ENT Gaming

Replay Link: http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 138424.w3g
Game Name: [ENT] DotA apem us/ca #41
Your Warcraft III Username: Maestro_Payne
Violator's Warcraft III Username: messithelast
Violated Rule(s): grief/refusing to defend
Time of Violation (in-game or replay):
Any further thoughts: Messithelast was our void in bottom lane, he got beat up pretty bad during the early stages of the game, and therefore refused to help the team for the remainder of the game. We had silencer/void vs rhasta, and we asked him to chrono the lane prior to rhasta planting his wards, and he refused to do so stating that the reason he wouldnt was because middle lane got owned. He proceeded to farm top neutrals as our middle rax was being taken where the other 4 of us werent capable of defending without the dynamic chrono would have offered us. I threated to therefore post on him for game ruining, where he proceeded to Chrono for the first time with no allies around him as a means to prove that he was in fact helping, but hed already ruined the game with lack of action / toxicity given we were already down two sides by the time he helped.

I think hes in need of a lesson, and im asking you to ban him for a duration you find suitable given hes more invested in ruining games for people instead of participating in trying to fend off his opponents. Even the opponents ended up asking if void was playing, having realized that they didnt need to deal with him all game in any situation where they were pushing on our base.


At this point in the game, we had no raxes lost, and he was more interested in being toxic, than he was in helping us win.

(24:23 / Allied) Maestro_Payne: key to win is to engage with chrono before snakes are planted if u guys care
(24:32 / Allied) MESSITHELAST: we lost
(24:34 / Allied) Maestro_Payne: ok
(24:41 / Allied) MESSITHELAST: since fucking trash mid
(24:45 / Allied) Maestro_Payne: ok
(24:48 / Allied) Metrolinx: warding
(24:50 / Allied) Metrolinx: nee dvisions again
(25:06 / Allied) MESSITHELAST: we pushed last rax and stuipd low iq nort still mid
(25:10 / Allied) Maestro_Payne: ok
(25:13 / Allied) MESSITHELAST: we already lost
(25:15 / Allied) Maestro_Payne: ok
(25:20 / Allied) MESSITHELAST: !ff
(25:20 / All) zx1214: [MESSITHELAST] has voted to forfeit.
(25:20 / All) zx1214: 1/5 players on the Scourge/East have voted to forfeit (4/5 needed to pass).

here he is telling me that the reason we lost is not because he refuses to help, but because of the fact that I lost mid lane (i didnt)

(26:54 / Allied) Maestro_Payne: the only way we win is if you stop the snaked and i chain silence
(26:56 / Allied) Maestro_Payne: literally it
(26:57 / Allied) NerZo: unvinable since start
(26:58 / Allied) Vend8a: dont be scared omni
(27:01 / Allied) Vend8a: just stick
(27:04 / Allied) MESSITHELAST: cause you were done anything for team early as mid

here he is claiming that hell never be banned as he is in top neutrals while the opponent is taking our mid rax

(29:04 / Allied) Maestro_Payne: can u try and stop rhasta now?
(29:16 / Allied) Maestro_Payne: if u dont come mid
(29:17 / Allied) MESSITHELAST: game is over
(29:18 / Allied) Maestro_Payne: im going to get u banned
(29:20 / Allied) Maestro_Payne: eenjoy
(29:30 / Allied) Maestro_Payne: !timestamp 26 void refusing to def
(29:42 / Allied) MESSITHELAST: i never be bannned

here is the opponent noticing that they havent had to deal with him all game, wondering themselves why hes refusing to play

(30:33 / All) trczapre9886: does void have ulti?
(30:38 / All) Joymode: lol
(30:39 / Allied) MESSITHELAST: sure
(30:42 / All) Maestro_Payne: hes refusing to play
(30:42 / Allied) MESSITHELAST: trash
(30:43 / All) Maestro_Payne: it is what it is
(30:48 / All) Joymode: he got rekt bot
(30:49 / All) trczapre9886: why
(30:51 / All) trczapre9886: i dont get it1
(30:57 / All) Maestro_Payne: hes refusing to play because i got owned mid apparently
(31:02 / All) Maestro_Payne: idk man were dealing with idiots lol

I believe that is ample evidence to get him banned for a period you find suitable, thank you.

