Update on Tournament Rules Decision

Awowa stated that whoever made the first offensive move would be at a disadvantage. Seeing as it makes absolutely no sense to put yourself at a disadvantage, it can easily be seen how after 10 minutes of stalemate play, both teams realised the ridiculousness of the situation and treated it as such. They could have continued with the pretense of putting up an offense, but they chose to conga instead.

I for one hope that Anet don't take our opinions into the matter, as most didn't even see the match in question, and therefore don't have all the information.

What and these two teams have never been put in a situation where by the first team to make a move would've been at a disadvantage? Ever farthom the thought of being in a disavantagious situation and turning the situtaion into an advantage at a future point in time, you know by actually outplaying the other team?
Is this not what high level PvP is all supposed about isn't it, you all bang on about fairness/balance/competition etc.. and people are suggesting that no action be taken?

Now we're never find out what would've happened in this matchup because they decided to do a conga line however long into the match.....

If Anet takes no action whats gonna happen the next time these teams play each other or other guilds, and the situation arrises again? Offer a conga line, sure why not...

imo blaming the system and/or expoiting it is no excuse, did anyone actually bring this issue up with on any fourms or with anet themselves?

High level PvP is all about putting yourself in the best position to win. If attacking first puts their team at a disadvantage, then technically they were both playing optimal strategy.

I think an objective view from a mostly pve guy like myself can be refreshing, even though I don't know all the facts and details. PvP is however an important part of this game and should get the proper attention.

Even though I still don't see it as an example of good sportsmanship, I understand why the teams went for that option. Nevertheless it's not the 'normal' way of playing.

Another factor to concider is that the system has a flaw and they brought it in the spotlight, even though it was going on in other pvp formats too from what I read. Now this is somewhat embarrassing for Anet, yet they shouldn't punish the guilds if that's the solo motivation behind the punishment. And if a punishment is in order, at least make it a constructive one for the community and the guilds involved.

At the same time there should be thought about a fair compensation or not for guild(s) who were placed at a disadvantage because off the 'playstyle' rawr and zero used.

One can say it's actually a good thing that flaws see the daylight. It gives Anet some extra work, but it's also a chance for Anet to proove they're on top of things and are in control.

I think it's not the time of pointing fingers on who's to blame. The question should be: What steps must be taken to avoid this in the future?

Just to correct a common mistake done in this thread- the guilds didn't 100% qualify after the 5th match. In fact, I understand that there was a pretty high probability that rawr would have stayed out had they lost that match.

In response to a common argument, you are never going to understand the opposing side as long as your reasoning continues to support the logic behind only acting in your own immediate self-interest on everything. This is a multiplayer game, the self-interests of all who play are involved and of equal consideration.

Rules are defined to protect the self-interest of everyone, which is why when you break a rule; you have no excuse that you did so in your own self-interest. The act of breaking a rule indicates that your self-interest is considered harmful to others when done in that manner. Every single criminal is logically acting in his own self-interest when he steals, cheats, or hurts someone. This is why you cannot work with the reasoning that what someone did is correct because it was the best act they could do according to self-interest. The rules in place can be as inflexible towards forcing you to change your self-interested behavior as they want to be.

If you want to see what logic looks like, anyone with an interest (whether it is self or other) that is harmful to the interests of other people is either: locked up, being rehabilitated, or has people actively trying to stop the behavior. Societies with rules that fully support acting in self-interest are usually negotiated with as though they are terrorists or dictators (which means they aren't negotiated with, only punished). Most people occasionally cross lines and harm the interests of others, but they accept punishment for it or they are accept having to change.

The Hero Battles argument is missing the specific documented proof that the behavior is supported; and when I say supported, I don't mean 'isn't punished'. Because when there is a contradiction between rules and enforcement, the documented rules can override the enforced rules at any time. You need a direct verbal commitment to what you are doing and it’s good if you can point out documentation; in this case I have only seen direct verbal rejection of the behavior.

Example of argument involving documented rules vs. enforced rules:
Correct: You can't tow me. There wasn't a ‘no parking’ sign visible in the area.
Wrong: You can't tow me. My friend parked there 10,000 times in the past (if sign has been there during those times).

Posted this in this thread because my comments are not related to the ruling.

Ties are a problem in any competitive scene. Anyone who thinks "no big deal" should read this: http://forums.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=34764