there ventrilo servers and timing in spikes to enter matches at the same time. If a team honestly thinks they have no chance of winning, no there is no problem there; but there is a major problem when you are prepared to fight a specific target guild where it is premeditated to lose and give rating to one of the guilds. Some of these guilds are alpha testing guilds who are supposed to respresent the community in a positive form rather than set the bad role model example.

Of course this will be denied, but people need to understand that this isn't as much about random guilds resigning out rather than a premeditated plan like stated above.

Also, more than just those three guilds had info sent to Anet about them. It was anet's decision on who took the heavier end of this ordeal based on the severity of their actions.

I do believe though that clearity in the future is key, but like stated before, this won't solve the problem of guilds planning these acts outside of the guild wars servers where logs can be tracked.

I believe this time anet's eyes opened because apparently a huge chunk of the community had emailed anet their thought's and opinions of the situation. I myself probably would have sent in some info, but had no proof myself, but i am being up front and honest.

Gli · Sep 02, 2006, 09:13 AM // 09:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

Guilds will be disqualified if they engage in ladder abuse, as determined by Sponsor in its sole discretion, or if they are banned from the game for any reason, including without limitation a violation of the Guild Wars User Agreement. If individual players are disqualified, the guild may also be disqualified.

That's all that's needed to justify cracking down on any kind of fraud and unsportsmanlike behavior anyone can think of. People who think every infraction needs to be written down in minute detail should be asking themselves what the hell they're doing playing this game anyway.

You can't play in a competition flying under that statement up there and hope to get away with anything, nor can you complain afterwards that ANet did exactly what they stated: disqualify at their solo discretion.

They said they would.

They did.

Get over it.

(SK)Pariah · Sep 02, 2006, 09:20 AM // 09:20

This string of comments is going by so fast I can't even dare to catch up and read all of the posts... Too much quoting...too much speculation...too much of everything.

Oddly enough...I haven't even been a PvP player until about 2 months back with a character that is about a year old...but this whole affair has left a bad taste in my mouth. There is no question in my mind that at the time I am typing these words...that another two pages of remarks will have been made, but here goes:

1) If there was proof of ladder manipulation...why would these teams even have been allowed to continue in matches after the lock?

2) If these are high ranking guilds...why do we even hold their members in such high esteem?

I've started observing the matches in GvG and I'm constantly disgusted by the comments of people that 'such and such is wrong' and 'they know what they're doing' and all of the other backseat guilding. I feel like I'm constantly under watch from the W(hat) W(ould) (xxxxxxx) D(o)... And it just makes me hate PvP even more.

I can stand the people screaming 'n00b' and even the 'you don't know what you're talking about'.. But when players start referencing other players...as an edict from god...that's when I draw the line.

My interest in the naming of guilds is purely to discredit the fame that apparently certain players have gotten due to their rank in this system.. That may never happen...but I'd be a lot happier knowing the who and what of this situation...

Btw...If a guild smurfs...and gets more than one group within the top whatever...without actually resign fixing....the more power to them. Apparently those guys have more time and dedication to this game than anyone else out there...and as such...they should be rewarded... However...throwing a fight...is just lame.

In reference to the /resign spiking... If that's what it was...then just get a clue.. Throw a match by losing closely... As to the Don King reference...no fighter goes down in the first match (*edit* round)...and neither should any guild.. /resign is too obvious...you should expect smart guild players to act smarter than that.

If this post doesn't make any sense...then I'm sorry...but if it does...then I'm really happy.

Arturo02 · Sep 02, 2006, 09:35 AM // 09:35

this situation is very similar to steroids in sports. Once it becomes public, you begin to question every win and result. Anet can only do so much to stop it. It's up to us to not cheat.

And funny thing, like in sports, nobody in the pvp community is making a stand and saying they don't condone this behavior. Everyone is defending cheating.

Where are the top gvg guilds at? Why are they not defending their integrity?

TheLordOfBlah · Sep 02, 2006, 04:43 PM // 16:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redly

I do not deny that the smurfing and such should be stopped--I'm glad ANet is taking notice. However...

STORYTIME

Once upon a time, in the state of Kentucky, in the United States... there were a series of motor accidents. Emergency vehicles would pull onto the shoulder, either fully or partially, with their lights flashing. However, motorists travelling on the highway would approach too fast and end up clipping the vehicle, or perhaps even a person standing at the scene.

