War Pigs vs Storms Ruling Revisited (OVERTURNED)

Meepomart
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 10:54 pm
Battle.net Name: Meepomart
Battle.net Char Code: 550
Battle.net Server: NA

War Pigs vs Storms Ruling Revisited (OVERTURNED)

Post by Meepomart » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:22 pm

Introduction
During Game 1 of the Korhal War Pigs (KWP) vs Aiur Storms (AS) series on March 12th, the KWP player Mets dropped from the game and was unable to repair his internet connection for the duration of the series. This culminated in the KWP being unable to field four players in Game 5 of the series and a win for the AS. Following the series, the KWP claimed that Mets had been maliciously prevented from participating in the series by an external attack on his network.

Evidence of Malicious Attack
The initial evidence provided by Mets was a picture of his router logs spanning the duration he lost his internet connection. Since the only league managers capable of voting, stealth and Meepomart, were unknowledgable regarding networking issues, Krazymen, Marker, and Vapour assisted in uncovering evidence of a DoS or network attack. They concluded that port 4444 activity is almost exclusively associated with cyber security and hacking software and would not have been used by any software Mets had running during the series. Additionally, the source IP of the packets Mets received through port 4444 was identified as either an NGINX web server or a VPN, both of which may be used to mask an IP. Based on the timing of the payload and its source IP and port number, the likelihood that Mets’ network was externally attacked is very high. The possibility that Mets was infected by malware was ruled out by a virus scan.

Ruling
This ruling takes precedence over the prior ruling.
The original KWP vs AS series score will not be changed. However, to compensate Mets being removed from the series, it will continue as a best of seven with the KWP having home field advantage in Game 6 on March 19th at 6 pm EST. The teams’ attendance-locked players - DustDevil, Carlito, and Shadowman - will not be allotted any additional games for the series. To restate, the KWP will play a best of seven against the AS with the AS leading 3 - 2. The KWP will play home first, and DustDevil and Carlito may not participate in the series on March 19th.
Image


Rulebook Amendment
  • If a player loses their ability to participate in a league game/series exclusively due to a malicious attack on their network and/or computer, a team’s owner may request a league official to halt the game/series. League management is then required to assess the legitimacy of their claim; if sufficient evidence is found, the game/series will be continued at a date set by management. Should sufficient evidence fail to surface within a reasonable time, the team that requested a halt forfeits the remaining games in the series.
While this amendment aims to provide a fair outcome for teams that are affected by DoS or other network attacks, it is strongly recommended that players prevent such events by taking steps to secure their networks. Requesting a halt for a series is not an action to be taken lightly, since it may result in that respective team forfeiting.

TL;DR The Korhal War Pigs vs Aiur Storms series will continue as a best of seven, with DustDevil and Carlito ineligible for play. The War Pigs will have home for Game 6, and the Storms will have home for Game 7. Evidence that strongly suggests Mets received a malicious payload is presented. An amendment to the rulebook is provided to address future occurrences of DoS and/or malicious payloads. Players are strongly encouraged to protect their networks while competing in league games.
Image
User avatar
Mets
Commissioner
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 6:40 am
Battle.net Name: Mets
Battle.net Char Code: 1582
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: War Pigs vs Storms Ruling Revisited

Post by Mets » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:40 pm

If stealth gets to vote on this, so should Blitzerg. His team plays the winner of Aiur/Korhal, therefore he is directly impacted by this vote. Ergo, there was no need for a "community vote" and as far as I can see there was no "community vote" just certain people selected to vote.
"This is the most absurd piece of garbage that can't even be applied to the actual league. Great job embarrassing yourselves."
Vapour wrote:Tenkz who loves off mets
User avatar
Watermelon
Posts: 1374
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:34 pm
Battle.net Name: Watermelon
Battle.net Char Code: 1918
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: War Pigs vs Storms Ruling Revisited

