Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Thursday, May 24, 2012

A GM told me I could

There's a fantastic tactic used by children.  They ask mommy if they can do something.  If she says no, they go ask daddy.  Maybe they'll get an answer that they like better.  There's an even better tactic that often produces better results.  They don't ask either of them if they can do something.  They just go do it.  Then, when the child is caught and asked why they did it, their response is "I don't know!"  And when punished for it, they go have themselves a giant sulk, even though they almost certainly knew that what they were doing was wrong.

Did I say these tactics are used by children?  I misspoke.  They're tactics used by the childish.

In the first major bit of drama associated with Alliance Tournament X, three teams have been banned from competition.  You can read all about it in this forum post by CCP Sreegs.  Here's the money quote:
It was widely known after the finals last year that Hydra Reloaded and Outbreak. had worked together as a single unit in order to game the competition.  They are both individually highly competitive teams and when they are working in their own interests they are among the best. Unfortunately Hydra and Outbreak are working from the same playbook as last year, practicing together in a single corporation on the test server in a single wormhole.
In short, the two teams were testing their combined theories against each other, sharing their theory-crafting and their fleet compositions.  Similarly, Pandemic Legion's "B team" also got themselves banned from competition.  PL's "A team" survives presumably because the team captain was only using the "B team" as puppets to test their comps, but presumably weren't sharing the theory behind those comps or practice locations.

Not at all unexpectedly, Duncan Tanner and Garmon almost immediately started bitching, and their bitching took a common form.  Here's Duncan's version:
Perhaps you should have answered our multiple petitions and e-mails asking whether we were allowed to test together before we even started testing?

Oh except for the one petition where we got a response from a senior GM who said teams COULD practice together.
And here's Garmon's:
While we were spending hundreds of hours preparing, we got the all clear 11 days after our first e-mail through a petition. So we were under the impression that we were doing nothing wrong, if we had known what we were doing was wrong, we would have not tested together.

Only, here's the important bit.  Here's the e-mail that Garmon sent to CCP Loxy regarding their petitions:
Hello CCP Loxy,

We are putting a lot of effort in our tournament run this year. However we are very concerned that we might be breaking CCP's interpretations of certain rules without being aware of it. We want to follow the rules completely and contribute to making it an event that the Eve community appreciates and looks forward to.

We have described our intentions to CCP in our previous e-mail and we would like to know as soon as possible if what we are doing is alright. Specifically the rules are vague about how much collaboration constitues an A and B team situation. We suspect that there is no issue with testing against another team since multiple other hopeful entrants have been practicing together on SiSi this year. Again, however, we want to be sure.

If we could get a response as soon as possible it would put all of our minds at ease.

Hydra Reloaded

However we are very concerned that we might be breaking CCP's interpretations of certain rules without being aware of it.

We are very concerned that we might be breaking certain rules.

We are breaking rules.

Short version: the Hydra/Outbreak team knew what they were doing was wrong, so they passed the buck with "multiple petitions and e-mails" until they found a Senior GM that would cover for them.

Mommy wouldn't tell me what I was doing was wrong (even though I knew it was wrong), so I asked daddy.

Needless to say, I'm not shedding any tears for Hydra or Outbreak here.  "A GM told me I could" is perhaps the worst possible defense when you're in this situation.  Aperture Harmonics had GM sanction to take certain in-game actions too, even though they almost certainly knew those actions were wrong.  But they asked "multiple" GMs about it, too, until they found one that said what they were doing was OK.  And when the time came to pay the piper, that GM sanction had about as much effect as a paper shield against a flame-thrower.  And AHARM had to know that this would be the case when the time came.  But they convinced themselves that everything would be OK.

And I'm sure Hydra and Outbreak did, too.  I'm glad they've learned otherwise.

EDIT (24/May/2012): One more thing.  Don't let your emotions get in the way on this one.  I know a lot of people like Garmon, but I feel pretty certain he went into what he was doing with eyes wide open.  If both Hydra and Outbreak had entered and one of them was eliminated due to bad luck, it's clear the other would have picked up all the theories and fleet comps (and probably, more than one pilot flying an in-alliance alt) from the other.  That's specifically what the rules were designed to prevent.  Keep that in mind before you start flaming me.


  1. Karbox DelacroixMay 24, 2012 at 5:28 PM

    Once again we have a wonderful example of why CCP will ban you if you disclose the content of "private" GM correspondence.

