SPL XIII - Commencement Thread

[TJ]

Since everyone is playing politics rn, I just wanna say Happy Black History Month to my fellow black kings, our month has come
CTI (first black spl manager), Bushtush, njnp, roscoe, Isza, Splash, Goblin, Ajna, dave, Leftiez, Updated Kanto, Hammy, Confide, The Strap, roxiee, jonfilch, Tace, TONE, Bluxio, Perry, Ninahaza, Groudon, Seo. Pop smoke, BigBallerBrand, blarghlfarghl reyscarface

 

[The Strap]

Since everyone is playing politics rn, I just wanna say Happy Black History Month to my fellow black kings, our month has come
CTI (first black spl manager), Bushtush, njnp, roscoe, Isza, Splash, Goblin, Ajna, dave, Leftiez, Updated Kanto, Hammy, Confide, The Strap, roxiee, jonfilch, Tace, TONE, Bluxio, Perry, Ninahaza, Groudon, Seo. Pop smoke, BigBallerBrand, blarghlfarghl

The Strap demands that roxiee is taken off this list

 

[spell]

Since everyone is playing politics rn, I just wanna say Happy Black History Month to my fellow black kings, our month has come
CTI (first black spl manager), Bushtush, njnp, roscoe, Isza, Splash, Goblin, Ajna, dave, Leftiez, Updated Kanto, Hammy, Confide, The Strap, roxiee, jonfilch, Tace, TONE, Bluxio, Perry, Ninahaza, Groudon, Seo. Pop smoke, BigBallerBrand, blarghlfarghl reyscarface

Happy black history month TJ may your fufu taste good tonight

 

[KM]

isn't that something we've been trying to collectively weed out though? Like for a ban to be effective you want the person you do it to to be actively gone right? Like people skirt rules all the time - very true, but you can't on one hand look to stamp out rule skirting then use "well they should be willing to stick around by default" as an epic gotcha

if they're gone and not using the site, congrats your ban had the intended effect, no further sanction necessary?

i'm not saying it's not a good thing -- i'm just saying the implication that the rule that devin shouldn't have been in the discord had any actual effect on his activity is fake and we shouldn't be entertaining it. like yes -- there is a contradiction between the policies right now and it should be clarified in the future, but pretending that the policy contradiction had any impact on devin's activity level and isn't just a post hoc justification is dumb

 

[eden]

Well moment he got sold back what's his incentive to stick around? He's essentially an outsider with nothing to gain?

People do stick around and help p often, but once you're officially not on the team anymore surely you don't have an obligation to do so? To punish him for not sticking around implies there's an obligation,

Whether a lot of people happen to wish to stay around or not really isn't the basis on which rulings should be made imo

Your replacement is there to yknow, replace you and pick up the slack created by you not being there lol, it's obviously not a like for like replacement but that's outside the scope of the convo

 

[Kyo]

Obviously the double ban is ridiculous, it's not that deep. Anyone posting page long think pieces on this topic is a lost cause ​

 

[Adaam]

The rule on sellbacks is flawed; there’s a massive hole in it and that came into play here. Nobody should be doubly punished for anything. I hope to fix the rule and retroactively apply it to Devin.

The hosts applied the rule as it is written. They were set-up for failure and public backlash here because of this, so it’s not their fault. TDs in SPL have their hands tied sometimes and it also leaves hosts without resources. We need to work on setting our contributors up for success rather than this.

The TD team should and will review rules, but we have had massive turnover recently and a lot of new faces (including some of the hosts), which makes things hectic and difficult. I’m sorry for those who feel wronged and hope to play my part in making things right, but being rude doesn’t solve anything and it can hurt innocent people.

These are my individual thoughts.

 

[bb skarm]

wow it only got better, anyone else here a rocky fan btw

 

[antemortem]

Since everyone is playing politics rn, I just wanna say Happy Black History Month to my fellow black kings, our month has come
CTI (first black spl manager), Bushtush, njnp, roscoe, Isza, Splash, Goblin, Ajna, dave, Leftiez, Updated Kanto, Hammy, Confide, The Strap, roxiee, jonfilch, Tace, TONE, Bluxio, Perry, Ninahaza, Groudon, Seo. Pop smoke, BigBallerBrand, blarghlfarghl reyscarface

happy mfin Black History Month

Happy black history month TJ may your fufu taste good tonight

PLEASE someone dm me the best west african joint in LA because i’m hankering

 

[roxie]

The Strap demands that roxiee is taken off this list

Goofy ass clown

happy black history month <3

 

[Astra]

wow it only got better, anyone else here a rocky fan btw

rocky fuego, he that pretty motherfucker

 

[august]

I'd like to address a few things brought up in this thread, as a member of the TD team and the host team.

