Click here to get 6 months Select Satellite Radio for $30 at SiriusXM.com

Don't Like the Ads? Upgrade your experience to remove the ads for only $20.00 per year.
Get 6 months of SiriusXM All Access for only $50

Don't Like the Ads? Upgrade your experience to remove the ads for only $20.00 per year.
Click here to get 6 months Select Satellite Radio for $30 at SiriusXM.com
Sign in to follow this  

Ruling on A Formal Complaint and Breaking of the Rules

Recommended Posts

Ruling Finalized: None of the four players in question will be allowed to play for the duration of IC.

Ruling Finalized: Aiel will NOT be ejected from IC.

Continuing To Be Actionable: POW's captured during Matches played with illegal players.

 

It is believed through presented evidence, that the four players were not absorbed into Aiel either correctly, fully or possibly at all during the matches they played.

 

Though it is clear that this "merger" was not disclosed or presented well to the community, and the Directors / Staff frown on actions that create unpleasant surprise as well as upset the majority of participants in an event; there are no concise rules at Urgent Fury outlining proper procedure during a merger. We do however require mergers with a name change to be consider a new clan requiring application back into UF. Aiel, if in fact this merger is occuring, has not stated a name change- similar to the LPK / War merger.

 

Let this example set in that its a pretty good idea to share significant clan changes with your UF companions of war, especially if it involves actions that can affect a tournament........

 

Regarding POW's taken during this incident- like any situation offense, we will require typical proof that 2 or more of the illegal players were in that match. Once the burden of proof has been met, POW's captured in that match will be returned to their respective clans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Don't Like the Ads? Upgrade your experience to remove the ads for only $20.00 per year.


Don't Like the Ads? Upgrade your experience to remove the ads for only $20.00 per year.

So that everyone understands the background on this ruling and what led up to it...

 

According to staff we were presented a situation with members on the AIEL roster that were being called ringers, after investigating initially, we found that these were not ringers but actuall fell under what we would consider to be a "Rent a Player" immediately we had these players removed from the tournament so we could continue with investigating what was really going on.

 

After this, AIEL informed us of an ongoing merger and that these 4 players chose to play in the UF tournament. Due to the situation with the current clan on GB which has qualified for the playoofs on a Black Ops Tournament, they are unable to change anything on their rosters.

 

So in short after looking at all of the evidence, we removed the players, returned any POWs in wars that more than two of them were in (Proof Provided of course) and let the Tournament move forward.

 

All clans please take note, if you are going to do a merger and you are involved with a tournament, you need to notify the admins in the clan rep section along with your fellow clans. This could have easily been your clan.

 

We as Directors are not going to tell you how to run your clan's business, but situations like this need to be layed out to at a minimum to the Tournament Admins and Staff... otherwise all kind of issues will arise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see some quotes from that topic about Rent-A-Player:

 

We feel that a Rent-A-Player is no different than a ringer.
If a team knowingly puts a player on their roster and it is proven that they know is on another Socom clans roster anywhere, whether on the same name or another alias, that team will be removed from any and all current tournaments they are competing in as well as suspended from all future events for a period of time, of not less than 1 year.

 

And now with Shane's post:

 

we found that these were not ringers but actuall fell under what we would consider to be a "Rent a Player"

 

Weird. All I have to say!

Edited by TyphX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you guys can go and quote parts here and there, and that is fine, we looked at all of the Facts and made the decision to remove the players from the Tournament. Due to the circumstances of the Merger and not informing the Tournament Admins, Staff or Directors, they were still removed from the tournament... and All affected clans would have the oppertunity to get any POW's back if they proved that the players were in the match as John has posted above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the matches that where won with these players are you going to give clans there territory back that they lost? How about clans that where eliminated? They should get there territory's back too if they where eliminated by "ringers" or rent a players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about everyone stop bitching? Shane and John made a decision and that's final. You guy should be thankful that they took over UF and kept it going. Tow and sniper could have easily quit UF and we'd all be stuck with GB. You can't please everyone and now that there is one decision that is not liked everyone whines and runs for the hills. For fucks sake, last time I checked honorable people don't bitch, they go about their business. So if you're going to leave UF then just leave, you don't need to make a post and make a big scene about it. If you don't like what happened just stfu and gtfo!!!