    EVE is serious business. This is often said as a joke but it is funny because it is so damn true. People take the Alliance Tournament seriously. If RK will blow up your ship for bring the wrong fitting on a roam, I can only imagine what they would do to someone who leaked their ATX secrets.

    Intense competition breads rule-lawyering. People want every advantage that they can get and the correct response is to issue rule errata or change game mechanics. You could once wipe out a belt of miners with a singe Tornado. In response, CCP not only changed the rules but they changed the game mechanics.

    The GM fucked up. Whatever internal process exists to handle petitions regarding ATX, it clearly did not include those responsible for organizing ATX. This is a problem. It is also a problem that PL can be found guilty of the same infraction and receive a different punishment. It is also a problem that the two alliances that make up RvB are treated as one Alliance (purple).

    You suggest that PL was spared because they were not sharing their "theory" with their B team. You cannot possibly know this and neither can CCP. PL are not dummies and it beggars belief that they would have shared theory using the potentially monitored in-game communication tools. If Mittens can run the CFC while being banned then PL can collude with their B team outside the game. I am not saying they did, but it is unclear why the punishments would differ.

    1. RvB is one alliance. The only reason there is an R and a B is for simplicity of membership to easily tell what the hell they are shooting at. They schedule fights together, roams together, and rules together. They have the same board of directors. No one talks about Team Red or Team Blue except jokingly, everyone talks about RvB(purple) as a single entity. Because they are a single entity. Neither would work without the other, it takes both alliances to make what they are work.

    2. The perfect structure for RvB would be two corps under the banner of a single alliance actually. Unfortunately hi-sec game mechanics are such that there is no way you can shoot alliance members in difference corps - so RvB just can't work like that. In the early days of RvB there was a push to see if CCP would change it, until last year they decide to form under a red and blue alliance, simply to enter AT.

    3. PL's situation is different. I am (was) part of PL's "B team," Your Votes Don't Count [NOCSM]. There were no PL pilots on team, there was no sharing of any theory crafting between either team.

      All the members of "B team" were members hoping to one day get into PL. All of theory came from our own pilots and all of our testing was done by our own pilots.

      We do understand why we were deemed a "B team" and are unhappy about it, but most of us saw that this could happened and practiced anyway hoping CCP would let us in.

  2. I'm gonna call BS and believe me no Alliance that Corelin has ever been part of has even SMELLED the Alliance tournament. Garmon says "However we are very concerned that we might be breaking CCP's interpretations of certain rules without being aware of it." and they asked for a clarification.

    This is nothing like what Aperture Harmonics did. AHARM made a deliberately vague petition in order to put a rubber stamp on something they were already abusing. PL specifically points to what they are currently doing. BIG difference.

    You go on to say "'A GM told me I could' is perhaps the worst possible defense when you're in this situation." Ummm... so what you are saying is that we shouldn't trust GM's at all? Because that's my takeaway here. If we can't take what GM's say at face value, then what good are petitions at all? Sure if you craft your petition as carefully and vaguely as possible in order to get a blanket answer then you deserve to get spanked. With an axe. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Again it looks like at least PL asked specifically how much they were allowed to collaborate. One GM told them they were cool with what was going on and another one banned them. This represents a failure first of the GM team, which NEEDS to be on the same page and needs to be intelligent about throwing out the hammer in this situation. If one GM has told people they are allowed to do something they aren't because both the wrong GM and the interested party misinterpreted the rules, the GM correcting things frankly shouldn't throw out a ban like this. Assess some other form of penalty? Sure. Make sure HE sees all petitions on the subject? ABSOLUTELY. Just ban someone because of a misinterpretation by a GM? C'MON MAYN!

    To further illustrate my point: "Specifically the rules are vague about how much collaboration constitues an A and B team situation. We suspect that there is no issue with testing against another team since multiple other hopeful entrants have been practicing together on SiSi this year. Again, however, we want to be sure."

    So they called attention to EXACTLY what they wanted to do and EXACTLY what they were given permission to do. This isn't AHARM saying "Is everything working as intended" and getting a "sure no problem" answer, this is "Is doing X in this situation ok" to get a "Yes, doing X is ok in this situation"

    If we can't trust the GMs to answer specific questions like that, what the hell are they doing?

    1. If you put yourself into a position where you even THINK you might be exploiting game mechanics... and you are trusting a GM to protect you, you deserve what you get.

