Board 8 > Save My Pokemon 2018 - Round 69 - 78 Remaining

(+) Yeah! (+)

ban greengravy294 for gross negligence while we're lawyering out chandelure btw
---

Inviso posted...

I think either Umbreon should be safe and Chandelure eliminated (because that's what the actual results are), or MCXD shouldn't be banned, since allowing his Chandelure save means you're acknowledging him as not having broken the rules in the first place.

I have to allow the Chandelure save because it wasn't brought to light that he broke the rules until after the round had ended.

Inviso posted...

I think either Umbreon should be safe and Chandelure eliminated (because that's what the actual results are), or MCXD shouldn't be banned, since allowing his Chandelure save means you're acknowledging him as not having broken the rules in the first place.

allowing the chandelure save doesn't not imply that acknowledgement at all. just smoothness for the end of the round, because everyone assumed chandelure was safe and had no possible way of knowing any alternative.
---

tennisboy213 posted...

Inviso posted...

I think either Umbreon should be safe and Chandelure eliminated (because that's what the actual results are), or MCXD shouldn't be banned, since allowing his Chandelure save means you're acknowledging him as not having broken the rules in the first place.

I have to allow the Chandelure save because it wasn't brought to light that he broke the rules until after the round had ended.

Post 109. It was that bringing to light that got Karo post-locked and allowed you to snipe Umbreon out in front of him.
---

It was unknown (by the masses) who deleted the post and what the post contained at that point.

If there is disagreement over whether Umbreon or Chandy should be eliminated, then maybe it's best to just keep both in and eliminate only Jiggly this round?
---

Sorry, that was hostile. But my point stands about Karo bringing the post to light (and I had also removed Mew from my personal tally at that point) and getting post-locked as a result (PLUS if Mew had been saved there, it likely alters his save post since it seems like he was trying to protect Glaceon/Mew/Umbreon all together.)
---

Oh, didn't expect that.

To me it feels like eliminating either of them would not be entirely fair.
---

Considering karo got post locked acknowledging a deleted save and impacted the round it's pretty clear it affected the finish of the round during the rush.

Changing accounts for a normal human (and not a luster) takes time and uh yeah, definitely a disparity in post times between karo's 2nd and 3rd post
---

MC_XD posted...

If there is disagreement over whether Umbreon or Chandy should be eliminated, then maybe it's best to just keep both in and eliminate only Jiggly this round?

This actually seems like a fair call since Jigglypuff is 100% eliminated in any scenario, and it ultimately doesn't screw anyone over. We can just have a three-elimination round tomorrow to balance the numbers.
---

tennisboy213 posted...

I have to allow the Chandelure save because it wasn't brought to light that he broke the rules until after the round had ended.

Well, the current "lawyering" rule as it exists right now allows for anyone to discover a lawyering within one hour of the final save in a round. This was definitely true in this case, being detected within 5 minutes of the round ending. For reference, here is the text of the current "lawyering" rule used in SMFFFC:

- You will have exactly one hour after the final save is made to discover a lawyering. If one is not found in that time, the result will stand, even if a lawyering exists.

---

LusterSoldier posted...

Well, the current "lawyering" rule as it exists right now allows for anyone to discover a lawyering within one hour of the final save in a round. This was definitely true in this case, being detected within 5 minutes of the round ending.

that rule is specifically about early saves and not this kind of scenario

regardless of what tennis eventually decides, let this serve as a reminder to people to not get post-locked

(2ppm is so dumb)
---

That is an SMFFFC specific rule.

Even though it doesn't mention it in the first post, there is no lawyering in this contest.

th3l3fty posted...

that rule is specifically about early saves and not this kind of scenario

regardless of what tennis eventually decides, let this serve as a reminder to people to not get post-locked

If gravy said it was a lawyering, I'm inclined to believe him because he knows the rule better than I do. Also, this is 100% about an early save because MC_XD made an early save that he later deleted.

tennisboy213 posted...

That is an SMFFFC specific rule.

Even though it doesn't mention it in the first post, there is no lawyering in this contest.

The point is, I mentioned this due to the fact that at least several people in this topic are calling for a lawyering to be applied in this situation.
---

Inviso posted...

This actually seems like a fair call since Jigglypuff is 100% eliminated in any scenario, and it ultimately doesn't screw anyone over. We can just have a three-elimination round tomorrow to balance the numbers.

