|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 61 post(s) |
ScoRpS
0utbreak Outbreak.
18
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 23:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
We hadn't technically at this point entered any team. !! |
ScoRpS
0utbreak Outbreak.
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 23:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
We had neither 0utbreak or Hydra on the roster. We didn't get picked and as such we never had either team a secured spot in the tournament. So technically no we didnt but our intentions were to field both teams. |
ScoRpS
0utbreak Outbreak.
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 23:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
We got banned before securing a spot. But yes we did register as 0utbreak.
|
ScoRpS
0utbreak Outbreak.
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 12:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
Officer Nyota Uhura wrote:Mirrodin wrote:ScoRpS wrote:We had neither 0utbreak or Hydra on the roster. We didn't get picked and as such we never had either team a secured spot in the tournament. So technically no we didnt but our intentions were to field both teams. Anyone else see this? "OUR intentions were to field BOTH teams" Coming from one person, talking about them fielding both teams. It is obvious, the mindset going on here. This quote indeed sums it up - it was noted, though, already on the first page: MrWhitei God wrote:ScoRpS wrote:We had neither 0utbreak or Hydra on the roster. We didn't get picked and as such we never had either team a secured spot in the tournament. So technically no we didnt but our intentions were to field both teams. Thats alot of "We" for two separate entities
Well I am part of a team that consisted of some 20 0utbreak members. So yes its a "we" I hope I have explained it ok as I did not intend to enter the tourney on my own as a Rambo. Although I understand the Hydra implication its not warranted here. |
ScoRpS
0utbreak Outbreak.
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 13:15:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Loxy wrote:We will be actively removing those alliances that try and add a GÇÿBGÇÖ or GÇÿCGÇÖ team. We want everyone to have a fair chance but stacking the deck in this manner will not be permitted. This removal will also include the main alliance if we detect anyone trying to field more than one team.
I would like to see that interpretated clearer. We are infact two independant "A" teams who just happened to not have enough numbers to field 24 folks on either side for the purposes of regular meaningful testing and practicing.
So we asked ahead of training for clarification about it whislt also outlining our intentions to be transparaent and co-operative. We also ask if we are going to get banned anyway and should we bother start training as its a lot of effort.
We were completely aware that this rule was for us and that CCP were gunning for us this year. We would have to be pretty ignorant to think otherwise and actually wanted to put on a good show anyway to make up for last years debacle,
So we get clarification that its ok and training commences. And I should point out that it is just infact training on the Test Server and not the Main Event.
300 0utbreak man hours for training later without warning about 2-3 minutes before the 1st auction, We were pointed towards a post just made and that it was final.
By now it was clear that this was a public execution predertimined some time before the event rules were even published. This was further reinforced by ropey desicions and intrepretations concerning other teams in similar predicaments. One set of folks were forced to combine into one team to still compete. And the B team of another collaberation was the one removed and not the "A" team as cleary stated in the rules,
So anyone who attempts to say it wasn't personal and a valid interpretation of the rules is under a misapprehension about all the details.
In any case its done and some will say we deserved it and others will have other opinions but even after all tthe route taken by CCP was cowardly, punitive and inconsistent and that makes me think even less of them then I did before. |
ScoRpS
0utbreak Outbreak.
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 15:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sreegs since you're the only one responding, which i guess i am greatful for can you clarify that we will be ok to apply again next year or will the AT team be as strident and underhanded again in opposition to our participation? |
ScoRpS
0utbreak Outbreak.
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 15:29:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:ScoRpS wrote:Sreegs since you're the only one responding, which i guess i am greatful for can you clarify that we will be ok to apply again next year or will the AT team be as strident and underhanded again in opposition to our participation? I'm going to worry about that next year. Right now I have this year's tournament to worry about.
If that were actually true you wouldn't be here now responding. Can you answer the question again properly please?
|
ScoRpS
0utbreak Outbreak.
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 15:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:ScoRpS wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:ScoRpS wrote:Sreegs since you're the only one responding, which i guess i am greatful for can you clarify that we will be ok to apply again next year or will the AT team be as strident and underhanded again in opposition to our participation? I'm going to worry about that next year. Right now I have this year's tournament to worry about. If that were actually true you wouldn't be here now responding. Can you answer the question again properly please? You got your answer and quoted it. It's the only one you're getting.
We know it's over this year so now the question is what about next year?
or is this game of smoke and mirrors going to continue? |
ScoRpS
0utbreak Outbreak.
29
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 15:50:00 -
[9] - Quote
Sreegs you are a diplomatic nightmare. CCP should actually curbe your rights to post tbh.
|
|
|
|