 

And STR8_HATE, you're a UF Ranger, why are you posting on every thread about this, just prolonging the incedent? Aren't you supposed to represent UF??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, all of the wars were confirmed, so no there will not be any return of Territories. That has always been the procedure and it was the same when there was an issue earlier in this paticular tournament. All wars are final, we however are giving the ability for the POW's to be released with Provided proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about everyone stop bitching? Shane and John made a decision and that's final. You guy should be thankful that they took over UF and kept it going. Tow and sniper could have easily quit UF and we'd all be stuck with GB. You can't please everyone and now that there is one decision that is not liked everyone whines and runs for the hills. For fucks sake, last time I checked honorable people don't bitch, they go about their business. So if you're going to leave UF then just leave, you don't need to make a post and make a big scene about it. If you don't like what happened just stfu and gtfo!!!

 

And STR8_HATE, you're a UF Ranger, why are you posting on every thread about this, just prolonging the incedent? Aren't you supposed to represent UF??

 

This is a statement. Which is why it's public. VR and Fc were honorable enough to play this tournament fairly. Aiel obviously hid those ringers for the sole purpose of winning. And nothing's being done about it! Even though posts by UF Staff clearly state that clans doing such thing will be removed from competition. Who knows what the next "rule bending" will be. We're making a statement because we want to play in an honorable tournament with teams that won't cheat the rules and get away with it.

 

As for you mister, if YOU are not pleased with VR and Fc going public, you don't have to read what is being said here. Take your own advice, stfu and gtfo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pee, I think the point is that half of the mantra of UF is "Win with Honor..." No one is bitching at all, merely taking a moral stance and showing that a lot of the long term members of the community and core group of active posters here believe whole heartedly in UF as a haven for gamers who don't WANT a GB atmosphere, don't want to deal with the hackers, glitchers, ringers, and BS that goes on over there. One thing that we as a community have prided ourselves on is the gap between us and them...and this is a huge thinning of that gap; for a clan of proven ringers, doing whatever they can to win even in a dishonorable fashion, to be allowed to compete is beyond ridiculous..it is a slap in the face to everyone who has supported UF throughout the years and through the change. It is a decision that abandons the core community here.

What is ironic, Pee, is that the directors were once leaders of a clan [KO] Known Outlaws...a clan that, along with 101, OGC, BD, and TA took a similar stand in UF3 when one of the former directors of UF cheated to gain advantage for his clan APC (who was also felt to be leading that tournament). The outcome of UF3 was no winner declared, a waste of time for all participants

 

http://www.urgentfury.com/showthread.php/64885-Urgent-Fury-Hall-of-Fame

 

With 2 of the top clans bowing out, this tournament's "victor" would have a very hollow celebration indeed.

Edited by Pathogen-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all peebrain, I am free to voice my opinion as I wish. As are you. As far as me commenting its really up to me if i wish to type on my keyboard or not. Thanks for the concern on me being a ranger but I uphold the " fair and honest gameplay" that UF has stood for. As for Tow and Sniper selling this site, it really has nothing to do with this situation, if you really want to know i could have bought this site personally 400 times over and still not blinked a bit about it. But that is here nor there. The guys that bought it have there own vision and have taken it great places. No is bitching just asking questions. Don't be narrow minded about concerns that could effect the way things could be handled in the future. These guys ask for advice all the time, and when the community gives it they respond. So please keep your petty comments to yourself and if you dont like it you can show yourself the door.

