De-Pip Squad lose tournament

12345

@Usui said:

@12345 said:

@Mc_Harty said:

@SnakeSound222 said:
Wait what? Depip Squad and only the Depip Squad were told they can’t participate in multiple tourneys? I never heard about this. Is it because they were deemed “too good” and BHVR doesn’t want them winning every tournament? 

If the forums are going to be a shitshow every time they lost then who cares honestly.

The forums and reddit have been a shitstorm because of Space Esports nothing else.

Nah, a shitshow because of biased fanboys such as yourself. Marth made a mistake, he lost, go cry in a corner now.

Actually not a shitstorm because it has been obvious that as an event this was #########. The casters were terrible with no knowledge at all of the game. ######### music. 20 minutes pauses between matches. Obvious hackers playing that didn't get Dq'd.
These are the things most of the people complained about... but anyways you are just a toxic troll why am I even wasting my time answering is a mystery.

Zagrid

@ZombieGenesis said:
Because he made a bad play. That's what his fans aren't wanting to own up to, Marth made a bad play and it cost his team the win.

That's not saying there weren't other problems too but one does not negate the other.

What bad play are you referring too? Them changing the rules so his messing around became the thing that made him lose? Because if they had not changed that rule then him messing around would not have mattered because he already would have won.

12345

@thesuicidefox said:

@12345 said:

@thesuicidefox said:
But when you took a swing before the ref called the game you forfeit any claim to the hatch because she now has a "play" in being able to escape the hatch. Whether or not it was standoff is irrelevant.

What? can you please show where in the rules is this part written?

No he swong because he had won and wanted the match to end. By the rules he already got the point at the beginning of the standoff.

You don't understand the meaning of "play the ball as it lies" so I will explain.

(I don't play golf, this is just an explanation of what I mean, so humor me.)

Let's say you are playing golf tournament. You hit the ball into a wooded area that is clearly not part of the course. But the rule states "play the ball as it lies" so you go up and you whack it again, adding a stroke. Later you find out that you could have reset the ball onto the course at the closest point. But there is a problem, you already hit the ball, and therefore you don't get that option anymore. What you should have done was call or wait for the ref to declare what you should do, but instead you just went ahead and did what you think is the right thing to do according to the rules.

I see what you are trying to say, it just does not work in the particular situation of the tournament. The rule wasn't hard to understand it simply stated that in case of an hatch standoff whoever get there first wins. Marth got there first therefore he won.

The metaphor you want to use can't be applyed in a case where the casters had to literally livestream add a very specific situation where the rule does not apply in order to have a rematch.

12345

@thesuicidefox said:

@12345 said:
I think you didn't watch the other match or you would have a bit more context. No marth acted well because the referee was never going to stop the match.

It doesn't matter what happened any other time other than that exact time when they were both at the hatch before he swung. NONE OF IT. The only thing that matters is Marth assumed something he shouldn't have. I wouldn't doubt these guys were ######### refs, they sound like #########, but Marth doesn't have the authority to declare himself the winner based on his own interpretation of the rules, even if his interpretation is correct.

I also seriously doubt that no one would step in to officiate if they both just stood on the hatch for anything more than 20 seconds not moving. Someone would have stepped in an said something, or at the very least someone else would have prodded them to step in. Regardless, Marth acted independently of the officials and therefore the game is treated as live. Until the ref steps in, the game is live and you should not assume anything. And if you need an official you ask for one (which I believe Marth could have done discretely as the Claudette would have no way to know he's not just sitting and waiting for her to jump).

And as far as the shadey business trying to keep Depip squad from winning... no comment. I will say that Marth, again, has no one to blame but himself for making a mistake that the other team or the supposed crooked refs could take advantage of. If he waited or asked for a ref, their hand is forced and they step in and make a decisions, which he can then contest because the game is technically paused at a critical spot. Going back in time to make a decision after events have played out does not work, as you can see.

BHVR already announced they are stepping in this argument and by the weekend there should be a result for this argument.

Frankly I am sure they will just say "Dsquad won obviously ######### is this #########". Just please promise me that when they will you will admit you were wrong.

I am tired of explaining the same ######### over and over.

All the things you said are just your speculations that are frankly riciculous as the rule was very simple and clear.

Human beings develop the ability to apply simple logic to natural languages in between 5-7 years old. I mean. For real?

IF YOU HIT A SURVIVOR AND THEN HE JUMP INTO AN HATCH BEFORE YOU CAN GRAB HIM YOU WERE IN A STANDOFF SITUATION.

THE RULE STATED THAT WHOEVER GOT THERE FIRST WIN.

MARTH WIN.

LOGIC.

