So long and thanks for all the fish.

[Kamoba]

I will say reason behind no spectators is to avoid information which is otherwise unavailable to both teams being shared out, yes the event is streamed but the time delay means the information is often too late and not worthwhile but an on time spectator could make all the difference...

As for the way you were asked, it is unfortunate and I do hope to see you around still if not ingame at least on steam.

[Dementio]

I was streaming the match and lobby that Patched Wizard is talking about and I must disappoint him and everybody here that the referee of this match wasn't a CA, but a regular player accepted by the SCS organizers to be a referee.

As for getting kicked out of the spectator slot, what Kamoba has said is basically the reason for it.

If you think that there is little reason to kick somebody of the team, because they already played for a different team earlier in the same SCS, then you should write this as feedback in one of the SCS threads and make the SCS organizers think. But when you think about it if teams sign up for the SCS they should have 8 people ready when the SCS starts, so there is no real reason to need people from other teams, unless the worst case scenario happens, in which I doubt you would be the only possible option out of the other 300 players playing the game.

[Steve CZ]

I'm sorry you feel how you feel from this experience. I hope this won't discourage you completely

However, although I was part of the team suffering from this refferee decision, I must agree with Dementio on this. Rules are there to be followed, and these rules make sense. And I don't think the ref was any kind of rude about this.

Anyway, thanks for subbing for us that one match and I hope I'll see you in the skies again

[Velvet]

I'm sorry to hear that SCS would play a role in anybody's decision to stop playing GOIO.

However you do seem to have a few misconceptions about SCS that I think may have twisted your perception of events. Most of them have been covered, but the "official" view is just a tiny bit different. ^^

 - SCS is in no way affiliated with the Community Ambassador program, except by the coincidental participation of Community Ambassadors as volunteer referees, streamers or organisers.
- these coincidental volunteer CAs don't get to ad lib the rules; same as any ref, they have a clearly defined set of rules to follow. This eliminates time wasting in an event that is pretty bad for going over schedule, and ensures all teams get roughly the same treatment.

- When are rules are enforced inflexibly, this is not because we are "legalistic" or have abandoned principles of fun in our attempt to create a competitive event. It is to save time and prevent confusion for referees and players. (we are often pretty time starved ^^)
- SCS is a competitive event though, so you have to appreciate the rules do exist for reasons and we can't just throw in exceptions on a whim. In the end competitive play without rules is just pub lobbies. ^^

Substitutions:
The "no playing for more than one team" rule has no exceptions because it is impossible to tell when an exception is appropriate. If a team need 1 extra player, maybe it doesn't matter that that player has already competed. But it could be 2 players, or that player could be a pilot, or just exceptionally good at their role and then the match is starting to get heavily skewed and things start feeling unfair. When and when isn't it appropriate to allow exceptions to this rule? It's not really possible to decide, so we do not ask referees to make that decision.

Spectating:
There are only 4 spectator slots. Not everyone can spectate. Why should you be allowed to spectate? Everyone else makes do with the streams.
There's also a load of side issues like cheating, that extra spectators may cause lag, that one time that this guy not only spectated but clogged up match chat, it's good to be instantly clear who the ref is, etc.


The referee did act in the spirit of both rules. You could argue that the rule was flawed (I'd disagree). But I think the important thing to establish here is that the treatment you received firstly, has been thought out and is not just a case of blanket application of rules that didn't account for your situation, and secondly was the work of 1 or 2 SCS organisers who define the event's rules and policies, and coincidentally are not CAs, rather than any failing of judgement on the part of the referee you interacted with or any flaw in the CA program. So if you are determined to resent our policy, at least do not tar the CA program or the community at large with the same brush.

EDIT: forgot to add, sorry if the referee was impolite. Not much more to add on that. Don't think it is an issue that has come up before.

[Skrimskraw]

The number 1 reason why you arent allowed to spectate in SCS is because 1 spectate slot should be open for the event organizer to join in and deal with any problems that might have arised.

I dont see how you can blame SCS for you leaving, it seem like you are mad at musegames and thought that SCS is part of musegames structure, which it isnt. But whatever... your opinions and criticism seem to be pretty inconsistent and flawed since you mention that our referee were a ca, which he isnt. And I checked up on the stream to see if our referee were being rude.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WSY0qrChYQ&list=PL-GU-JAq63o70RJ5Z827lxWtwi6M93zw9&index=4
at around 5 minutes you can see him ask you to leave in a normal and neutral manner. So honestly I dont get why you are using our event as an excuse.

[Patched Wizard]

Okay so there is a lot to unpack here. After this can I request one of the moderators to close this thread as I feel that it has served it's purpose as my farewell and I don't want this to veer too far off topic.


First:
I also agree with the referee's decision to ask me to leave the spectator position because unless the referee knew my character personally, it would be difficult for them to ascertain my impartiality during the match. I only included that detail in the story for the sake of completing the picture of all the events that lead to my decision. I have no issue with this and that is why I never included it as an example in my main argument.