Kentucky passed a law, legally requiring all motorists to either slow down when approaching flashing lights, or to move into the far lane, away from the stopped emergency vehicles. The state put up signs as warnings of the new law--and, over the first month or so, police would pull violaters over and inform them of the new law, getting the word out, and let them go with a warning that the future would hold fierce punishments for violators.

The state did not -immediately- begin writing tickets, even though it started a small campaign while the law was being written. Instead, they made sure everyone understood what had happened, and what would happen if they continue to violate the new law.

...

Compare this with ANet, who stood silent on this subject (and, according to WoC online radio listeners, even some ANet designers recognized the 'strategy' inherent in /resign spikes and such)... and now suddenly pull out the rewards from guilds who have been acting congruent with the standards of high-end PvP.

I agree that smurfing and the like needs to stop; but ANet didn't need to do it this way. It was harsh, done without any warning or communication. This is NOT the way to inspire confidence within your customer base; but rather, only one more example of how ANet will do whatever it darn well pleases, and we are expected to nod dumbly and support them, buying the next expansion without question.

I guess we're just lucky that the Imperial ANet Edict aligned with
(most of) our opinions this time...

Come on now... The first thing you mentioned was for a specific rule that was added later. People in this game should know that manipulating the ladder is against the rules. Its so blatantly obvious and the people doing it must know that its against the rules. People dont be stupid here.

Lets say I steal something and I'm caught, I shouldnt get off because it was a "first offense". Its a completely obvious rule that you dont steal from other people and in this case when you want to compete you agree that you understand the rules so theres no exceptions.

Swinging Fists · Sep 02, 2006, 05:50 PM // 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demesis

Anet hasn't really have any justification to ban whoever for the ladder manipulation. Because they chose not to elaborate on the rules, people will abuse the loopholes.

And by abusing loopholes, they have done nothing to earn a spot in the top 16. They are not one of the top 16, and therefore shall be removed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demesis

There were absolutely NO rules governing GvG about this type ladder manipulation. It's like getting arrested for a nonexistent law. What? You mean it's illegal to steal from a shopping mall? Of course not, and it's common sense. But some people don't follow common sense, sometimes they are even fully aware of their actions. Putting up rules and law doesn't discourage unfair gameplay. But it does GIVE YOU THE RIGHT to prosecute those abusing as such.

This gives ANet the right:

Quote:

Guilds will be disqualified if they engage in ladder abuse, as determined by Sponsor in its sole discretion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demesis

That's why it is so important to make sure you (Anet) have a detailed and foolproof rule system. Because the rules were vague or nonexistent people abused it. For that, you have absolutely no power to ban them, because TECHNICALLY they haven't broken any rules.

I would prefer ANet spend their time resolving err7 issues, working on new content, fixing bugs, etc... instead of compiling exhausive lists to spell out what constitutes ladder manipulation to the utterly moronic.

And they weren't banned.

Stockholm · Sep 02, 2006, 05:54 PM // 17:54

Any "dive" should be punished, and with A-nets logs they should be able to determin if foul play was involved.
But NO wrist slapping, because they happen to be among the top guilds.
And I don't care if the involved people know, or socialias with employes from A-net or are Alpha testers, they should be given a ban, and have the guild names published, so everyone knows them for the cheats they are.
You ban ppl for buying items for $ 5-30 but when champion ship is at stake you wrist slap.
Freaking Joke.
Bet the new's would have a field day with this kind of corruption.

Knoobish · Sep 02, 2006, 06:05 PM // 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

Do you think that we need to write out, "Do not take a dive? Do not lose a game intentionally to raise the points of another guild? Do not ask other guilds to take a dive to benefit your team?" Surely such things are obvious, are they not? I learned such things back in my hopscotch days.

That's like having a sport where it isn't written down that you can't punch the opposing team in the face, but people do anyways and one day the ref finally decides this is morally wrong. I mean, these athletes should have known punching someone in the face was wrong: you get suspended from school for doing it, your parents will ground you, you'll get arrested, whatever. But they've been doing it for so long, it's almost as the unwritten rule says the opposite as what is being enforced.

It's kind of unfair to them, even though they were breaking a rule, that you all of a sudden slap down a rule that wasn't in writing. All of this debate would not be here if this was written beforehand.

Demesis · Sep 02, 2006, 06:33 PM // 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swinging Fists

I would prefer ANet spend their time resolving err7 issues, working on new content, fixing bugs, etc... instead of compiling exhausive lists to spell out what constitutes ladder manipulation to the utterly moronic.