Post by Watermelon » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:45 pm

but can u prove aliens didnt come down to earth and fabricate all of this to give korhal another chance? if not then u cant say FOR SURE that mets was dos'd! be logical ! ! ! ! XD [/sarcasm]
S4 Champ | Playoff MVP | "Best Owner"
EUDL7 Champ
BaseTradeTV ZH3K Winner
record for most goals in a ZHL game: http://www.zealothockey.net/event/450/
User avatar
Mets
Commissioner
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 6:40 am
Battle.net Name: Mets
Battle.net Char Code: 1582
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: War Pigs vs Storms Ruling Revisited

Post by Mets » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:58 pm

I'm calling for an owner/LM veto of this "revised decision"

Section II of the rules states: If a majority of the Owners and League Managers combined (more than 50% vote) disagree with a change made in emergency circumstances, the change will be revoked.


Lastly, if Stealth gets a vote, so should Blitzerg, since they are both impacted directly by the outcome of this vote.
User avatar
Sir
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:37 pm
Battle.net Name: Sir
Battle.net Char Code: 1206
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: War Pigs vs Storms Ruling Revisited

Post by Sir » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:59 pm

If you're going to restart the series under the pretense that someone was DDOS'd, why would you not restart where it left off? You're giving a team an advantage for cheating. Or maybe it wasn't someone on the team that did it, but you're playing into the hands of whoever did it.
User avatar
Tenkz
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 7:27 pm
Battle.net Name: Tenkz
Battle.net Char Code: 0
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: War Pigs vs Storms Ruling Revisited

Post by Tenkz » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:13 pm

Pretty dumb that we're giving dustdevil and carlito a 28% lock (instead of the 40% as it is) and letting Aiur use players who weren't even there the day of the series...
stealthmeh
Posts: 250
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:38 pm
Battle.net Name: stealth
Battle.net Char Code: 522
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: War Pigs vs Storms Ruling Revisited

Post by stealthmeh » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:14 pm

Sir wrote:If you're going to restart the series under the pretense that someone was DDOS'd, why would you not restart where it left off? You're giving a team an advantage for cheating. Or maybe it wasn't someone on the team that did it, but you're playing into the hands of whoever did it.
We are not going to ever restart the series if someone is "attacked" in the future. Team owner and/or captain needs to request an emergency pause/reschedule from the other team and / or management. If management accepts the emergency reschedule claim however and the situation ends up not being a confirmed attack the team that requested it will forfeit any remaining games that were rescheduled.
OzyWho
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 1:30 pm
Battle.net Name: Ozy Who
Battle.net Char Code: 0
Battle.net Server: EU

Re: War Pigs vs Storms Ruling Revisited

Post by OzyWho » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:16 pm

Jeeesh. Why do the "officials" always make their posts so impersonal, emotionless, detached, cold, formal? Like some robots or advocates. Politicians are more human than some of these LMs :lol:

Alright, sorry, done with offtopic.
Meepomart wrote: Rulebook Amendment
  • If a player loses their ability to participate in a league game/series exclusively due to a malicious attack on their network and/or computer, a team’s owner may request a league official to halt the game/series. League management is then required to assess the legitimacy of their claim; if sufficient evidence is found, the game/series will be continued at a date set by management. Should sufficient evidence fail to surface within a reasonable time, the team that requested a halt forfeits the remaining games in the series.
If you are being so official with the rules, then at least do it right and don't use VAGUE terms and be more specific. Mind elaborating "sufficient evidence"?
We experience something, evaluate it, and then we feel an emotional response according to that evaluation.
Reason is emotion's slave and exists to rationalize emotional experience.
Rationalize emotional response in the present experience.
DustDevil
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 6:40 pm
Battle.net Name: WaterDemon
Battle.net Char Code: 1102
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: War Pigs vs Storms Ruling Revisited

Post by DustDevil » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:28 pm

me and carlito should get 3 games if bo7 lol
User avatar
Cubs
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:59 pm
Battle.net Name: Cubs
Battle.net Char Code: 781
Battle.net Server: NA
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: War Pigs vs Storms Ruling Revisited

Post by Cubs » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:28 pm

DustDevil wrote:me and carlito should get 3 games if bo7 lol
tru
Image

im the kid thatd jump a kid like you
Locked