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.

[quote="loxeo" post=977165][quote="dankek" post=977162][quote="loxeo" post=977159]Here is where FawDaw is completely violating the scamming rule. [img size=500]https://i.imgur.com/mif7R55.png[/img] He stops rolling.. mid-roll? That's what I see in this appeal, 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 [i]single[/i] 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 a scam.[/quote] 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.[/quote] 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 partially on the fence with this one. At the least, Jawson should get his money back and FawDaw keeps his original money.[/quote] 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.