And they weren't banned.

My bad, they weren't banned.

But then again,

Quote:

Guilds will be disqualified if they engage in ladder abuse, as determined by Sponsor in its sole discretion

Is a vague rule by itself.

Hell, if this forum were to be determined by the sole discretion of the moderators, we'd all get banned because this type of phrasing doesn't tell us jack about what constitutes a forum violation.

So far in that quote, only the sponsors know exactly what the definition and specificality of 'ladder abuse' really means. We are all still left in the dark here.

Fenix Swiftblade · Sep 02, 2006, 06:35 PM // 18:35

It seems to me that this is about as effective a warning as ANet could have come up with.

This was the perfect time to set the precedent of enforcing the rule during an actual season, instead of just saying, "Watch out next season, because we're going to start watching." We as players now know that they mean business with this umbrella rule against ladder manipulation, and no one really got hurt. Some teams didn't get the cape trims they thought they earned (but didn't) and that's the worst that happened. And now we know that these actions wont be tolerated.

It seems to me that this is exactly the warning that everyone is saying they should have given. Had they just said something about "we will enforce this rule next season" most people wouldn't have believed it. And then, when it actually mattered, when the top 16 guilds would go to the playoffs, and the rules is enforced, there would be even more of a negative reaction than there is now, and the guilds that broke the rule will lose far more than a simple cape trim that only lasts for one season.

That's what I think the real purpose of these disqualifications was. It sets the precedent that ANet takes this rule seriously. IT WILL BE ENFORCED, AND YOU WILL BE DISQUALIFIED. Make sure that you keep that in mind during the rest of the guild wars ladder seasons.

Demesis · Sep 02, 2006, 06:44 PM // 18:44

They had to wait until the damage was done until they decided to enforce it?

Tortoise · Sep 02, 2006, 06:46 PM // 18:46

Seriously though: if you're feeding another Guild rating points then you are manipulating the ladder. There is no gray area in the cases of the guilds that got punished afaik. If you're asking another guild to take a dive when you're clearly losing a match then you are trying to manipulate the ladder.

Whether or not both parties agree in the deal is irrelevant, whether or not the guilds in question do it as an act of courtesy is irrelevant. Botomline is: it IS ladder manipulation in every sense of the word. The term 'ladder manipulation' isn't nearly as vague or problematic as 'free-will' or 'soul'.

While I will support more clear rules it is also obvious that these cases fall perfectly under the current rules. A list of more common punishable offenses would be nice but it's nonsense to claim that the guilds invovled weren't knowingly breaking that rule. The rule is vague, but all of these cases clearly fall under it.

Vanquisher · Sep 02, 2006, 08:06 PM // 20:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by animal

Do understand though that some of these guilds actually had pug guilds ready on there ventrilo servers and timing in spikes to enter matches at the same time. If a team honestly thinks they have no chance of winning, no there is no problem there; but there is a major problem when you are prepared to fight a specific target guild where it is premeditated to lose and give rating to one of the guilds. Some of these guilds are alpha testing guilds who are supposed to respresent the community in a positive form rather than set the bad role model example.

Of course this will be denied, but people need to understand that this isn't as much about random guilds resigning out rather than a premeditated plan like stated above.

Also, more than just those three guilds had info sent to Anet about them. It was anet's decision on who took the heavier end of this ordeal based on the severity of their actions.

I do believe though that clearity in the future is key, but like stated before, this won't solve the problem of guilds planning these acts outside of the guild wars servers where logs can be tracked.

I believe this time anet's eyes opened because apparently a huge chunk of the community had emailed anet their thought's and opinions of the situation. I myself probably would have sent in some info, but had no proof myself, but i am being up front and honest.

1) Proof please? Until then please stop spreading such rumours. It seems to me this is a "your word against mine" type of thing. After the entire collection that your Guild was a huge participant in (from what I heard, Talla spent over 2 hours collecting and helping Chu Chu with screenshots and evidence of some sort) - remember though, that evidence wasn't what got us in trouble. We got in trouble for asking a team to resign out to us, which may have been wrong, but about 50% of the top 20 Guilds also did so.