    2. You are right, which is why Garmon sent multiple emails directly to the AT team, none of which were replied to.

    3. Well, if you can't trust the senior GMs to enforce the rules, what are they there for? serious question.

    4. Karbox DelacroixMay 24, 2012 at 7:54 PM

      Isn't that just sad. As I jokingly mentioned in my original post, the reason that CCP prohibits you from disclosing your conversations with the GMs is that it would be a daily source of shame and embarrassment.

      Allow me to quote a real hum-dinger from CCP Loxy: "The team considers this matter closed and not up for debate."

      What stupefying arrogance. The conspiratorially minded would probably call it entrapment, but it is sadly the more mundane incompetence that we have come to expect.

    5. So who should you trust when you need an answer to a rule you don't understand?

    6. You misunderstand the role and authority of the GMs - they are not the final arbiters of what is allowed or disallowed in the game. They are primarily a first tier customer support system - debugging problems/issues, and answering commonly-asked simple questions.

      If you want an official CCP position on a questionable tactic, exploit or activity, then you should post a query in the forums, where you can get a definitive answer from the CCP devs.

    7. If you think you're in a grey area, you either get out of it or get ready for what you suspect would happen if you actually cross the line.
      Hiding behind the GMs is a weak tactic and Jester is right to point this out.

    8. The simple fact here is that Garmon and Co. had to know they were going to be under extra scrutiny. They should have played it overly conservatively, not even CLOSE to nudging close to breaking the rules.

      Instead, they did the exact opposite.

  3. What got me about this was the bit about "However we are very concerned that we might be breaking CCP's interpretations of certain rules without being aware of it" which is a contradiction in itself. I've used this tactic myself... ten years ago... as a child. Hilarious. Thanks for writing about this Jester.

  4. Besides the obvious cock-up with the GM team, three thoughts spring to mind:

    1) Hydra and Outbreak were practicing with their mains. Wormhole space and all on sisi probably doesn't stop CCP who, after last years final (meta gaming victory aside), would understandably be looking at Hydra and Outbreak very closely. I can't prove anything either way; this is just a hunch.

    2) The decision to train 'against' each other, again after last years final, just screams 'DON'T FUCKING TEMPT THE POWERS THAT BE' to me.

    3) The rest of the communication between Hydra/Outbreak and the GM team isn't presented here. I would have wanted something to the effect of 'yes, you and such and such team can practice on sisi against each other. No issues with it at all. Here's the guarantee from someone worth a shit at CCP'.

    Tough shit for Hydra/Outbreak. It'll be a shame not to see them at ATX.

  5. While you can dispute the purpose of the metagaming going on, I have to disagree with your conclusion. If someone specifically petitions GMs, especially about such a high profile issue and situation, there is no way the GM team should say yes, then the teams get banned later. That's just bad customer service. The game is not helped by removing some of the most competitive AT teams in recent years. This is like removing three HS football teams from the playoffs because they played A and B teams against each other in scrimmages.

    I can support CCP by a technicality: The problem here is that the teams started practicing together before getting the response from a GM. Had they waited for the GM response to start training together, this would be completely unfair. As it is, it looks more like CCP using a technicality of the temporal order of events to remove people who pissed them off last year. All around this is just hurting the AT.

    That said, there should be a non-Alliance based tournament with lower barriers to entry. In many ways the AT this year is just about who can bid their way in. The whole AT concept is cool in theory, but poor in execution. AT9 showed that the whole idea of the AT is hugely influenced by skills outside the realm of actually fighting as a team.

    1. GMs often provide conflicting responses. Everyone knows this happens, and some players try to exploit it by finding a GM who will just say "ok" to some questionable issue.

      For this reason, as someone else stated previously, GMs are not the final arbiters of the rules, and thus players cannot quote GMs as justification for doing something that CCP considers to be an exploit or violation.

      In this particular case, the fact is that these folks all knew exactly what they were doing. They specifically went to the GMs with a petition rather than post a query on the ATX forum, because they knew that the CCP devs would say "no" and the GMs might say "yes".

      Childish and stupid. Thumbs up on CCP for spanking their asses.

    2. The motives of the banned parties are not something I'm looking to defend.

      I suppose my concern is that if you have GMs, and there is no expectation that the GMs are actually authoritative, what's the point? Either having them is a waste of money, or you need to make the position informed and useful, and qualified to do things.