Second:
I was wrong about the referee being a Community Ambassador. I'll own that mistake. However, being wrong about that detail does not invalidate my previous points. There are many other stories that I can pull examples out of that include other and actual Community Ambassadors. And even though this particular individual was not a Community Ambassador, I still hold that the referee's actions are still a valid example of the community's behavioural change towards a more rigid mentality.


Third:
My complaint was never against the Sunday Skirmish or its rules. I stated my point clearly here:

However, in these last few months I have felt a change in the winds. Some of this shift has come from senior players of the community and some of this I believe has come from select members of the Community Ambassador program.

My concern is with the growing legalism that I have found at the root of the community and this theme is the focus of my discussion and main determining factor for my departure. I used the Sunday Skirmish as just an example of the symptom that I believe is highlighting a larger sickness at the core of the community.
As for the rules, I have no complaint against rules. I know that rules are necessary for the flow of the game and are a critical guide for dispute resolution. My concerns were about the preference of the 'letter of the law' above the 'spirit of the law' as I made explicit:

You obeyed the 'letter of the law' without considering the 'spirit' in which it was conceived.

Fourth:
It appears Velvet that you and I have a simple disagreement with the semantics of "rules". From what you write you appear to view them as a strict operation to adhere to:

- these coincidental volunteer CAs don't get to ad lib the rules; same as any ref, they have a clearly defined set of rules to follow. This eliminates time wasting in an event that is pretty bad for going over schedule, and ensures all teams get roughly the same treatment.

- SCS is a competitive event though, so you have to appreciate the rules do exist for reasons and we can't just throw in exceptions on a whim. In the end competitive play without rules is just pub lobbies. ^^

This legality and obedience to the 'letter of the law' is what I disagree with on a personal philosophical level. My tutor and mentor when I was learning to be a referee taught me that I was not a referee to enforce rules but that I was there to ensure that every game ran smoothly and that any and all disputes would be resolved as fair and as impartial as possible. He showed me why rules are necessary, but he explained to me that it was better to favour the 'spirit of the law' over the 'letter of the law' because, as I stated before, when you act on the black and white nature of a law you may be "impartial" but you ignore all the nuances of each unique case and in the end may end up being unfair. Impartiality isn't always fair.

We also seem to disagree with the role of a referee. It seems like you ideally want them to have a minimal amount of decisions to make as possible for the sake of maintaining a tight schedule:

- When are rules are enforced inflexibly, this is not because we are "legalistic" or have abandoned principles of fun in our attempt to create a competitive event. It is to save time and prevent confusion for referees and players. (we are often pretty time starved ^^)

But I believe that making hard decisions are one of the responsibilities of being a referee and if a referee is unwilling or incapable of making those tough decisions then that person shouldn't be in that position. In time Velvet, as a person practises and gains experience, they get better at making fairer decisions and they become faster too. At first your referees will make mistakes and they might waste a bit of time, but if you give them the space to start making calls in the 'spirit of the law' and to start using the rational decision making parts of their brains you might find that they become more than just functions in a program. You might even discover that they become pillars of the larger community and the Sunday Skirmish itself. If you want them to learn fast then sit with them through a few matches and explain to them why you make your decisions, why you let certain rules slide and why you don't with others.
And if you're worried about confusion from the players, community, and spectators, then a simple solution would be to have a post game discussion, here or elsewhere, and allow your referees the chance to explain their decisions in front of everyone. This will grow the community's confidence in you and your team and also make your side of the Sunday Skirmish more accessible, transparent, and friendly.

Please do not confuse my disagreement with you as hostility. Do not confuse my dissatisfaction as resentment. I am not writing this to pull you or your work down. Instead i'm writing this to inspire you and your referees to become greater. I want the best for this game of ours and I want the best for the Sunday Skirmish, especially after all the work you've put into this event. These are areas that I believe are holding the Sunday Skirmish back. I see the legality at this stage as a bit cold and indifferent and something that has pushed myself and others away when instead the competitive scene should be pulling us all towards it.


Fifth:
Skrimskraw, this was never a personal attack against you. I feel like I all of your concerns have been addressed above, but if you feel that they are not to your satisfaction you can always message me and we can talk through it together like rational humans.
On a side note I did notice that you made a few assumptions when you constructed your argument. So in the spirit of goodwill here are some links that you might find helpful for next time.

I dont see how you can blame SCS for you leaving, it seem like you are mad at musegames and thought that SCS is part of musegames structure, which it isnt.

Strawman Fallacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZkCPo7tC0

But whatever... your opinions and criticism seem to be pretty inconsistent and flawed since you mention that our referee were a ca, which he isnt.

Ad Hominem Fallacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFK8sVdJNg
Fallacy Fallacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGBO-WMrlIQ

And I checked up on the stream to see if our referee were being rude.

And this is False Attribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_attribution
as I never claimed or even tried to make a point that the referee was being rude but it seems that you formed that conclusion based off other people's responses.


Before I go a little food for thought. If you still think that the community has not become too legalistic then please ask yourself why was it that every single response to my letter was focused only on the rules and why they must be followed.

I wish all of you the best and hope that next time we fly together there is much laughter and fond memories.

Safe skies,
Patched

[Ayetach]

At the request of the original poster, this thread is closed.