2) I don't think it's fair for you to talk about ladder manipulation in any way when you control a top 20 smurf Guild, which one night your Guild went on to avoid playing us on their main, and actually try to actively tank us. While you can say we did the same to RenO, and I cannot disagree, I am being honest about the things we did. I'd personally say that that tanking was far more manipulative than asking a team to resign out to us. I'm also unsure of whether you guys wouldn't have asked BR to resign out had they not said "are you going to ask us to resign like QQ" after you started losing to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLordOfBlah

Come on now... The first thing you mentioned was for a specific rule that was added later. People in this game should know that manipulating the ladder is against the rules. Its so blatantly obvious and the people doing it must know that its against the rules. People dont be stupid here.

Lets say I steal something and I'm caught, I shouldnt get off because it was a "first offense". Its a completely obvious rule that you dont steal from other people and in this case when you want to compete you agree that you understand the rules so theres no exceptions.

After what we believed as precedents were set in resigning out (it had never been acted on in the past) and requesting a Guild to resign out (which had also never been acted on in the past), is it fair to ban Guilds for doing the same with no warning? Yes on terms of the manipulation, but no on terms of what has happened in the past. Honestly, we thought we played this fairly in terms of what ArenaNet has done in the past. We were wrong, we accept it. But I'll be damned if I'm going to accept people thinking we're the one evil with no evidence of what has happened other than word-of-mouth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tortoise

Seriously though: if you're feeding another Guild rating points then you are manipulating the ladder. There is no gray area in the cases of the guilds that got punished afaik. If you're asking another guild to take a dive when you're clearly losing a match then you are trying to manipulate the ladder.

Whether or not both parties agree in the deal is irrelevant, whether or not the guilds in question do it as an act of courtesy is irrelevant. Botomline is: it IS ladder manipulation in every sense of the word. The term 'ladder manipulation' isn't nearly as vague or problematic as 'free-will' or 'soul'.

While I will support more clear rules it is also obvious that these cases fall perfectly under the current rules. A list of more common punishable offenses would be nice but it's nonsense to claim that the guilds invovled weren't knowingly breaking that rule. The rule is vague, but all of these cases clearly fall under it.

Just a few issues here, I would ask you to comment on.

1) If a team is dominating the other, but has an error7, and the team that was losing starts winning purely because of the error7, is it ok for the team that was dominating to ask for the other team to resign?
2) If a team has collected 45~ DP in the first 10 minutes, and is forced to retreat, should they be forced to stay in the match until they are even DP'ed out or their Guild Lord is dead?
3) If another team has an issue with a Guild, and decides to make a mockery of them by DP'ing them out, should the team that is going to be DP'ed out be forced to stay in the match until they are DP'ed out or their Lord is dead?

The Real Avalon · Sep 02, 2006, 08:23 PM // 20:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanquisher

Just a few issues here, I would ask you to comment on.

1) If a team is dominating the other, but has an error7, and the team that was losing starts winning purely because of the error7, is it ok for the team that was dominating to ask for the other team to resign?
2) If a team has collected 45~ DP in the first 10 minutes, and is forced to retreat, should they be forced to stay in the match until they are even DP'ed out or their Guild Lord is dead?
3) If another team has an issue with a Guild, and decides to make a mockery of them by DP'ing them out, should the team that is going to be DP'ed out be forced to stay in the match until they are DP'ed out or their Lord is dead?

Hmm, i think you should be allowed to resign any time you wish in these cases,

About the resigning, i'm 100% sure, if you have just the slightest bit of a jackass in your guild, he'd ask the other team to resign because they need their deer in GvG, they need to kill them so they'd drop ectos, they're a fame-farming service for this chap, etc.

What if a guild is so impulsive that they actually do this, someone sees it and reports you.

Imagine being kicked out of wearing your shiny cape & having to start all over again.

I'd like some comments on that one

(So, if you fight against a guild like that, you could force them to lose all their hard worked ranks, by having made some screenies?)

Cheers,

Avalon

ChaoticCoyote · Sep 02, 2006, 08:24 PM // 20:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

So you, don't know that knowingly losing to a team is ladder abuse? You honestly feel that we should write out every single bloomin' possible infraction? That to say this--Guilds will be disqualified if they engage in ladder abuse, as determined by Sponsor in its sole discretion, or if they are banned from the game for any reason, including without limitation a violation of the Guild Wars User Agreement. If individual players are disqualified, the guild may also be disqualified.--is not sufficient?

[snip]

I will speak to our tournament coordinator and see if he feels that the rules must spell out every possible permutation of cheating. I think he will tell me that the rules cover it.

In principle, I agree with you, Gaile.

However, I long ago learned that "principle" must be reconsidered when confronted by humans.

