Discussion: ESG

dont_ask

Audeamus wrote: »

Well I don't have xfire, but hopefully Zz or x0tek reads this and they'll add you and set it up.

Ok look, undaunted sucks, can't make it out of group play so I don't now why all you reid you and zz think your playoff material

You really need to get off the forums your making yourself look like an idiot worse than I did...

mateuszsweg

h0nesttt wrote: »

Yet we get DQ'd for disrespect? C'mon now. I think we have the right to be a little upset with the way things happened.

We don't sit there and wait for the 15minute mark every match, especially if we would have seen 4. I know if i saw a 4th player get in the room and leave to relog i would have told my team the dispute is unnecessary. Its over with now anyways, we will continue to be participating in future tournaments.

Wow you guys got ****ing DQ'd? lmfao.

Narficer wrote: »

Easiest solution would just be to fix the rules then, and add in a bolded 'SHADOWS ARE ALLOWED' thing.

Can't even claim favouritism there, it's just a flaw in the rules that should be corrected, as they had already told a previous team shadows were allowed.

Agreed ^

h0nesttt

mateuszsweg wrote: »

Wow you guys got ****ing DQ'd? lmfao.

Apparently for submitting a "bogus" screenshot of us disputing player slayers no show. Because the name of the room was "favoritism" and me and logic couldn't find anything on esg about specific rules for the room name. Plus favoritism could have meant anything, it didnt have to be related to esg..

Sorry if that seems "immature" poleus, but we tried to have a legitimate conversation with you over the ESG ticket system and you pretty much just said to stop sending tickets about it when we never got an actual response to why the decision was made. At least not that i know of. We tried to explain and prove to you the situation that happened before, during, and after the match. We did not intentionally disrespect ESG, we felt a wrong decision was made and expressed our opinions.

But its okay if you don't want to give us 3rd, now that we know you made your decision off of false information we can move on from this. See you in the next competition.

mateuszsweg

h0nesttt wrote: »

Apparently for submitting a "bogus" screenshot of us disputing player slayers no show. Because the name of the room was "favoritism" and me and logic couldn't find anything on esg about specific rules for the room name. Plus favoritism could have meant anything, it didnt have to be related to esg..

Sorry if that seems "immature" poleus, but we tried to have a legitimate conversation with you over the ESG ticket system and you pretty much just said to stop sending tickets about it when we never got an actual response to why the decision was made. At least not that i know of. We tried to explain and prove to you the situation that happened before, during, and after the match. We did not intentionally disrespect ESG, we felt a wrong decision was made and expressed our opinions.

But its okay if you don't want to give us 3rd, now that we know you made your decision off of false information we can move on from this. See you in the next competition.

That's really stupid. No offense to ESG.

[MOD]Polleus

We explained it over and over why the ruling was made. If you can't accept our reasons, then that's not our problem. There was no set time for the 3rd / 4th place match. Given what was going on, it's perfectly reasonable to see how that screen shot looked to us logic. Use common sense. Using favoritism in your room name, not using Player Slayer's name in the title and then having your team mates type ace gaming repeatedly in the chat. How do you think it's going to look?

If you can set up a time with Player Slayer to play out your match this week, preferably by Friday, I will allow you to do so. This doesn't need to be discussed anymore. Move on.