@astros can I get a ruling here, its pretty cut and dry

this isn't 911.

it is

When did he refuse to help? He's actually pretty right... no one helped him bot so he couldn't farm. By the time it is late game, he has no kill potential. You guys just had bad teamwork in general and no one helped the carry. He was in almost every team fight but because he has no damage, huskar is weak, and techies can't do anything, you guys had no chance of winning at that point.

so when your lane doesnt go as ideal as it can because of team composition which doesnt necessarily only extend to what heroes are on your team, but the players in question who may not be willing to help you in any case. Alot of people have a "deal with it" attitude, where they just dont care enough to help. If this dynamic exists, we now have the right to be in forest while the other team raxs? Noted.

Its often the case in ENT where a team composition doesnt allow for the early countering of the team that has hero advantage. Case in point, is everytime im ganked by a bara from now on in mid lane where I get completely bricked give me the right not to help my team later on because they didnt tp to help me when our base is being pushed if I feel like being toxic?

So based on his explanation, he didnt help because I didnt help his lane. Was I the prime candidate to leave mid lane to help, or might it have been huskar, or techies? He says clear as day that the reason he isnt helping is because I didnt help him. I dont get how the person in charge validates that type of thinking, honestly mind blowing. Think about all of the times people choose heroes that arent conducive to countering some of the more robust early game heroes. That now is set as a precedent to be reason enough not to help your team at the most important junctions of the game? Wild.

Hope youre willing to uphold this as a precedent and dont choose when to apply it. Being the only person in charge of policing toxicity, this is a bad judgement call. But I accept your ruling. Ty for ur time!

Kornylol wrote:so when your lane doesnt go as ideal as it can because of team composition, you have the right to be in forest while the other team raxs. Noted.

Its often the case in ENT where a team composition doesnt allow for the early countering of the team that has hero advantage. Case in point, is everytime im ganked by a bara from now on in mid lane where I get completely bricked give me the right not to help my team later on because they didnt tp to help me when our base is being pushed if I feel like being toxic?

So based on his explanation, he didnt help because I didnt help his lane. Was I the prime candidate to leave mid lane to help, or might it have been huskar, or techies? He says clear as day that the reason he isnt helping is because I didnt help him. I dont get how the person in charge validates that type of thinking, honestly mind blowing. Think about all of the times people choose heroes that arent conducive to countering some of the more robust early game heroes. That now is set as a precedent to be reason enough not to help your team at the most important junctions of the game? Wild.

Hope youre willing to uphold this as a precedent and dont choose when to apply it. Being the only person in charge of policing toxicity, this is a bad judgement call. But I accept your ruling. Ty for ur time!

Go and show the timestamp where he was in the forest for a long period of time while the enemy team raxed.

You're having a tough time reading. He was in the majority of team fights. Someone saying something doesn't mean it is rule-breaking. It's the action here that matters. Your team was outmatched. You're singling out Void because he was calling you out for not helping him bot lane. If he never mentioned your name, I highly doubt you would have reported him.

I'll ask again: Go show the timestamp of Void staying in the jungle while the enemy team raxed.

I'll leave this as a note of reference in response to whether people saying something should be banned for it even if their actions never indicated as such:

(31:29 / Allied) Hobosexual: yea im done sorry guys, i cant deal with people who actively want to lose
(31:39 / Allied) ChrisAngel: !timestamp refuse to play 29min
(32:01 / Allied) Hobosexual: van just vpn who cares
(32:04 / Allied) Hobosexual: can*
(33:21 / Allied) ChrisAngel: ill post after game watch him get 2 weeks
(33:24 / Allied) m96_4:20: u guys dont get it
(33:27 / Allied) KieselVictory: no sense ruining more games for others
(33:36 / Allied) Hobosexual: who cares lol
(33:45 / Allied) Hobosexual: vpn takes 1 click
(33:48 / Allied) Hobosexual: i can play if i want to
(39:29 / Allied) Hobosexual: i can list a few options lol
(39:34 / Allied) Hobosexual: u can tether from ur phone
(39:35 / Allied) Hobosexual: u can vpn
(39:46 / Allied) Hobosexual: u can rehost server reset dns