      GM decisions should not be things that are frequently overturned on high profile issues. When you have multiple events where players are given the green light by GMs, then banned, you have a breakdown at CCP somewhere along the chain of customer service. Marching orders aren't too hard to give to customer service reps. That breakdown is bad service, both internally and externally.

    3. GMs have the authority to act on issues which have been previously vetted by CCP. CCP rarely, if ever, overturns a GM's decision on such matters.

      Regarding new issues - such as previously unknown exploits, or new rule violations - the GMs do not have final authority on the interpretation of the rules. This is well-established and no different from any other organization, including governments.

      In general, if a GM gives you bad advice on an issue, it is regrettable and CCP will consider an appeal. They are not unreasonable, and even player bans have been reversed.

      However, in this particular case, intent is all important. It is clear from the evidence that Hydra and OB were deliberately seeking to circumvent a rule - one which they knew had been enacted specifically to prevent what they did last year, and what they were attempting to do again this year. Sreegs is not exactly an idiot - he knows that the GM petition was only intended to be used as a shield to protect the guilty parties. This is considered to be an improper use of the GM petition system, one which is well-known by all veteran players - incl. both Hydra and OB.

      In fact, CCP's customer service worked quite correctly in this instance. A group of players attempted to game the system in order to gain an unfair advantage, were caught doing so, and were appropriately punished.

  6. I would have a lot moar "blind faith" in Garmon's "good intentions" had he not been "_utterly surprised_" to find out that charging $20/month for his EVE is Easy site without specific permission from CCP to do so, was a violation of the EULA and TOS.
    He's kind of established a history for himself that, well, even if he _is_ innocent, well, he certainly doesn't _look_ it...and appearances are 110% of everything today, especially law. Just saying.

  7. Agree with Jester, I do.

    Garmon already ruined his credibility with the "Eve is Easy" debacle. It is rather difficult to believe yet another cry of "we were under the impression that we were doing nothing wrong".

    1. Ain't that the truth. Even his "business partner" is now accusing him of stealing RL money from players:


  8. I read through most of the posts on the forum, reread the rules, and I have to say that hydra/outbreak definitely look like they are operating as one team with two entries. Changing corp or alliance names, whether it's on sisi or live, doesn't really matter as much as the fact they operated as a single entity for testing, to include access to all ships.

    The smart way for them to test and practice would have been remain two separate entities, work on their own fits, and then fight each other before going back to the drawing board. Yes more hassle but there would be a clear defining line between the two teams.

    The only problem I have with what CCP did was the way they handled PL's group. The CCP reply said they clearly consider PL to be using an A and B team but then fail to follow their own rules by banning both. Several PL people said they were upfront with what was going on, but that doesn't change the fact that if CCP considered it a violation of the rules then the stated punishment should have been carried out.

    I think if I was a small alliance and wanted some healthy practice I would work on my own and then try out my builds against another group. No discussion about what was being brought, just show up with a mix that fits the points, fight, and go back to compare results.

    If I was in a big alliance I would do the same thing if there were times when I couldn't get enough people for internal testing. Most of the time though a big group should be able to field enough people, even if they aren't the best PVPers to get some good practice and test builds.

    At this point though I'm not sure I'll even have much interest in the AT. The lack of follow through on the rules implies special favors for PL. I'd rather have another final like last year then see a team in the tournament simply because they get special treatment.

  9. You don't ask a judge everyday if what you do is wrong (regardless of how dubious regulations may seem to be). Neither do you get an instant answer if you do so.

    Sometimes, you just gotta take it like a man. Or be a spoiled brat, aka an 'entitled' costumer.

  10. You mention sharing tactics, but in the end that would just make a match between the two teams much more interesting.

    Everyone is talking about collusion, but that's not even something addressed in the rules. The rule is no A/B/C teams, and IMO 0utbreak isn't that, they have more than 12 great pilots and FCs to field. Theres no team full of Garmon alts waiting in the wings.

    While the theory behind it will be filtered with the help of eachother, they aren't a backup name for hydra. Just by testing our setups with another alliance, we've been colluding on the same level.

    Getting 24 people together every night to practice is a challenge for alliances the size of OB/hydra (and even RK) Limiting your practices to wormhole space is even harder.

    1. Nope. Last year's AT clearly showed that Outbreak and Hydra were effectively cooperating as A/B teams to game the results. This is an established fact.