Yes, you *do* need to spell out *exactly* what contitiutes a violation, in clear and uncertain terms. Otherwise, your current "rule" leaves ANet open to accusations (however unfounded) of inconsistency and bias (as we see in this thread).

Sometimes, you write the rules to protect yourself.

Fanta · Sep 02, 2006, 09:06 PM // 21:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanquisher

1) Proof please? Until then please stop spreading such rumours. It seems to me this is a "your word against mine" type of thing. After the entire collection that your Guild was a huge participant in (from what I heard, Talla spent over 2 hours collecting and helping Chu Chu with screenshots and evidence of some sort) - remember though, that evidence wasn't what got us in trouble. We got in trouble for asking a team to resign out to us, which may have been wrong, but about 50% of the top 20 Guilds also did so.

2) I don't think it's fair for you to talk about ladder manipulation in any way when you control a top 20 smurf Guild, which one night your Guild went on to avoid playing us on their main, and actually try to actively tank us. While you can say we did the same to RenO, and I cannot disagree, I am being honest about the things we did. I'd personally say that that tanking was far more manipulative than asking a team to resign out to us. I'm also unsure of whether you guys wouldn't have asked BR to resign out had they not said "are you going to ask us to resign like QQ" after you started losing to them.

I don't know why you are so persistent on defending yourselfs for these actions you deny. We had people in your vent when it happened with people from girl in the channel, I didn't know guilds like to be in the same channel in matches, sorry. Not to mention we know people from your guild were jumping in and out of ours too.

This doesn't even include the [love] resign outs where they did it at least 3 times, which we have in screenshots and words them saying that "of course we are going to resign out to them cuz we are in their alliance."

It seems to me qq thinks this is "fish singling us out." I've gotten random messages from people i don't even know after the situation saying they backed us up too and sent in any info they attained.

And on a personal note, i can't believe anything you say as you say my guildies who were in your guild that time HELPING qq get hundred's of rating were lying when you guys were talking behind our backs. You just seem like a pathological liar to me. It seems to me you are trying to keep everyone happy by lying but it just comes around full circle when you get caught. I really don't know how to trust you vanq, im sorry.

And on smurf notes, yes we did switch over to purp when we were tipped off you guys were going to go in on girl to tank us. But that's a worthless statement as it's speculation on us and you guys, for each guild saying that eachother was going in with intent to tank. Maybe we both just felt eachother were going to do that.

I am against smurfs personal, but yes i did play 2 matches with purp, which we both lost anyways. A few others and I in the guild want to get rid of purp all together. At least we didn't have an outlet to 2 different smurf/pug guilds at our disposal which were also floating around top20 trying to get top16 for silver capes to sell the guild.

A note we can both agree on though is that these rules do need to be clarified. They were bent by some guilds and anet finally took action. People complain about it being sudden, but it's better late then never. People were complaining so much about nothing being done in the past, now the guilds who got caught are complaining action was finally taken. They punishment isn't even severe, but can be set as an example of what can happen to come now. Hopefully this will be an extension in the future to prevent and stop these actions from happening.

People are trying to use ignorance and and lack of common sense to their defense, and with these being punishable rules, even the dumbest of people should have the rules put out to them in simple terms. I guess not everyone in the guild wars community uses their head for thinking.

If truly action was took only on the BR match, then yes, I don't agree with that, but there IS evidence of much more than that and that's why I don't agree with your statements.

Skye Marin · Sep 02, 2006, 09:38 PM // 21:38

Anet is entirely justified. The Guilds that manipulated the ladder should have known better not to, and they shall be punished accordingly. Those who request every rule be spelt out, they should read the sign:

It's about moral fibre.

Why didn't they do anything before?
Because this specific case didn't happen before.

Anet is drawing a hard and fast line about this now. If you think that they need to write this specific incident in the ELUA, then you should go ahead and repeat this incident yourself, and see exactly how guity they feel about taking appropriate action.

Anet is in the right.

MrBiggums · Sep 02, 2006, 09:51 PM // 21:51

so you broke the rules...

your excuse is that you didnt know it was against the rules and other people did it.....

so if you murder someone and say that you didnt know murder was against the law you go free?

if someone else jumped off a bridge you would too?

stop whining please you broke the rules so deal with the consequences.

Age · Sep 02, 2006, 10:04 PM // 22:04

I guess you can take a fall on hopscotch just fall down and say you broke you leg.rofl

Oh well so what some guilds play like who knows and a big SNFU hit oh well.