On the topic of the punishment bestowed on devin:

The host team has three (3) people on it, two of us are tournament directors. The remaining tournament directors only get to comment on SPL related concerns if they are not a part of the tournament. This is essential to avoid conflicts of interest. We are not here to make new rules, especially not in the middle of an on-going tournament. This is not the first time that we have stated it, in fact it's not even the first time that we've stated in during this edition of the tournament. We make small patches to existing rules which do not adequately cover the circumstances and are time sensitive. Following the tournament, these are discussed with a full team of tournament directors, so that we can try to decide what direction to go in.

In the case of devin being handed a punishment: devin's sell back was approved under "not meeting the minimum activity requirement". There is a rule attached to being sold back at midseason under the guise of inability to meet the minimum activity threshold. For your convenience, I have attached the rule below.

Minimum Activity Expected of Players: Being picked for a team tournament also means we expect a minimum level of commitment to that team, regardless of whether a player is starting or not. If a manager finds that their player is not showing acceptable levels of activity, and after attempting to work things out with the player themselves, they may get in contact with the TD team about it. A player whose activity we find to be below this threshold will be infracted with Unsportsmanlike Conduct, a DQ from this edition of the Tournament in question and a ban from the next edition of this same tournament. (Source: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/tournament-rules-and-general-guidelines.3642760/)

The argument seems to be that we are applying this rule incorrectly. As soon as devins sellback under minimum activity was approved, this comes directly alongside it. Other arguments, i.e. whether or not he should be allowed to be sold back, come from further upstream. Once we arrive at the fact that he was sold back under minimum activity, this rule is applied. This is, by the Letter Of The Law, not an incorrect application of the rule.

Now, of course, there are circumstances that make this a tricky situation that occurred further up the stream. devin was given a forum ban. Should this rule apply to users who have already been removed from the tournament as a result of a forum ban? The way that it is currently written does not make a distinction. This is not a problem with the application of the rule, this is a problem with the rule itself.

As mentioned when other existing rules were brought up for post-hoc modification following SPL, we are happy to have the discussion in a Tournament Policy Thread and append further guidelines for handling situations like these. Such rules can even be applied retroactively! The commencement/week threads are not tournament policy threads however, and posting in them is not going to get us anywhere. This is something that can and will be revisited when a full team of TDs is available for discussion.

 

[WinstonRed]

I'd like to address a few things brought up in this thread, as a member of the TD team and the host team.

On the topic of the punishment bestowed on devin:

The host team has three (3) people on it, two of us are tournament directors. The remaining tournament directors only get to comment on SPL related concerns if they are not a part of the tournament. This is essential to avoid conflicts of interest. We are not here to make new rules, especially not in the middle of an on-going tournament. This is not the first time that we have stated it, in fact it's not even the first time that we've stated in during this edition of the tournament. We make small patches to existing rules which do not adequately cover the circumstances and are time sensitive. Following the tournament, these are discussed with a full team of tournament directors, so that we can try to decide what direction to go in.

In the case of devin being handed a punishment: devin's sell back was approved under "not meeting the minimum activity requirement". There is a rule attached to being sold back at midseason under the guise of inability to meet the minimum activity threshold. For your convenience, I have attached the rule below.

Minimum Activity Expected of Players: Being picked for a team tournament also means we expect a minimum level of commitment to that team, regardless of whether a player is starting or not. If a manager finds that their player is not showing acceptable levels of activity, and after attempting to work things out with the player themselves, they may get in contact with the TD team about it. A player whose activity we find to be below this threshold will be infracted with Unsportsmanlike Conduct, a DQ from this edition of the Tournament in question and a ban from the next edition of this same tournament. (Source: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/tournament-rules-and-general-guidelines.3642760/)

The argument seems to be that we are applying this rule incorrectly. As soon as devins sellback under minimum activity was approved, this comes directly alongside it. Other arguments, i.e. whether or not he should be allowed to be sold back, come from further upstream. Once we arrive at the fact that he was sold back under minimum activity, this rule is applied. This is, by the Letter Of The Law, not an incorrect application of the rule.

Now, of course, there are circumstances that make this a tricky situation that occurred further up the stream. devin was given a forum ban. Should this rule apply to users who have already been removed from the tournament as a result of a forum ban? The way that it is currently written does not make a distinction. This is not a problem with the application of the rule, this is a problem with the rule itself.

As mentioned when other existing rules were brought up for post-hoc modification following SPL, we are happy to have the discussion in a Tournament Policy Thread and append further guidelines for handling situations like these. Such rules can even be applied retroactively! The commencement/week threads are not tournament policy threads however, and posting in them is not going to get us anywhere. This is something that can and will be revisited when a full team of TDs is available for discussion.