 

As to shanes response, I can understand that a war was confirmed, but pow's where also confirmed. So why not reinstate territory's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big thing that bothers me with this whole situation is that everyone keeps mentioning "winning with honor." That's one of the reasons LPK has been here for so long. But doesn't honor coincide with some sense of trust and believing one another? Everyone messes up and no ones perfect, but when it happens in UF more often then not, it's deemed dishonorable and cheating. I may be in the minority here, but I don't feel that AieL cheated because cheating implies they did it on purpose. I think AieL made a bad judgement that led to a rule being broken and I feel they should be punished for the rule being broken, which they are. I'm also not looking down on those clans that are choosing to no longer play here, they will do what they want. It just saddens me and make me mad that the UF community thins over a misunderstanding as simple as this. That's why I'm pissed and I apologize if I came of as a little bitch myself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow sorry to comment on this, but i have to say that i am "turned off on the idea" of getting involved with UF related events/tournies. I have been around awhile, and know many of the guys/clans that have supported UF and what they stood for. Because of the things they have said, i was planning on getting my newly formed clan with UF ( if accepted), but now i think i will go elsewhere. Sorry to see all the drama and deviations from the said UF values... thought this place was different, but i guess i was wrong :-(

 

 

 

Good luck to all the people involved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As to shanes response, I can understand that a war was confirmed, but pow's where also confirmed. So why not reinstate territory's?

 

That was the final decision about the POWs, as for match wins or losses, once they are confirmed with no dispute then the teams accept the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ bamboochimp

UF is like a family and every family fights once in a while. I wouldn't let this deter you, but good luck in finding a tourny site that fits for you.

Edited by Peebrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ bamboochimp

UF is like a family and every family fights once in a while. I wouldn't let this deter you, but good luck in finding a tourny site that fits for you.

 

Its not the fight that is deterring, its more of the principle/the image of UF being tarnished and justified in a manner that contradicts what UF is suppose to be about. If a clan member in a UF sponsoed tourney "unintentional found a soft spot in a map, would it be handled the same way because the "intention" wasnt there? Ringers or rent-a-players, intentional or not rules are rules and by saying one thing and doing something different is disheartening.

 

Also from a long term perspective, when u have clans that have been supporting UF for a long time just up and leaving during a tourney that they spent hours and hours preparing and practicing for.. well that just says a lot about how they now perceive UF. I am sure GB started out with the same intentions as UF and u see the image that they have now. just a thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember (I believe it was SOCOM Black IX) wherein a similar event occurred with a MUCH harsher punishment. I am not reprimanding or condoning the actions of any clan, I just think there should be more consistency in these rulings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bamboo, I understand your delima, and I am not going to sway you in any direction...

 

One thing needs to be very clear, at no point are we going to tell a clan how to run their clans, and we are not going to tell your players in your clan what they can and cannot do outside of Urgent Fury.

 

One of the many discussions that came about in all of this is where do the Directors Draw the line between maintaining a community that welcomes players to bring their teams and a community that is ruled by Martial Law.

 

The rules on Ringers and Rent a Players has some grey areas and this happens to be the perfect example of this. This is one of the issues we are having to deal with now because of this. If a clan feels they need to leave because of a ruling, then that is their decision to make. We have made decisions in the past that caused the same sort of outcry. We are still here and we have no plans of going anywhere.

 

Plus I remind everyone to look at my first post in this thread, I did provide details on why our decision was made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pathogen are you suggesting that 101 quit that tournament? If so you are mistaken. 101 in fact did not quit that tournament. Did we have an issue with a ruling? We sure did. The ruling impacted us more than anyone because it was against us. The community did band together over the ruling as it was a ruling which totally contradicted a previous ruling of the same nature. It also did not help that he made it in favor of his own team. To this day, I have no idea why the ruling was made the way it was however it was.

 

As mentioned it did not go over well. There was outcry from the community. This outcry was not just because of this one ruling but what some members of the community thought was a pattern of favoritism. I recall this issue well as I started the complaint about this ruling on this night about us having to play like 8 men down for a war vs them due to a server issue. Many were not affected, but many were as well. APC was able to log on there full amount while 101 had about half. He ruled since some could get on that it was just bad luck and we would have to play shorthanded.

