That first paragraph is a little unfair IMO. I've NEVER stated you should take a very literal interpretation, what I've repeatedly said is that intent is very important because the sentence in question doesn't necessarily mean what everyone seems to think it means. At this point it's just opinion and speculation, and obviously I'm biased, but if it was over zealous PR putting a positive spin on a negative situation, that's A LOT different in my mind than someone intentionally trying to mislead. I'm not going to tell ANYONE what they should think, but I would suggest that everyone be open minded enough to realize there is more than one possible interpretation.
Parsing words and using semantics without figuring intent is just a giant exercise in who can twist whose words into meaning what they want them to mean. Like I said, I realize I started it, but a 50 page thread on analyzing every sentence in detail and finding every possible meaning is not something I'm prepared to do, but I was asked about that specific part of the statement.
The distinction that I am making is that all the statement says is that there was enough money won on the Girahh acconut to have won the challenge. It doesn't directly speak to (1) or (2) although I will give you that this:
Quote:
imo the statement certainly gave everyone the impression that girah would have legitimately won if (1) was disregarded. It was especially so as they allowed Jose to include this:
I agree with. In fact there are a few conclusions I agree with:
1) poor decisions on the statement. IMO it should have just stated that he was DQ'd for MAing and announced the rightful winner (Michael Drummond). No attempts at 'positive spin' should have been made. I'm sure everyone's heard the phrase about 'lipstick on a pig' and I'm just not a big fan of trying to sugar coat things. I would rather just get it out there and work on repairing any damage afterward.
2) He made completely false statements that were quoted. I guess this kind of goes with #1 but I think it deserves to be separate.
3) I do feel like we took appropriate actions at the time those actions were taken with the knowledge we had. Ultimately, though, he was associated with us, he let us down, and by result we let our users down, regardless of how well or poorly things were handled in the process.
So yeah, you'll get no arguement from me on those particular points. What I take objection to are implications of being complicit in his actions and that we would intentionally mislead our users.
-Rizen
Quote:
Originally Posted by raidalot
Rizen is defending Lock's statement by taking a very literal interpretation of their words (although when they talked about violations (plural) he says we shouldn't take a literal interpretation!).
Basically when girah won the challenge there are 2 cheating aspects we know about:
(1) Another player played on his account from a different computer; and
(2) Chips were dumped to girah's account from another account.
I think the distinction that Rizen is making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that if (1) was ignored the girah account still won enough, when played from his own IP address, to be the winner of the challenge.
Having said that, we now know that he didn't legitimately win that money as most of it was chipdumped to him, i.e. (2), and its also possible that others played on his account remotely using Teamviewer software which would still have shown up as his IP address.
imo the statement certainly gave everyone the impression that girah would have legitimately won if (1) was disregarded. It was especially so as they allowed Jose to include this: