Oblivion out of EQL3

2006-04-18 13:46 by sassa

Oblivion has been kicked out of EQL after getting their second warning.
They have been caught ghosting in their game vs SSC and all of their games will be deleted.
We have been talking about this case for 1 week now to gather all the information and have finally made a decision.

Some info about the ghosting that accured:

Fnosk joined their vent channel not knowing that it was a EQL game and helping his teamm8s during the first map (dm3). I saw/listen to this and took a talk with him in another ventrilo channel to ask him what he was doing and he answered me that it was not EQL, it was pracc.

Directly after he found out that it was a EQL game he told me that he was very sorry about what he did but he didnt knew it was EQL.

Even though he didnt knew, his teammates should have told him to go the fuck out of the vent channel or shut up and not give hints about the enemys.
This is their seccond warning (first warning was given when they played with hagge even though he wasent in their playerlist).

Many teams use mm3 and if you want to be sure that they dont cheat ask an admin to step i,n their vent channel and see how many ppl they got there.

Im very sorry to have lost a team like Obvilion in eql and hope that they will be back for EQL4.

/The EQL-team

Ghosts, like ladies, never speak till spoke to
- Richard Harris Barham

---

Comments

#201 2006-04-19 13:54 by manny (86.132.79.XXX)

Now that that's out of the way:

Last season, Osams got a warning because Petter played a game as "Lakso", or the other way round, I can't remember. Most people know Lakso = Petter and if they didn't, they would be told Lakso = Petter, it's not like we'd try to hide anything. We thought it was a bit harsh at the time, but now I realise if we'd infringed the rules again, just a little, no matter how small, we'd have been kicked from the league?

I hope the "two strikes and you're out" rule doesn't have to be so rigid.

#202 2006-04-19 13:55 by Hagge (83.233.145.XXX)

let's head for another 200!

#203 2006-04-19 13:56 by Hagge (83.233.145.XXX)

yeah exactly manny.. it would probably had been enough if you in the next game would rename yourself to man instead of manny and osams would've gotten a good bye from eql :(

#204 2006-04-19 14:02 by murdoc (213.84.248.XXX)

3> 196 left

#205 2006-04-19 14:53 by pepin (81.236.21.XXX)

this is all so exciting :) still no div5 clan that needs a new player in eql?????

#206 2006-04-19 14:53 by pepin (81.236.21.XXX)

and btw oblivion is still misspelled in the news post

#207 2006-04-19 15:21 by oblivion sux? (81.182.124.XXX)

yepp
193left

#208 2006-04-19 15:21 by qmole (193.108.218.XXX)

I've been thinking about this for a while now and IMO it was the right thing to do. There's really no excuse for breaking the rules, especially after you've had one warning for the season. Everyone take note: be more careful! Even though it's (very) likely that O weren't 'cheating' in either case, who's to say for sure? That's what rules are for. Arguing about whether the rules are 'right' is a different matter.

I just hope that O got caught by coincidence and not because they were receiving any kind of 'special treatment' from sassa. Do admins regularly check for this kind of thing? Even in div5? Doubtful.

There's some question as to whether playing with Hagge was really worth a warning though, especially when any other kind of mistake like this would result in a ban. Hagge was confirmed later anyway, so could the warning have been revoked?

Sigh. It's sad, but good qw-drama.

#209 2006-04-19 15:29 by Haggis (62.101.203.XXX)

Actually it was me playing instead of Hagge aswell so the kickbanlolfuckhaxkick is correct! Damn you people are eay to trick, worst part is, I didn't even have to rename my nick, nobody can ready anyway :)

#210 2006-04-19 15:36 by Haggis (62.101.203.XXX)

Btw, thats why they/we lost, cause I couldn't figure out that drunken swedish sm?rg?s-talk

bah, I really should do some work :S

#211 2006-04-19 15:59 by angua (82.182.32.XXX)

warnings for playing with unconfirmed players have been around for a long time, same with users with fakenicks. It's not like it's been a problem at all as "no one cheats anyway" so fakenickwarnings are all you get normally...