Shipthebread

@ZombieGenesis said:
But they were the officials and they needed to call the match for it to end. They did not. Marth made a "game move" ending the standoff. Survivor escaped.

Is it crappy? Depends on who you ask but it really is that simple. Stuff like this happens in physical sports all the time. It's just the nature of competitive sports.

Yeah, everyone is acting like this never happens? This year due to the vagueness of the NFL catch rule it cost the Steelers their playoff game, it cost other teams games in the past. Did the NFL look at those games after and change the ruling and basically undermine their entire Reffing staff? No of course they didn't, a call was made, the rule was vague. NFL Re-visited the wording to make it better for future seasons.

We are talking billions of dollars up for grabs. If BHVR capitulates at all it undermines the people who made the decision and all those who may come after, imagine you do the tourney and have to say well so and so won for now but let's see if the community cries enough that BHVR now has to investigate again.

I love Marth but this would be adding another black eye to an already battered tournament.

Shipthebread

@ZombieGenesis said:
And regardless of what ruling BHVR makes it does not negate the points either side has made. This is obviously a complex issue that has a lot of people fired up on either side. BHVR's decision is a call based on their opinions and interpretations of the rules. It does not negate other people's opinions and interpretations of the same rules. It does undermine the power given to the people they chose to run the tournament, which I think is wrong, but that is also BHVR's call.

IMO it undermines any future tournaments as well.

only1biggs

https://clips.twitch.tv/NurturingDiligentNoodleKappaClaus

This is a shared opinion among those with many thousands of hours (Zubat, Dia, et al). Zubat also says later that "he (Marth) should have won and was better than the other players...but he messed up."

Mc_Harty

@only1biggs said:
https://clips.twitch.tv/NurturingDiligentNoodleKappaClaus

This is a shared opinion among those with many thousands of hours (Zubat, Dia, et al). Zubat also says later that "he (Marth) should have won and was better than the other players...but he messed up."

Like what everyone else in this thread has been saying...

only1biggs

@Mc_Harty said:

@only1biggs said:
https://clips.twitch.tv/NurturingDiligentNoodleKappaClaus

This is a shared opinion among those with many thousands of hours (Zubat, Dia, et al). Zubat also says later that "he (Marth) should have won and was better than the other players...but he messed up."

Like what everyone else in this thread has been saying...

Yup. But to the couple of delusional fools that disagree with reality..it's sometimes important to them WHO said the fact...

Just thought I'd leave that there.

12345

Couple of delusional fools like bahroo who said "they changed the rules after the finals to make sure the team they didn't like lost".

At this point there is no point in discussing with you guys anymore. Wait BHVR.

Let's see who truly won the tournament.

12345

@ZombieGenesis said:
And regardless of what ruling BHVR makes it does not negate the points either side has made. This is obviously a complex issue that has a lot of people fired up on either side. BHVR's decision is a call based on their opinions and interpretations of the rules. It does not negate other people's opinions and interpretations of the same rules. It does undermine the power given to the people they chose to run the tournament, which I think is wrong, but that is also BHVR's call.

Listen there is no interpreting. The condition "The hatch must be open before the killer arrives" was not a condition before the finals.
The definition of standoff is:

"A deadlock situation between 2 or more parties where whoever act first loses".

Marth did hit the survivor and as retaliation the survivor jumped inside the hatch. So by definition he was on a standoff there is no interpreting to this.

The next question is:

Where this standoff happened?

ON THE HATCH.

Put the pieces together.

HATCH

STANDOFF

HATCH STANDOFF.

You Dsquad haters are really trying everything to justify the stupidity of Tello and Demon but there is no interpretation to anything here. The only thing they could do is adding a very specific condition to the rule to match that scenario and then call for a rematch that is extreamly unethical.

Stop saying BS and making big names.

Bahroo thinks marth should have won. Jandenese thinks Marth should have won. Tyde thinks Marth should have won. Swift thinks Marth should have won. But you guys with your bias only named one guy who shares your opinion. Actually not even sharing your opinion he is just asking in the clip why did he swing not really saying anything else. Maybe if Zubat just sit a second in front of a dictionary and read what a standoff is he would understand that a timeframe where you can lost a standoff if by rules whoever get there first wins does not exists. If you hit the survivor and as retaliation he jumps inside the hatch by definition you were on a standoff.

12345

@RemoveSWF said:
If BHVR overrules the tournament organiser's fair rules and judgement

This is just the joke of the year and I congratulate you.

12345

@ZombieGenesis said:
Where does it stipulate that a hatch standoff can happen on a closed hatch?

And to be clear, I know very little to nothing about the "DSquad". I only ever heard of you because of this tournament. You're not as big as you think you are. I'm looking at this from a completely neutral standpoint and using experience from other forms tournaments and other sports.

