× Make your TwitLonger posts ad-free For just £1 a month, you can support TwitLonger directly and remove ads from your posts

Click here to make your TwitLonger posts ad-free.

(RT plz) In response to ESL's comments

First if you haven't read my initial post (it is long):

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1spoq08

Then ESLs response to "current" cases:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1spp3vi



The purpose of this message it to breakdown and explain ESLs response to my initial post.

***WARNING*** This post is going to have more opinions in it than I wish, but I do have more information and I can add to it so ill explain how I see what they are saying.

***WARNING***I will be using ESLs response in this discussion. When I do so it will look like this, ***....*** after such I will give my response. Easiest way to read this response would be to have ESLs response open at the same time to get the full context.



Okay so I'm not going to copy in from the first paragraph ill just explain. Vets starts off by introducing himself then saying that he is doing this for the community and if he gets in trouble so be it. We (pros) were informed that this response and the rulings were going through different offices, in ESL, to ensure they were protected before he responded on twitter. So no, he wont be getting in trouble for this tweet. He mentions wanting to be transparent and helping the community but I don't think he has the same idea as what it takes to be transparent. To me transparency involves updates on cases and explaining which way they are leaning so everyone is informed. IMO, transparency isn't being the one that gets to post it on twitter after everything is decided.



***When it came what to do on ESL side, we have to do what is within the rules, laws and contracts we uphold with R6 and players.***



I'm going to pull something from ESLs rulebook:



"This Rulebook outlines the rules that should at all times be followed when

participating in the Rainbow Six Pro League competition. Failure to adhere

to these rules may be penalized as outlined.

It should be remembered that it is always the League administration that has

the last word, and that decisions that are not specifically supported, or

detailed in this Rulebook, or even goes against this Rulebook may be taken in

extreme cases, to preserve fair play and sportsmanship."



This is what I call a "Legal protection" statement. This is what they use to protect themselves from being sued by organizations and teams when they make a ruling that doesn't completely fit their rulebook. At one point I did contact a lawyer when we were being punished after ESL(1) said we were cleared to try to allow us to play with our full roster and the lawyer said it would be near impossible to win because ESL is such a large company and this rule gives them way to much flexibility. The big winner for the toxic players is "SPORTSMANSHIP", they are within their rights to do whatever they want to these players because they were not being sportsmanlike. AT ALL TIMES, means that it doesn't matter they are in a match or in the community they can be held accountable.



***if it would have happened during an ESL event or lan it would have been an automatic DQ and suspension of play. We do not condone this type of behavior. But as it did not happen during an ESL event and outside of our control, this was what was decided. BUT WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MORE PUNISHMENT IF NEW EVIDENCE COMES TO LIGHT.***



If you remember the person I referenced who was racist in my first post that occurred during an ESL, so automatic DQ? (yea...ill believe it when I see it). So they reserve the right to do something if they continue to be toxic? So what he is saying here, IMO, is we can do something about it at this time but we just don't want to. It makes no sense why ESL would go against UBI in this way. Why protect these types of players but hurt other players who have never been toxic or racist? Why do they get the priority of your attention? IMO, it speaks to favoritism and lack of fairness.



POINT 2. about Onslaughts roster and what we were required to do for 3/5:

I would like to take this time to thank Vets for finally breaking down our Y1S3 roster and figuring out who could fill our team to receive an invite. Why was this not done on Feb 11th when we were invited and we stated our 3/5? Why did it take a month and a half for someone to do their job? If this was done in Feb we would have qualified just like every other new team. ESLs prior rulebook was vague and full of 'gray areas' and this is why we thought we were in the clear with Nineline. He had been on our roster since August and practiced and scrimed with us, the rule was the player must be an 'active participant' and he still is to this day active with our team. Funny side not is the comments on Zilchy and Gunhavok saying that they are on other pro teams so they don't count. The comment should read, didn't participate in 60% of games because they only play in 2 & 1 games respectively, I don't think they truly understood their previous rules, IMO.



THIS IS WHERE THINGS GET ODD:



***Per Direct support to Onslaught we were told they could not field 3/5 org members. As it was playday 2 the roster was full open for play.***



We never told anyone that we couldn't play with 3/5 for play day 2, Xclusive was warming up with us up to game time. He says here that playday 2 rosters were full open for play but they only changed their rules 2 hours before our match. (ill go over this more now)



***Which i was told sovsov would be playing if not Xlusive would be there.***



Now hes saying xclusive would be there? So we would be able to fill 3/5?



***As game started we noticed Neither sovsov Nor Xclusive were playing. The starting roster locks 30 mins before game which i gave ample time and reached out directly via skype and they played with what roster they could form. As a courtesy and in effort of fair play i allowed Nine to play the game in the place of the roster i was given as he was a org member that was invited.***



Okay so this is what happened. 2 1/2 hours before our match the post came out clearing Skys and Laxing and I was furious. I sent a message to Vets asking if someone hated us or if we did something to ESL because at this point we were the only team being punished (since they were still stalling on era). Vets agreed with me and told me that he would investigate our issue some more. 10 minutes later he messages me and tells me IF we have a replacement for Xclusive we can play full roster and they were going to change the rule from 2 games with 3/5 to just 1 game (This was more to protect era in the coming ruling than to help us IMO). I then contacted sov and he was out of town and needed to race back home to get back in time to play the match. I told Vets that if sov didn't make it back in time that Nineline would be playing our match first match, he told me this was completely fine but the stream graphic wasn't going to change to accommodate for whoever was going to play because production had already completed it. Not once didn't he mention a roster lock rule for us but why would he since he was the only telling us to switch our players. This is basically just an attempt to make it seem like ESL was accommodating us for Play Day 2 which they didn't with the exception of changing their rule book 2 hours before our match (which was mostly for era IMO). No ESL didn't lose our match, we did that ourselves. ESL did wait until the last minute to change their rulebook so we played with a roster that hadn't played together in 3 weeks.



***Teams will be upset with rulings from time to time, its just what happens, we look at all sides not just one. I believe by supportive evidence, showing transprancy and offering support in all maters things we can make the most fair and clean slate for competive R6S play. But in this matter we were more the accomedating by allowing them to play***



This is where the accusers belittle the people with a problem while stepping on them at the same time. There was no transparency from ESL the only one who reported problems with our roster was RangerGG and fair play would have been trying to find a way to support us after making a HUGE mistake all of February by not doing their jobs. Once again I don't believe they were accommodating in any way that was supportive, changing rules at the last minute doesn't help us. If the rule was 1 play day the whole time we could of had the option of practicing and scrimming with our full roster all preseason and just PUG game 1 and be ready for game 2...but this wasn't the case.



***Per the season invites- ERA's invite came from closed invites, per the selections of S3, playoffs and r6invite***

When eras roster was first brought to my attention I told the admins in hope of them saying "well they didn't play 3/5 so you can as well". Vets first said that they were fine because they had an invite from 6invitational, but minutes later came back to me and said his boss told him that they weren't invited from 6invitational but S3. He said they(era) were in violation of the 3/5 rule. He said ESL would either make them(era) replay PLAY DAY 1 or that they would be DQ'd and he told me he hoped that they would be DQ'd.



***which were Cont, ERA and gifu Per the roster that was invited they met the 3/5 rule***



This makes no sense. Why was Gifu invited from the invitational? They were an auto invite to the tournament and lost their first game. Why does that performance deserve an auto invite to Y2S1?

This move makes perfect sense for ESL to claim, and honestly was their best play. They can protect one of their best teams but just saying the invite came from somewhere else rather than punishing them. I was told multiple times that they were in violation and the stalling that took place on the ruling was because they were trying to decide eRas fate (replay or DQ). Using these invites so they can protect their teams. Why can they protect all their teams and help, especially when its their fault some teams are in trouble.



---CONCLUSION---

I honestly didn't expect a message from ESL after my first message, I just expected them to ignore me. After reading this response I truly wish they would have ignored me. This post is full of filler words and cheese (they say a lot without actually saying anything). Not once do they accept the mistake they made with us, or mention the inconsistent rulings. They constantly refer to transparency but we had to all sit and wait for days on their rulings with no truthful updates (I was told that era was going to be punished and they weren't).



Once again I am available for questions via twitter.

twitter.com/dalycanr6



I recently did an interview on this matter with {-}NN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFJtNYGNV3s



I will also be posting this on reddit. Thanks again for reading.

























Reply · Report Post