#212 2006-04-19 16:03 by HighlandeR (150.254.194.XXX)

qmole: you cant say that whatever the rules say is right.

sometimes rules are just not right, and imo (not only imo as it seems) this is the case.

i guess it's a bit too late now to bring back oblivion to eql (is it?), but certainly this rule need to be changed.

basically would anyone say that oblivion is spoiling the fun of the game so much, that they need to be removed for sake of the other teams?
if not, why remove them?
the flaw of the rule is that it does more harm to the game than oblivions "cheats"

#213 2006-04-19 16:27 by ?ke Vader (217.210.101.XXX)

"basically would anyone say that oblivion is spoiling the fun of the game so much, that they need to be removed for sake of the other teams?
if not, why remove them?"
- By Highlander

What you're saying is kind of like "as long as the cheating clan lose, then it's ok" because then they aren't spoiling the fun of the game for the other team. :) I also think that we should treat all clans the same. Imagine if this was another clan (maybe in another part of the world *hint*) would your opinion still be the same about letting the clan back in?

I also think that whatever we do there will always be someone complaining about how things go about. "Zomg, if you don't do anything about this, then you sure as hell show that you allow it in your league and next season every friggin' player and his mum will sit on voicecom, ghosting like never before!"

#214 2006-04-19 16:36 by HighlandeR (150.254.194.XXX)

>What you're saying is kind of like "as long as the cheating clan lose, then it's ok"

nope, its was more like "punishment should be equivalent to commited crime"

WO for particular game when cought cheating is equivalent.

#215 2006-04-19 17:28 by Empezar (213.113.96.XXX)

(aimbot analogy) so if someone is caught using an aimbot, that particular game should be WO? how do you know they haven't used aimbots in all their games?

#216 2006-04-19 17:43 by goqsane (87.250.163.XXX)

With all honesty Empezar, you being a flatmate with Sassa, you will always take his side, is there really any sense to post here?

#217 2006-04-19 18:25 by HighlandeR (193.219.28.XXX)

#215:
>how do you know they haven't used aimbots in all their games?

and how do you know they DID use aimbots?

you cannot assume that if clan cheated in particular game then they certainly cheated in previous games.

#218 2006-04-19 18:47 by Hooraytio (212.214.218.XXX)

why not use different penalties for different cheats?

imo that hagge played unlisted is minor and is maybe worth 1p deduction?

ghosting and aimbot = warning for kick or kick?

in this case then [o] would lose 1p and get one warning and could have stayed in eql.

think about this for eql4...

#219 2006-04-19 19:26 by Hooraytio (212.214.218.XXX)

also warning might give 1p or more deduction and kick after 2-3 warnings?

#220 2006-04-19 19:40 by knast (84.147.27.XXX)

he got first warning, and he was kicked after the 2. warning and he said that he was on voice during the eql game.
and why u did not left the voicechannel?
btw we had the same situation:)
hoder joined our voicechannel during a eql game, and we just said: get out!!!
so we were 5 on the channel for 1-5secs.

#221 2006-04-19 19:41 by knast (84.147.27.XXX)

btw sassa is it possible to record all voicechannels (serverside)?

#222 2006-04-19 20:14 by bvsmissen (81.236.21.XXX)

he did leave when he understood that it was eql.

I played the game vs ssc and I didnt even noticed fnosk on vent. No cheering nor ghosting. So he couldn't have been that active.

#223 2006-04-19 20:23 by gaz (84.12.83.XXX)

It's OK to ghost in pracs then?

It might not have been the most serious example of ghosting ever witnessed, but please don't pretend that it didn't happen.

#224 2006-04-19 20:52 by error (213.114.99.XXX)

I dont understand this discussion. This isnt some stupid fakenicking or playing with the wrong tag.

They cheated. That means they cheated. If you cheat you are a cheater and should never more be allowed to play quake competively.

#225 2006-04-19 21:39 by bvsmissen (81.236.21.XXX)

Im not saying it didnt happen, just saying that I didnt notice it. First time I heard about it was yesterday.

And I think that a kick is the right thing to do when someone ghosts, I just dont like the lame way it has been handled.