And where it don't?

The rule only talks about Hatch Standoff.

That by definition of what happened is a standoff. There is no interpreting sorry.

Changing a rule after the finals have being played is unethical. And the rule before the final stated that whoever get to the hatch first get the point in case of a standoff.

So there is no interpreting. The fact that the survivor jumped inside the hatch after being hit by itself proves they were on a standoff by definition of standoff.

Let me repeat for you guys "A Deadlock situation between 2 or more parties where whoever act first loses."

only1biggs

@ZombieGenesis said:
Where does it stipulate that a hatch standoff can happen on a closed hatch?

And to be clear, I know very little to nothing about the "DSquad". I only ever heard of you because of this tournament. You're not as big as you think you are. I'm looking at this from a completely neutral standpoint and using experience from other forms tournaments and other sports.

It's okay, just ignore

12345

@only1biggs said:

@ZombieGenesis said:
Where does it stipulate that a hatch standoff can happen on a closed hatch?

And to be clear, I know very little to nothing about the "DSquad". I only ever heard of you because of this tournament. You're not as big as you think you are. I'm looking at this from a completely neutral standpoint and using experience from other forms tournaments and other sports.

It's okay, just ignore

Ye exactly this is the only thing you can do. There is no counter argument to exact definition of the word standoff.

only1biggs

LOL Ignore you @12345

You are insane.

No killer or survivor has EVER been in a hatch stand off when the hatch wasn't open.

You're either a massive troll or you're brain dead.

You can have your own opinions, not your own facts.

12345

@ZombieGenesis said:
The definition of standoff "a stalemate or deadlock between two equally matched opponents in a dispute or conflict.". The survivor escaped through the hatch after being hit by Marth. There was no deadlock and, thusly, no standoff. Survivor wins.

There are multiple definitions you took the one from google that is the laziest to find (literally on top of your page if you write deadlock on google) that does not suit at all the context of this game.

No deadlock? Why because you didn't see them standing still for 10 minutes? They were in a situation where whoever acted fist lose so technically no progress can be made. Marth simply decided to unlock the situation because he knew that by the rules he had won.

12345

@only1biggs said:
LOL Ignore you @12345

You are insane.

No killer or survivor has EVER been in a hatch stand off when the hatch wasn't open.

You're either a massive troll or you're brain dead.

You can have your own opinions, not your own facts.

Ok troll. Just please remember me after bhvr decides who is the winner.

Shipthebread

@12345 said:

@ZombieGenesis said:

Bahroo thinks marth should have won. Jandenese thinks Marth should have won. Tyde thinks Marth should have won. Swift thinks Marth should have won. But you guys with your bias only named one guy who shares your opinion. Actually not even sharing your opinion he is just asking in the clip why did he swing not really saying anything else. Maybe if Zubat just sit a second in front of a dictionary and read what a standoff is he would understand that a timeframe where you can lost a standoff if by rules whoever get there first wins does not exists. If you hit the survivor and as retaliation he jumps inside the hatch by definition you were on a standoff.

I don't care about people's opinions, the rule was vague and as you see plenty of people interpret it different ways. Same thing happened in the NFL, to some people it was a catch to others it wasn't. Ref's ruled no catch the Steelers lost the damn game. NFL Revised the wording and made it more complete. End of story. To reverse it now is childish. I like Marth a lot he's a great streamer and amazing player, but he should help heal wounds not keep opening them. He lost, he didn't play till the whistle and lost.

Shipthebread

@12345 said:

@Shipthebread said:

@12345 said:

@ZombieGenesis said:

Bahroo thinks marth should have won. Jandenese thinks Marth should have won. Tyde thinks Marth should have won. Swift thinks Marth should have won. But you guys with your bias only named one guy who shares your opinion. Actually not even sharing your opinion he is just asking in the clip why did he swing not really saying anything else. Maybe if Zubat just sit a second in front of a dictionary and read what a standoff is he would understand that a timeframe where you can lost a standoff if by rules whoever get there first wins does not exists. If you hit the survivor and as retaliation he jumps inside the hatch by definition you were on a standoff.

I don't care about people's opinions, the rule was vague and as you see plenty of people interpret it different ways. Same thing happened in the NFL, to some people it was a catch to others it wasn't. Ref's ruled no catch the Steelers lost the damn game. NFL Revised the wording and made it more complete. End of story. To reverse it now is childish. I like Marth a lot he's a great streamer and amazing player, but he should help heal wounds not keep opening them. He lost, he didn't play till the whistle and lost.

No I see the same 3-4 guys who keep "interpreting" it the way they want even if to them was given a complete explaination on how logic is applyed to natural languages and how that marth was in was indeed a standoff by definition of standoff.