 

The issue I had, as I was the CR for 101, was just a few weeks prior there was another server issue. Many were affected and many were not. APC that night had most of there gunners affected, while the opposing team was able to field a full squad. Due to the server issue on that night it was decided to cancel the wars, yet in our case it was oh well tough luck. In other words two complete different ruling for the exact thing.

 

Yes I put up a post questioning the ruling. Yes i did, continue to argue the fight as it was not a ruling that was consistent. In that process, others came into our thread and called for the rules to be applied equally. For that I applauded them, however then things got ugly. People crossed the line of being respectful and took a thread in which I stayed professional til the very end and well as I said, it got ugly. People started getting banned. Free Douggie sigs went up all over the place. When the bans started coming, it kept getting worse. I again maintain my professionalism trying to deal with the situation. Then it was done. I guess it got to hot and Tow decided to ban everyone in the thread. Well since it was my battle, he decided to ban 101 as well.

 

Now about us quitting. No that did not happen. Did we talk about it? Yes we did. Did others announce they were quitting? Yes they did, however once again 101 never declared that. The tourney was shut down and to be honest i am not sure had it remained if we would of stayed or left, but we did not make any declaration as was said, the tournament was called off and everyone of those teams banned.

 

Also if you recall, the only one let back in within a week was 101. As we did not get belligerent in the thread. We just fought a good fight.

 

Anyhow back to this issue and why it is totally different than the above mentioned issue. The last issue dealt with a ruling that was made in 2 different server issues, completely opposite of one another. One the wars were cancelled, the other it was said tough luck play down as is. The problem with that was again when the server issue occurred the first time the person making the rulings clan was affected so the wars were cancelled. In the second instance they were not affected yet their opponent was heavily affected, yet this time it was oh well that's the breaks. Those are conflicting rulings.

 

In this case there are no conflicting rulings. As a matter of fact, it is highly consistent of previous rulings dealing with the same issue. A few tournaments back, we had this issue arise. One team complained about another. Then the complaints came all over. In the end we found several teams to be in violation of the rule if you did not read the whole rule and understand the theme of the rule. Did we remove these teams from their tournament? No we did not. Did we suspend them from UF for a period of no less then 1 year? No we did not. When we investigated the previous issue, staff determined that the teams who had illegal players, did not intentionally or knowingly recruit players for the sole purpose of being just a part time player on their teams. They were under the impression that these players were to be a part of their team and their team alone.

 

So what did happen in those cases. Each team had to remove the player from their rosters and lose those spots for the remainder of the tournament. Sounds familiar doesn't it. Sounds exactly as what happened in this case. Had we ruled in that situation as you are asking for here, this community and this tournament would of had 2 less teams as they would still be under suspension. Imagine that? Two teams who are currently looked at as pillars of this community would of been still suspended had we acted as you are asking the directors to do in this case.

 

Now I suppose the argument is what was done knowingly and with what intent was it done. That can and will be up for debate by everyone. Just as the prior cases were. The bottom line is everyone will have their opinion. No one is right and no one is wrong, unless those who were guilty of the offense go take a polygraph and we find out. We do not have that luxury. All we can do is go by what we have seen and what is presented to us and any precedent that was previously set. Then you have to factor in everything and come to a conclusion. I would imagine that the Directors along with Johnson, took the past rulings as well as all evidence that has been presented and that is how they based their ruling.

Edited by Bandit99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll also add that KO never declared inclusion in the walk out, and never received any banning (other than Raist) during that event shutdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about the long standing UF clans that are supporting the directors?? Does that say nothing about the integrity of UF??

 

That is their perogative, of course. Its easier to believe that thin claim/excuse when you havent seen the posts/threads and admissions in their own writing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is their perogative, of course. Its easier to believe that thin claim/excuse when you havent seen the posts/threads and admissions in their own writing

 

If we're not getting everything then why was this even brought out in the open for everyone to comment on??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this