#226 2006-04-19 21:52 by HighlandeR (193.219.28.XXX)

hooraytio gave some good ideas here.
1p deduction for minor rule breaking, warnings/kicks/WOs for major rule breaking.

all to do here is to tweak penalties to make them equivalent to broken rules.

cheats spoils the fun of the game, but so does unfair reactions of the eql crew.

#227 2006-04-19 22:11 by Empezar (213.113.96.XXX)

cocksane, so anybody that agrees with sassa should just not post? yeah, you will all have fun agreeing with eachother that sassa is totally wrong, drinking tea and jerking eachother off, right?

#228 2006-04-19 22:35 by Blob (85.76.6.XXX)

Sorry to hear this. I think everyone in SSC thinks fondly about Oblivion. They are nice guys to play against. No div0 delays, no whine about maps or anything you can see from every other clan nowadays (including us).

PS. Hagge is so ez.

#229 2006-04-19 22:50 by mille (81.231.247.XXX)

<3 <3 <3

#230 2006-04-19 23:19 by murdoc (213.84.248.XXX)

word blob! 3>

#231 2006-04-20 00:13 by serox (62.3.249.XXX)

:S

#232 2006-04-20 01:32 by fnosk (130.240.202.XXX)

<3 blob
<3 murdoc

:)

#233 2006-04-20 09:42 by lib (213.100.62.XXX)

flamewar officially dead.

it had a good run anyway

#234 2006-04-20 09:47 by murdoc (213.84.248.XXX)

fire it up then,

[12:19] <menth0l> are oblivions games going to be voided now?
[12:19] <menth0l> or what


[15:18] <menth0l> [12:19] <menth0l> are oblivions games going to be voided now?
[15:18] <menth0l> [12:19] <menth0l> or what
[15:19] <]SR[murdoc> hiders :(

[09:00] <menth0li> are oblivions games going to be voided or what?
[09:06] <]SR[murdoc> hiders :<

#235 2006-04-20 09:48 by murdoc (213.84.248.XXX)

fnosk 3>

#236 2006-04-20 09:53 by HighlandeR (150.254.194.XXX)

common folks, 65 more posts to do here!

#237 2006-04-20 10:44 by contender (81.236.21.XXX)

atleast! 400 is better than 300 :)

#238 2006-04-20 11:44 by Hooraytio (212.214.218.XXX)

i hope that the crew will take my ideas in #218 and #219 into consideration for next season anyway, and yes they need some tweaking too but it was only something to start from...

#239 2006-04-20 12:53 by goqsane (87.250.163.XXX)

I'm not saying that agreeing with Sassa is bad, everyone can take the side they feel is right, but you being his flatmate make things even worse. Some people realise the fact that you live in the same flat, which then turns out to be that you are Sassa's back here, you will always take his side, regardless of whether he's wrong or not, at least that's how I see this thing. And don't bring me your crap anymore, because I simply don' want to hear it.

In my personal belief this is the most childish action ever taken in the QuakeWorld community since I am playing (from 2004). This stupid revange made me think and change my mind about some people.

In all honesty, with the scene being so alive we don't need no fucking shit like this. Just go sit in a corner Sassa.

#240 2006-04-20 12:59 by goqsane (87.250.163.XXX)

and I missed something fundamental here. After a brief discussion with Sassa on private message I had been even more convinced of the childish behaviour of the admins. Sassa's only argument was that 'HE CONFESSED HE GHOSTED' pointing to the post where fnosk said 'enemy @ lifts'. Holy cow, that's such a bad ghosting there, this hint made O win the game and all! Since when do you ban people without any proof? I thought the days of QW-terror were over, but I guess I was wrong.

And, read comment #147, why would Sassa want to conceal his role in this, asking SOMEONE (...) to make a .qw about it NOT mentioning him? I mean, if he feels clean, why would he ever want that? Think about it.

#241 2006-04-20 14:18 by Dahmer (195.196.107.XXX)

Borde vara b?gmordsstraff bara man ?r p? vent samtidigt om man inte spelar. MEN! samma sak som att SD blev kickade fr?n NQR...d? dom ?nd? f?rlorade tycker jag det ska vara en fet j?vla varning sen h?lla koll p? den klanen. K?nns lite on?digt att sparka d? man ?nd? f?rlorade.