Again you keep ignoring the perfect example of the NFL Catch rule, how does that concept not apply here? My comment about playing till the end, not assuming things?

12345

@Shipthebread said:

@12345 said:

@Shipthebread said:

@12345 said:

@ZombieGenesis said:

Bahroo thinks marth should have won. Jandenese thinks Marth should have won. Tyde thinks Marth should have won. Swift thinks Marth should have won. But you guys with your bias only named one guy who shares your opinion. Actually not even sharing your opinion he is just asking in the clip why did he swing not really saying anything else. Maybe if Zubat just sit a second in front of a dictionary and read what a standoff is he would understand that a timeframe where you can lost a standoff if by rules whoever get there first wins does not exists. If you hit the survivor and as retaliation he jumps inside the hatch by definition you were on a standoff.

I don't care about people's opinions, the rule was vague and as you see plenty of people interpret it different ways. Same thing happened in the NFL, to some people it was a catch to others it wasn't. Ref's ruled no catch the Steelers lost the damn game. NFL Revised the wording and made it more complete. End of story. To reverse it now is childish. I like Marth a lot he's a great streamer and amazing player, but he should help heal wounds not keep opening them. He lost, he didn't play till the whistle and lost.

No I see the same 3-4 guys who keep "interpreting" it the way they want even if to them was given a complete explaination on how logic is applyed to natural languages and how that marth was in was indeed a standoff by definition of standoff.

Again you keep ignoring the perfect example of the NFL Catch rule, how does that concept not apply here? My comment about playing till the end, not assuming things?

Because it is not a perfect example. You were talking about a situation where interpretation was a thing. Here interpretation is not a thing. By definition of standoff Marth was on a standoff. What they had to do was to add a new line to the rule post match but this is unethical.

Shipthebread

@12345 said:

@Shipthebread said:

@12345 said:

@Shipthebread said:

@12345 said:

@ZombieGenesis said:

Bahroo thinks marth should have won. Jandenese thinks Marth should have won. Tyde thinks Marth should have won. Swift thinks Marth should have won. But you guys with your bias only named one guy who shares your opinion. Actually not even sharing your opinion he is just asking in the clip why did he swing not really saying anything else. Maybe if Zubat just sit a second in front of a dictionary and read what a standoff is he would understand that a timeframe where you can lost a standoff if by rules whoever get there first wins does not exists. If you hit the survivor and as retaliation he jumps inside the hatch by definition you were on a standoff.

I don't care about people's opinions, the rule was vague and as you see plenty of people interpret it different ways. Same thing happened in the NFL, to some people it was a catch to others it wasn't. Ref's ruled no catch the Steelers lost the damn game. NFL Revised the wording and made it more complete. End of story. To reverse it now is childish. I like Marth a lot he's a great streamer and amazing player, but he should help heal wounds not keep opening them. He lost, he didn't play till the whistle and lost.

No I see the same 3-4 guys who keep "interpreting" it the way they want even if to them was given a complete explaination on how logic is applyed to natural languages and how that marth was in was indeed a standoff by definition of standoff.

Again you keep ignoring the perfect example of the NFL Catch rule, how does that concept not apply here? My comment about playing till the end, not assuming things?

Because it is not a perfect example. You were talking about a situation where interpretation was a thing. Here interpretation is not a thing. By definition of standoff Marth was on a standoff. What they had to do was to add a new line to the rule post match but this is unethical.

How is interpretation not a thing? People are saying you can't have a hatch standoff if the hatch isn't open. So by that definition as soon as the the 2nd to last survivor is hooked if the survivor finds the hatch they have won the standoff right? Or is it only when the person on the hook is past 1 stage? Or 2nd stage? Or near dead and thus its close enough? When is it a closed hatch standoff? When the hatch appears and all 4 survivors run to it?

It far and away more clear cut and less vague to say a hatch standoff starts when the survivor has the possibility to get out but doing so would get him grabbed, Killer has the chance to hit survivor but doing so would cause him to jump in the hatch.

Shipthebread

@ZombieGenesis said:
@Shipthebread Dude, there's literally no point arguing with these guys. Things are only true when they point in their favor, period. Be they words, definitions, feelings, or otherwise. If it does not support their story, it does not count and it is false.

What is interesting, is that it looks like the Mods removed this thread from tracking new updated posts so it gets buried? No new posts in this thread since 9:40am but I just tested other threads and they track new posts.

Shipthebread

@ZombieGenesis said:
Wow, yeah. It's buried on the second page now. Bizarre!

It says new when you go look, but the last post time doesn't go passed 9:40 am

LOL censorship.