I'm a witness of the Enemy game!

[Liz]

Originally posted by Flash-Bugout
What Liz just said about Team A losing to Team B to get Team B into the finals, I've seen that happen too, maybe teams from the same country shouldn't play each other, to prevent that "national pride/getting another local team into the finals over a foreign team" thing going on

That could be taking things just a bit too far! How many UK teams will be playing Campaign at each level, or French teams at Toulouse? You could equally argue that teams with the same sponsors shouldn't play each other in the prelim rounds - actually I could see that being a bigger possible issue than nationality.

 

[raehl]

As long as game fixing is in the best interest of the team doing the fixing..

It should be allowed. If NOT hanging the flag is going to get you a better seed in the finals than hanging it, more power to you for putting yourself in that position and excercising the strategy advantage. If you can lose to your sister team to give them an extra 100 points - shame on the promoter for even giving you the opportunity to do so in the first place.

If you're dropping a game because you've got $10 quid riding on losing, then yeah, you should be tossed.

Is forfeiting games game fixing? Is dropping out of a tournamnet with games left to play game fixing? Is having refs from a team sponsored by the same sponsors of one of the teams on the field game fixing?

"Game fixing" is such a subjective standard that it should not be enforced as a rule except as a last resort (like betting against your own team). We should expect teams to want to win tournaments, and it's silly to expect them to put winning games as a higher priority. If a team's chances at winning a tournament increase if they lose a game, then something is wrong with the organization of the tournament or the rules, and THAT should be fixed.


- Chris

 

[Robbo]

Well....

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
.... my point is that if there is no actual proof - we have to be careful banning players for an entire year.

And the way the ShockIII guys tells it - there were far from any proof ?

Nick

Give me a break here Nick, what do you want a smoking gun with video and sound recordings backed up by signed confessions ?

My god, life ain't like that, sometimes people have to use their brains and make a decision based upon circumstances and accounts.
As far as I know Topor is in the minority......

From what I have heard, from people who have seen the game, they took the frikkin piss, not only for the actual deed itself but for the 'way' they did it; it was done as though they didn't care everybody knew.
Well, whatever Nick, you let them off if you like mate, and you would have a queue a mile long with sister teams wanting to be bracketed together and all because Nick Brockdorff wants irrefutable and concrete evidence.
Hmmm, do us all a favour Nick and please stay away from any rule making and or disciplinary boards

 

[Robbo]

Ease up old man

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
(did you see the "News on Robbo" on the Speak your brain board ? )
First of all - I'm JUST saying that if Topors account is true, then a mistake has been made.... if it isn't... then the descision to ban was right.
Secondly - I have already suggested how to make sure this cannot happen again, by making provisions in the rules (as good as anyway - there are always exceptions).
Third - I think this is a very difficult area, as it is wide open to accusations - and very difficult to prove.
As a general rule, I like the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" - and being one who has been subject to many a ban, I would think you agreed ?
In an area where proof is hard to come by, we all have to be careful, because we may all be subject to the same hanging mob mentality somewhere down the line, and then our cocksure views will come around and bite us in the ass !
At any rate - not agreeing is kind of the point of this board - otherwise it would get very booring - so let's keep it civil - ok ?

Nick

Oh come on now Nick, I wasn't being uncivil, leastwise, I certainly didn't mean to be, it was a tongue in cheek post and I apologise if you read it differently but hey your first point is sooo obvious it surely doesn't need stating.
Your second, I never stated or implied anything to the contrary.
And finally your third, once again, no arguments from me, or I would think, anybody else for that matter.

So no big probs here mate but the initial post and to an extent this one, do seem as though they are stating the obvious.

Nearly 4.00pm, come on you Spurs !!!!!

PS Nick, I did click on that 'News on Robbo' thingy and whilst I got transferred to the page ok, nothing happened from thereon in

 

[Zorr0]

Ok ...
What about this ..
You are playing in team A and your in the semis for shure ..
but you still have one game before the semis and it is against
team B , team B must max you to get in the semis and if they
do team C will not get in the semis. Now the captain of team a is
a strategy genious and knows that your team has a much better
chanse in the finals against team B than team C so you let
team B max you.
Now is this illegaly fixing a game ? Team A,B,C (are no the same "organisation")
It is finally for your benifit. And to prove this is nearly impossible.

 

[raehl]

I think it should be perfectly legal. Everyone starts the tournament with 0 points and the same means of obtaining points. If you want to make the next round, win.

I view it a little bit like NASCAR racing. It's similar in that you have many many cars in the same "field" of competition, where only one guy wins...

But some competitors are "affiliated" with others. It may be dirty for someone affiliated with you to do something to make sure you get first (like preventing the guy on your butt from passing him), but it's perfectly legal.

- Chris

 

[headrock6]

Originally posted by raehl

But some competitors are "affiliated" with others. It may be dirty for someone affiliated with you to do something to make sure you get first (like preventing the guy on your butt from passing him), but it's perfectly legal.

- Chris

But its still not gauranteed that the driver will still win with the help or not...Pre determining the outcome of a game for another team is flat out cheating anyway you look at it and makes a mockery out of the system...

Once again Chris you take a position that is flat out ridiculous..

 

[Liz]

Originally posted by raehl
....... but it's perfectly legal.

- Chris

But in Millennium paintball, it ISN'T legal! It's stated in the rules as not being allowed. Whether people agree with that specific rule or not is a different issue (I'm sure we can all find Millennium rules we don't particularly like), but as long as it IS in there then it has to be prevented where possible.

 

[Mark Toye-Nexus]

This could be discussed....

...to the n'th degree.

What hasnt been mentioned so far is 'Unsportsmanlike Conduct'

This is something that is used in many sports to cover stuff that cant necessarily be legislated upon but can be discerned by anyone with half a brain and a little experience.

Fixing games maybe expressly outlawed but the proof may be impossible to establish.

The team's 'unsportsmanlike conduct' should be easier to discern and it sounds to me like Enemy may have acted in this manner.

Sad that they did it, sad that they are banned as this robs the series of two pro teams for a time.

Mark

 

[manike]

This could be discussed....

Originally posted by Mark Toye-Nexus
The team's 'unsportsmanlike conduct' should be easier to discern and it sounds to me like Enemy may have acted in this manner.

Sad that they did it, sad that they are banned as this robs the series of two pro teams for a time.

Yeah this is the issue. I like how Enemy play and think they are a good team, it's a real shame they are banned especially since we don't have enough teams in the Pro division in my opinion.