#242 2006-04-20 14:19 by Dahmer (195.196.107.XXX)

fast o andra sidan s? s?tter man ett bra exempel p? vad som h?nder om man f?rs?ker fuska.

#243 2006-04-20 14:33 by murdoc (213.84.248.XXX)

FUCK OFF WITH THE SWEDISH BULLCRAP

ENGLISH ONLY OR DON'T POST AT ALL

#244 2006-04-20 14:49 by blAze (130.230.1.XXX)

Heh, I can't believe you people are actually arguing about this. You just don't have spectators in voice, period. What they allegedly said or did not say should be a complete non-issue. You can't expect admins to listen everyone's voice channel to make sure specs keep their mouth shut. I have absolutely nothing against o, but I can't see much wrong in the decision whatever the motives behind it may be.

#245 2006-04-20 15:13 by Dahmer (195.196.107.XXX)

Murdoc: What i said is:

Non-playing people on the vent channel should be buttfucked. But kicking them out of the league even tho they lost (same goes for SD) seems a bit too much. A big fat warning should be given then monitor their games closely.

2nd post:

But i guess it sets a good example for clans who might think of cheating in a game...they know they're kicked.

#246 2006-04-20 15:28 by blAze (130.230.1.XXX)

I don't think we can start accepting cheating just because the scene is small. Where would that end? What if everyone started keeping specs in voice? Even if there is an admin listening it's still his word against the players'. You can always claim the admin has some personal vendetta going on or whatever. It's simple to take a screenshot of a voice channel with extra people for proof, otherwise they need to start recording the entire voice com in games.

If someone gets caught with an installed aimbot, is it not cheating if he claims he didn't activate it during the game?

#247 2006-04-20 16:22 by HighlandeR (150.254.194.XXX)

#246: it's not about accepting cheating, it's about choseing appropriate penalty for that

current rules doesnt distinguish cheats. i/e same penalty for using a bit different nick than registered and using aimbot or fakenicking, etc.
also penalty itself seems to be a bit to harsh.

#248 2006-04-20 16:31 by blAze (130.230.1.XXX)

#247 I agree, but what would be appropriate. The problem with point deductions is that either they have no effect at all (too few) or the effect is same as kicking out (too many).

#249 2006-04-20 16:35 by goqsane (87.250.163.XXX)

I just can't believe one (being sane) would believe in the EQL junk the 'admins' are giving here.

You really think Oblivion 'CHEATED' (yes, even considering all the claims I wouldn't call that CHEATING no fucking way) on purpose? I mean, is telling a location (I really think it was unintentional) fucking ghosting? You guys better redefine your terms.

One more argument, you claim Oblivion was ghosting intentionally. Now tell me, who would cheat in a ventrilo server being monitored by EQL admins? That would be the most idiotic thing to do. People have private ventrilo servers, and there will be no proof someone is ghosting or not. When are you going to realise that they did not ghost? I think you already did, the hard thing about this is admitting that this has been an idiotic attempt of revange by Sassa, that's why the decision will stay I guess.

The server admins are to blame also, why aren't you using the so-greatly-appreciated QTV-enabled servers (Spike's FTEQWSV I believe). I bet you will keep up with the MVDSV crap because it's 'stable and reliable' as stable and as reliable as your dumb decisions in EQL. I know changing servers is a pain in the ass, because most of them are set up remotely, maybe not even personally but on a request to server admins, but without them, we will still have Sassa-like 'affairs' about ghosting.

All in all, kids revange for the win.

#250 2006-04-20 16:52 by gaz (195.72.182.XXX)

Ghosting = helping your team mates out by relaying enemy positions and status from outside of the game.

By letting out even one thing about enemy location, Fnosk ghosted. He admitted this.

How can you deny this goq?

---

Showing Page 5 of 7
A total of 333 comments
Previous Next
Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Note
On this site we log the IP of all users who post comments on matches/articles.

Code from image aboveNameComment