I would be perfectly fine with this.
---

>_> tennis already decided, guys.
---

You done umbreon dirty
---

greengravy294 posted...

drakeryn came up with the term as he's come across many similar situations at his job

one may call that egotistical, but to me, i dont agree

nah, I didn't come up with the term. I'm not sure who did.

but I was involved in (I think) the first one

me: *gets home, turns on computer*
person: QUICK GO SAVE BLACK MAGE EVERYONE THINKS HE'S OUT BUT ACTUALLY LUSO GOT LEFT OFF THE END OF THE TALLY
me: ok

so I saved black mage, and person immediately pointed out the tally error in a completely non-scummy way, and here we are
---

Luso was the first one yeah
---

Just change chandelure to chandelureon

Problem solved
---

To avoid this problem from happening again, tennisboy should add in a "lawyering" rule that will be in effect for the rest of this contest (and all future Save My Pokemon contests).
---

It was just a supposition that the board's official lawyer came up with lawyering. My fault, my friend!
---

my qualm is that it isnt a lawyer. if it isn't the punishment must be higher. the infraction occurred in a sensitive time that obviously caused problems. nothing personnel, kid, but one game is too light. i suggest 2 rounds minimum.
---

WOW gravy
---

greengravy294 posted...

my qualm is that it isnt a lawyer. if it isn't the punishment must be higher. the infraction occurred in a sensitive time that obviously caused problems. nothing personnel, kid, but one game is too light. i suggest 2 rounds minimum.

I do think tennisboy needs to go harder on any rules violations that occur near the end of the round (probably within 5 minutes of the final save post). If someone makes an early save near the end of the round, there's no guarantee that tennisboy will have time to check the validity of the save before the round ends, especially if he also plans on saving some Pokemon near the end of the round.
---

Ignoring the invalid save still influences the end of the round. Chandelure wasn't saved because people were under the impression that it was safe. Otherwise someone else would have saved it if they had known that the second save didn't count.
---

As much as the result sucks people had ample opportunity to save the eliminated pokemon. Especially this early in the contest i think it is hard to rule one way or another. Just accept that people were willing to leave the pokemon hanging long enough that they dont necessarily deserve to move on either way.

LusterSoldier posted...

greengravy294 posted...

my qualm is that it isnt a lawyer. if it isn't the punishment must be higher. the infraction occurred in a sensitive time that obviously caused problems. nothing personnel, kid, but one game is too light. i suggest 2 rounds minimum.

I do think tennisboy needs to go harder on any rules violations that occur near the end of the round (probably within 5 minutes of the final save post). If someone makes an early save near the end of the round, there's no guarantee that tennisboy will have time to check the validity of the save before the round ends, especially if he also plans on saving some Pokemon near the end of the round.

Punishing people hard for innocent mistakes is never good. Especially if they are only semi regular savers that are less accustomed to the rules. Harsher penalties should be reserved for more malicious violations or repeat offenders.

sorry Poka I am an individual non-caring guy so if I was running a prominent save my, I'd ban him longer.

hes a nice guy, but i'd ban him longer.

sorry.

2 days is light btw, imo. any sort of lawyering infraction should be 5 rounds min.
---

Umbreon got fucked over plain and simple but yes it's better just to move on if it's coming to all of this
---

Bane_Of_Despair posted...

Umbreon got fucked over plain and simple but yes it's better just to move on if it's coming to all of this

Basically, whichever way you rule you are fucking a pokemon over.

well yes obviously its time to move on without my banning but it doesnt change the offense

if you play the game you need to adhere to the rules. break the rule and it doesnt matter: 1 round. If it does, then discretion is involved. This one is fairly bad imo
---

Well technically if it went the "just have jigglypuff elim'd, eliminate 3 tomorrow" that would probably be the most fair and nobody would be fucked over but that isn't happening so w/e
---

i can agree to that but good pal tennisboy is a man of CHAOS and so it shall be
---

Leafeon13N posted...

Punishing people hard for innocent mistakes is never good. Especially if they are only semi regular savers that are less accustomed to the rules. Harsher penalties should be reserved for more malicious violations or repeat offenders.

Harsher penalties isn't a problem so long as they are actually stated upfront in the first post of the topic (in the rules section), so no one is surprised when they get hit with a heavy penalty. I probably would have done a 2 round ban at the minimum here considering it happened near the end of the round, but tennisboy only handed down a 1 round ban instead. And this situation is a more malicious violation (even if unintentional) since it directly affected the outcome of the round.
---

who knew robots could know of reason
---