TOPIC: [SSRP] Ban Request - Fawdaw

Raeker wrote: Yes this is true, But this is where the whole trickery part comes in to play I was under the impression it was first to 3 but the rules do not clarify and You said your self (in steam) "Theres nothing to go off that it's a ft3, so it would be ft1"

dankek wrote:
Yes and you can clearly see i said wait before rolling because i saw i made that i made the mistake
but he obviously understand that it was bo3 otherwise he wouldnt of rolled 3 times- i did even point out i Dident put in the rolling rules

Here is where FawDaw is completely violating the scamming rule.



He stops rolling.. mid-roll? That's what I see in this ban request, there isn't a need to go in-depth with the 3-roll. My opinion on that, however, is that FawDaw is in the wrong because Jawson expressly agreed to
"500m vs 500m / roll 666 / missroll = instant win for me / highest wins / no backing out / type agree to start"
Not a single mention of bo3/ft3 in here? I don't think any of the other rolls have any relevance.

TL;DR: FawDaw initally accepted the rules along with Jawson and tries to change it mid-roll. This is already a complete and malicious scam, without even looking at the latter part of the console logs.

If anyone has a different perspective for me to refute, I'll try, but my opinion is as it stands.

loxeo wrote:

loxeo wrote: Fair point, but both discarded that later and Jawson did not insist. Why should we punish fawdaw over something completely irrelevant that the users themselves did not give a shite about that moment? This looks rather revengeful just because Jawson lost a cf, you're trying to find something to hold him accountable, where nothing is.
Both players agreed to the final set of rules, where it was not explicitely stated but understood that it was bo3, I'm thinking of denying this, it looks rather pointless.

Thanks for teaching me somehing I can get away with

dankek wrote:
Sets a precedent for malicious behavior, where FawDaw creates two sets of rules? If he rolled higher than him on the first roll, FawDaw could have completely pointed out the fact that he didn't "paste it in the original rules" and fully get away with this. He ended up winning the ft3, but losing the bo1 (what the rules specified). I'm not sure if you're completely aware of what FawDaw said after/in this thread, he said something along the lines of "he could have stolen my money because I didn't specify the rules"

It's clear. FawDaw, in this thread, said that he created two sets of rules. Go read up on the thread.

I'm partially on the fence with this one. At the least, Jawson should get his money back and FawDaw keeps his original money.

Jawson should 100% get his money back.

loxeo wrote: I don't think it's a precedent for malicious behaviour.
They both inexplicitly agreed on a bo3, both of their actions prove so, and it isn't "defaulted to bo1" when it isn't explicitly stated, especially since both users had an understanding it's bo3 instead. Is there another argument than that of "it defaults to bo1" when it doesn't? It can default to last to 1, first of 1, best of 1, last of 3, first of 3 or best of 3 all I know. How can you say otherwise? Where is this "default" written? It's clearly a contextual thing, and it's a rather redicilous claim to make as a reason to permanently ban someone for scamming.
I see no reason to make any refunds to Jawson or give out any punishment, they inexplicitly agreed on it being bo3 and their actions confirm it.

dankek wrote:
This is where you are objectively wrong. It does, in fact, always default to bo1 without further specification. Raeker said it (scroll up in thread) - regardless of context, it DOES default to bo1. It's also common sense.

loxeo wrote: Raeker wrote:

DEADMONSTOR wrote:
>regardless of context
>adds context
D:

loxeo wrote: How is it common sense, when people play for first to 1 as well as other gamemodes? I personally never bo3 because I don't like the chances, where is this standard you people are pulling from? Raeker also pulled the statement he made because he also believes in (fundementally) the same argument I'm making about the bo3.Also, if it's "common sense" why haven't you found an argument that strikes down mine? I'm seriously not buying this.
Oh, also, somebody's word out of context isn't law. Just an fyi.

dankek wrote:
If you don’t specify it makes sense that we will be rolling bo1 as that’s how it is. Jawson shouldn’t get money as “he won the cf” because there is context behind it, but should definitely be refunded.

dankek wrote:
Because that's how it works.

Example rules: "/roll 100, high win, 10m vs 10m - agree?"
The first role would determine the outcome. Not sure how I can explain this to you if you can't accept it, but have Raeker explain it for you too,
[DISREGARDING CONTEXT]

[DISREGARDING CONTEXT]
This is a general statement.

jawson won the first roll
fawdaw won the 2nd.... jawson should get his 500m refunded then

Zarp Trusted wrote:
I can see your brain from here.

EiPUS wrote: too late to read the paragraphs

loxeo wrote: The issue that I have with this report is that Jawson rolled three times. That makes it seem as if he was well aware of the rules that they actually agreed upon (according to FawDaw they also mentioned ft3 in voice chat) and that he, after the initial rolls, decided that he wanted to fall back on another strategy where this would actually be ft1. That makes no sense though, as he already rolled three times.

---

delete this (comment)