In anticipation of more salty kids spamming reactions, there's one big question open for me personally reading this: If everything was handled according to the rules (and this isn't something I doubt for a second) wouldn't that mean that the person "at fault" (apart from Devin for breaking the rules to get banned in the first place) is the Raider manager who actually filed him as not bringing the minimum activity?

Obviously they want to sell him back, that's just logical. But I'm sure the managers know the rules and know that if they sell him back reasoning like that, then the according punishment for the player in question triggers?

As in, would there have been a more suitable reason to file his sellback under, that would NOT have lead to the rule-according ban for next SPL?

 

[ABR]

I don't even think this is a case of "bad rules being applied correctly" or whatever, it's just a misinterpretation of the rules. As of the most recent John W post, the ruling for this SPL is as follows:

As such, we will be amending the rules for this edition of SPL to address this inadequate coverage.

Players who are no longer eligible to play for Smogon Premier League XIII due to a forum ban, tournament ban, or other removal from SPL before Week 1 will be compensated with a refund of 3k to be used prior to the start of the season. In addition, teams will receive a half of the lost player's original cost, less 3k and rounded up to the nearest 0.5k, in sellback credits to be used at the midseason auction.

Players who are eligible to be sold back at any point after the start of Week 1 will continue to be compensated with 3k sellback credits as usual.

This is the most updated version of the rules we can follow for this current edition of SPL.


The bit in the rules about minimum activity is:

Minimum Activity Expected of Players: Being picked for a team tournament also means we expect a minimum level of commitment to that team, regardless of whether a player is starting or not. If a manager finds that their player is not showing acceptable levels of activity, and after attempting to work things out with the player themselves, they may get in contact with the TD team about it. A player whose activity we find to be below this threshold will be infracted with Unsportsmanlike Conduct, a DQ from this edition of the Tournament in question and a ban from the next edition of this same tournament.

This part still holds up regardless of the aforementioned change.


As for sellbacks:

Up until week 4 managers will have the opportunity to report players that they believe are not meeting minimum activity requirements and/or sabotaging their team to the hosts. The hosts will review the team situation on the first 2 days of week 5, and if it is found that the player in question is indeed guilty of one or both, the team will be allowed to sell them back. Reports made on team quitters after the end of Week 4 will not be evaluated until the conclusion of the tournament, with the exception of cases of cheating or team leaking/sabotage. A user merely being forum banned or tournament banned is NOT grounds for a sellback.

If a player is sold back, their team obtains 3k of their value as credits to be used in the midseason auction.

This is inaccurate due to the bolded portion about forum bans, which was changed in the admin decisions post for John W.


The issue here is not that Devin was sold back at all. The issue is that it was automatically classified under "minimum activity" which is just non-applicable in the first place. We already updated the rules to allow for bans as a valid sellback category. The part about minimum activity / sabotaging = dq from next edition is fine too. An issue only arises when you mix up which category has which ruling.

So, please don't blame this on the rules misleading you. This decision is currently improper from a rules perspective as well as from a common sense perspective (the latter part no one disagrees with). Just fix the mess (now, not after SPL) and we can all move on.

^the above is not targeted at august directly, more so other hosts/tds who act with far less grace

 

[Amukamara]

what a silly situation, all that was needed was the bare minimum of critical thinking skills to figure this out lmao

 

[bbeeaa]

Since everyone is playing politics rn, I just wanna say Happy Black History Month to my fellow black kings, our month has come
CTI (first black spl manager), Bushtush, njnp, roscoe, Isza, Splash, Goblin, Ajna, dave, Leftiez, Updated Kanto, Hammy, Confide, The Strap, roxiee, jonfilch, Tace, TONE, Bluxio, Perry, Ninahaza, Groudon, Seo. Pop smoke, BigBallerBrand, blarghlfarghl reyscarface

Where I am bro wtf

 

[AK]

« devin will be removed from this tournament and banned from participating in SPL XIV. »

 

[Eternal Spirit]

Yo i didnt know the whole story LMAO poor devin

 

[Pheo]

Can't wait to see Koalacance in game

 

[Master Chief]

If you're gonna be pedantic about the rules here:

I'd like to address a few things brought up in this thread, as a member of the TD team and the host team.

On the topic of the punishment bestowed on devin:

In the case of devin being handed a punishment: devin's sell back was approved under "not meeting the minimum activity requirement". There is a rule attached to being sold back at midseason under the guise of inability to meet the minimum activity threshold. For your convenience, I have attached the rule below.