      Under the circumstances, it is somewhat obvious that they were planning to do the same thing again this year, in violation of the rules.

      Had Outbreak or Hydra been practicing with a different alliance, perhaps the matter would have been decided differently.

  11. Totally agree with your interpretation Jester. They knew that rule was written with them in mind. Trying to do it anyway, especially knowing the CCP would be checking this is just stupid.

    Now they can watch on the sidelines with us, and I am sure it will be a more enjoyable tournament because of it.

  12. Sounds to me like Garmon and Duncan Tanner are just trying to shift the blame to CCP.

    The truth is that they ****ed over their own alliances, and are probably afraid to admit it.

    It is unfortunate that CCP Sreegs decided to punish the alliances, rather than just the players involved, since it is doubtful that everyone in the alliances were party to this stupidity.

    In Sreegs' place, I might have offered the alliances a choice of punishments, decided by popular vote by the members of each alliance: (a) disqualification for the alliance from AT X, (b) permanent disqualification from any future AT X for each player involved, or (c) 30-day ban for each player involved.

    But, then, I'm just evil... ;).

  13. While I agree with Jester on the Hydra ban, I also think CCP has (again) managed to make rules that are difficult to enforce in a fair and consistent way.

    What if two alliances declare war on TQ to practice? There is no way for it to be interpreted as an A vs. B team situation. But the end result would be exactly the same if fitting was discussed between the parties. Only it would cost more Isk, but for most AT participants that's completely irrelevant.

    I really think the tournament needs improvement by adding several qualification rounds to allow any good team to be able to compete for a spot regardles of their background or A/B/../Z team status. Also previous years' top 10 should qualify automatically to the main tournament event. Let's make internet spaceships serious sport!

  14. I am sure there would have been plenty of alliances/teams that do not participate in the tournament that would have been eager to train with Hydra or Outbreak just to learn better pvp. (And that would agree to a NDA until after the tourney.)

  15. I just want to address the situation around PL and YOUR VOTES DONT COUNT (SNiggwaffe) and clarify the details.

    The Sniggwaffe team is not actually a PL B team, we never tested against them, we never used them to test or build tactics. They were run by a completely seperate set of people with no intel sharing.

    They also did their testing completely seperately with no interaction with PL. That part could be confirmed by CCP using sisi logs.

    The reason they were banned is the same reason that RvB wasn't allowed to enter two teams. The executor of their alliance is an alt of a PL member, which tied the teams too closely together for the tournament staff to allow. If CCP had offered to allow us to merge the teams we would have turned them down since the Waffles are a completely seperate team and we wouldn't trust them with our intel or setups.

    We accept that the nature of alliance ownership meant that CCP felt they could not allow both teams to compete. The fact that there was absolutely no other evidence of collution seems to be why CCP chose a different ruling in our case than in Hydra's.

    Hope that clarifies things a bit, if you have any questions feel free to let me know.

    1. Thanks for explaining, Raivi. That makes perfect sense.

  16. I think you have completely missed the fact that the these rules are incredibly vague. Apparently many teams have asked for further clarification and all been ignored although they were told they would get responses.

    When children use this tactic they generally get a negative response from one parent before seeking out the second opinion.

    1. I second this. We can discuss about the final decision, but what appears certain is that CCP has several gaps in his petition system.

    2. No, when children use this tactic, they generally go to the parent whom they believe will give them a positive response, and avoid the parent who is likely to give them a negative response. (You don't have kids, do you?)

      I think you have completely missed the fact that the teams in question did not post their requests for rules clarification on the AT X forum, where they would have gotten a (negative) response from Sreegs or one of the other devs. Instead, they deliberately attempted to game a positive response from a GM, to use as a shield when CCP inevitably drops the hammer on them.

      They tried to cheat. They were caught. They got spanked. Simple as that.

    3. We're getting to the same point, a simple "please post your question on the AT X forum you'll be answered there" would have made it. The teams maybe deserved to be excluded, but GMs need more training and/or internal CCP comms channels/flows needs to be improved.

    4. The rules are vague, yes. But see my comment above about how Garmon and Co. should have played conservatively. They were in no position to push the boundaries AT ALL, much less pushing them enough to require a clarification on what they were doing.

      They should have erred on the side of extreme caution. Instead, they flipped off CCP and practically *dared* CCP to come after them.

  17. Sorry Jester, but your analogy is wrong.

    We can call the GM in this situation Daddy and the AT staff Mummy. Hydra asked Mummy and got no response. So he asked again, and again, and again, and still Mummy wouldn't respond. So eventually he asks Daddy, who doesn't understand the situation, who says yes. Daddy answered without knowing the situation, but it was the only answer Hydra got.

    But I have a question about this whole event. The alliance tournament team MUST have been actively monitoring both Hydra and Outbreak or they wouldn't have known about this. If they were paying so much attention; wouldn't they have saw the emails/messages from the team who seemed very eager to contact them? The whole thing goes completely against the spirit of EVE and I'm more pissed off about this than I am about the AT9 final.

  18. You know (well, probably you didn't) ... I am not a fan of Garmon's to begin with, and I thought last year's tourney conclusion was a travesty. Honestly, I firmly believe something needed to be done. That CCP decided to suit such words to actions is not a bad thing; that they've horrifically botched the management of it _is_. A little further on that at end.

    That you, Jester, are not an unbiased witness and commentator but rather someone expressing an opinion and not necessarily reporting fact, I can understand. Indeed, I respect that, even when I have disagreed with you. You have done so with class and style, which I have long appreciated on the EVE blogosphere.

    THIS, however -

    "However we are very concerned that we might be breaking CCP's interpretations of certain rules without being aware of it.

    "We are very concerned that we might be breaking certain rules.

    >>>"We are breaking rules.<<<

    "Short version: the Hydra/Outbreak team knew what they were doing was wrong, so they passed the buck with "multiple petitions and e-mails" until they found a Senior GM that would cover for them."

    - is disgusting and disingenuous, and calls the whole purpose and integrity of your argument into question.

    Instead of trying to excuse yourself, as you have done several times both in your segue edit and in those responses you've made to comments, perhaps you need to step back and examine your own motives and feelings in this matter.

    Your hunch in regards to Garmon and what he has done in past and might be doing here may well be dead-on; I concede that, and may even in the end agree, despite the fact I believe CCP has acted both unprofessionally and contradictorily enough in this issue to cast a pall over the entire Alliance Tourney. But to descend to such a sophomoric (dare I say CHILDISH) tactic as you have here in a supposed justification for your position is - or rather, I should perhaps say, _was_ - beneath you. It is petty and stupid in a way that does not suit you.

    I expect better, sir. Please live up to that.

  19. > We are very concerned that we might be breaking certain rules.

    > We are breaking rules.

    These are *not* the same thing. Asking if you are breaking rules =! declaring you are breaking rules.

    Logic fail.

  20. Hydra was faced with a situation where one of the tournament rules might as well be actually labeled the "Hydra" rule.
    Well, your name on a rule means you are walking on very thin ice and need to tread lightly. They chose to stomp their foot and I have no pity for them.

    CCP on the other hand come a across like they waited an entire year just to shout "Gotcha' bitches!" This kind of vitriol is unexpected if you consider backstabbing and working the system as one of Eve's main selling points.

    Anyway, the top two teams from last year eliminated can't be good for the tourney and CCP should have banned one and maybe certain team leaders but not both teams.

  21. After further review of the posts and reading what the AT Dev's has said was their reasoning behind the bans I can only conclude they are enforcing the spirit of the law while ignoring the letter.

    Post is here if you want to read more.


  22. Hahahahaa.... loving those null sec tears!!!

    I guess Garmon and Duncan haven't heard that "Eve is a harsh place", or "Cheaters never prosper".

  23. "Short version: the Hydra/Outbreak team knew what they were doing was wrong, so they passed the buck with "multiple petitions and e-mails" until they found a Senior GM that would cover for them."

    Hydra leadership only ever attempted to contact the tournament team directly. We recieved zero response.

    The petition to a GM and that response was sent by a member of 0utbreak independantly.

    The "keep sending petitions until you get a response you like" in your article is complete fabrication.

    1.) Mail from Garmon to Tournament Organizers -> no response

    2.) Second mail from Garmon to Tournament Organizers -> no response

    Reciept of the mails is however acknowledged by Loxy on the forums and Hydra stops sending mails expecting to eventually recieve a response.

    3.) Petition to a GM sent by an Outbreak member -> only response

    Hydra asks CCP Spitfire if this GM is trustworthy and are told he is a Senior GM who wouldn't make that call unless he checked with the tournament team first. Hydra feels that the issue is settled.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.