Minimum Activity Expected of Players: Being picked for a team tournament also means we expect a minimum level of commitment to that team, regardless of whether a player is starting or not. If a manager finds that their player is not showing acceptable levels of activity, and after attempting to work things out with the player themselves, they may get in contact with the TD team about it. A player whose activity we find to be below this threshold will be infracted with Unsportsmanlike Conduct, a DQ from this edition of the Tournament in question and a ban from the next edition of this same tournament. (Source: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/tournament-rules-and-general-guidelines.3642760/)

The argument seems to be that we are applying this rule incorrectly. As soon as devins sellback under minimum activity was approved, this comes directly alongside it. Other arguments, i.e. whether or not he should be allowed to be sold back, come from further upstream. Once we arrive at the fact that he was sold back under minimum activity, this rule is applied. This is, by the Letter Of The Law, not an incorrect application of the rule.

After devin left his discord, the managers (Tricking and Raiza) nor did any of the raiders approach devin. After he was banned, devin and the raiders automatically assumed that he was no longer part of the tournament because according to the original ban post:

RE: devin devin has been banned from the forums for reasons unrelated to SPL. In accordance with current policy, he will be suspended for the duration of his forum ban, which functionally disqualifies him from playing for the remainder of SPL XIII. Team Raiders have until the end of Week 4 to request a sellback.

According to this, the raiders management rightfully understood that devin was functionally banned from the tournament and they had time before they wanted a sellback and a replacement. One of the reasons they waited was to see if the outcome of devin's appeal would possibly influence if he could go to an ICBB status and therefore play in the tournament. The raider's management explicitly stated 'We are selling back devin since he is banned and therefore will be disqualified to play for the reminder of SPL XIII as per this post.' They did not mention anything about minimum activity so where the hell did the TDs get this justification LOL. The raiders management never complained about devin's activity and did not try to incorporate him into the team environment or 'try to work things out'. Everyone rightfully assumed that Devin's tour was over and that's why communication stopped, not because he cancered for low activity. If the managers had actually told devin this, things may have been different with regards to application of the rule. So by your letter of law argument, your ruling is wrong and should be reversed. There is no need to wait for the other TDs to finish SPL. This is according to your own rules a wrong application of the rule since there was no attempt to work out anything between devin and the raiders due to the assumption that there was nothing to work out and that devin's tour was done.

 

[Koalacance]

Can't wait to see Koalacance in game

I cant wait to see you perfect

MON BRO

 

[yone]

If you're gonna be pedantic about the rules here:



After devin left his discord, the managers (Tricking and Raiza) nor did any of the raiders approach devin. After he was banned, devin and the raiders automatically assumed that he was no longer part of the tournament because according to the original ban post:

RE: devin devin has been banned from the forums for reasons unrelated to SPL. In accordance with current policy, he will be suspended for the duration of his forum ban, which functionally disqualifies him from playing for the remainder of SPL XIII. Team Raiders have until the end of Week 4 to request a sellback.

According to this, the raiders management rightfully understood that devin was functionally banned from the tournament and they had time before they wanted a sellback and a replacement. One of the reasons they waited was to see if the outcome of devin's appeal would possibly influence if he could go to an ICBB status and therefore play in the tournament. The raider's management explicitly stated 'We are selling back devin since he is banned and therefore will be disqualified to play for the reminder of SPL XIII as per this post.' They did not mention anything about minimum activity so where the hell did the TDs get this justification LOL. The raiders management never complained about devin's activity and did not try to incorporate him into the team environment or 'try to work things out'. Everyone rightfully assumed that Devin's tour was over and that's why communication stopped, not because he cancered for low activity. If the managers had actually told devin this, things may have been different with regards to application of the rule. So by your letter of law argument, your ruling is wrong and should be reversed. There is no need to wait for the other TDs to finish SPL. This is according to your own rules a wrong application of the rule since there was no attempt to work out anything between devin and the raiders due to the assumption that there was nothing to work out and that devin's tour was done.

I support your message man, but it's a waste of time trying to reason with these guys, we don't really know what their moderation is for.
As long as the majority conforms to their demands and deviations they will continue, justice exists but I guess it doesn't belong here.

Thought to my French "brothers" who continue to contribute despite being publicly spat upon and being passed over like pancakes by the moderators, next time I won't make a video montage that y'all can spam to save your ass, mdr

 

[watashi]

the bigs are selling back lax for lacks of activity

 

[Niko]

the scooters are selling back felix because he tags people with @here and not @everyone when games start

 

[lax]

LA PULA BUSSO'

Empo Tricking H.M.N.I.P frisoeva Gondra fran17 Kebab mlml Sapientia Niko Lunala umbry Santu