When youre one of the best players in the pool, you might be aware of certain factors that the layman might not be. Should I have said that? No I shouldnt have. But theres a difference in the value a player like myself, who carries 7/10 games and is the best player in the game 9/10 games being toxic and calling the game when its over when the game hinges ENTIRELY on my effort, and the value of a player who actively refuses to help because he gets owned habitually. The fact that you defend this type of behavior is only going to change the way I react to these situations. Its clearly not worth caring about if you want to validate this type of behavior. And so I wont.

Kornylol wrote:When youre one of the best players in the pool, you might be aware of certain factors that the layman might not be. Should I have said that? No I shouldnt have. But theres a difference in the value a player like myself, who carries 7/10 games and is the best player in the game 9/10 games being toxic and calling the game when its over when the game hinges ENTIRELY on my effort, and the value of a player who actively refuses to help because he gets owned habitually. The fact that you defend this type of behavior is only going to change the way I react to these situations. Its clearly not worth caring about if you want to validate this type of behavior. And so I wont.

Just because you THINK someone was breaking a rule or ruining your game, doesn't mean that they actually did. Most of the time it's vendetta-reporting, trying to get someone banned because they said something that irritated you.

You still can't publish the timestamp of when Void stayed at the jungle while the enemy team raxed. You typed a long essay but no specific timestamps of when Void actually REFUSED to help. Go watch the replay again... He was in the majority of the fights. Because he had no items and your team was super behind, you have unreasonable expectations of what Void could have done that game.

Read your initial report: Void is claiming, void said this, void said that.

Doesn't really matter what void said or claimed. So you're just basing your report based off of what void said and then thinking that it must have been his actions as well.

how are there no time stamps when i linked the chatlogs of when this was happening....how is it unreasonable to ask a void to chrono pre rhasta ult on raxes so that i can chain silence.... jesus christ dude

Not chronoing before Rhasta ulti's isn't bannable. IDK what kind of logic you have here.

Your timestamps aren't reflective of rule-breaking. That's what you aren't understanding.

theres a difference between not ulting to stop his rax pushes and declining to motion towards mid when theyre pushing. Its obvious you dont like me and that this very obvious and straight forward situation is being affected by that fact, so im going to bow out. Its fine, let people ruin game if they dont progress linearly. If youre not winning from minute 1, do nothing to change that, and thats ok. Apparently.

Summary of the game:

Void is bot solo against WD/Pugna for 8 mins before Huskar helps him. Void has zero farm because it is an unwinnable lane for him.
Meanwhile, you and zeus are both mid for 8 mins refusing to give up the lane. Instead of helping void, in which bot lane was clearly in trouble, you guys both stay mid.

16:00: Void tp's bot, helps the team secure a double kill.

22:00: Void could have kept farming bot and push the tower. Instead, he TP's back to the base to help defend top.

22:30: Void lands a chrono on four targets.

26:00: Void TP's bot lane to help defend. (Why didn't you tell techies to mine bot but are so worried about what Void was doing?)

30:00: Your rax and tower were still alive. Techies had remote mines mid. Why did you chase them outside of the base to begin with?

The reality is, Void had no farm because he had to go up against witch doc/pugna for 8 mins, Huskar is just a bad player, techies is also a bad player, and zeus + silencer decided to both go mid for 10+ mins and refused to help Void bot.

Void 'refusing' to help wasn't why you lost. Refusal for you or zeus to go help bot earlier and allow Void to farm was the reason you lost.

I listed out the timestamps. Go and find a specific one you disagree with.

Kornylol wrote:theres a difference between not ulting to stop his rax pushes and declining to motion towards mid when theyre pushing. Its obvious you dont like me and that this very obvious and straight forward situation is being affected by that fact, so im going to bow out. Its fine, let people ruin game if they dont progress linearly. If youre not winning from minute 1, do nothing to change that, and thats ok. Apparently.

Is there a reason why you and zeus stayed mid for 10+ mins, refused to help Void for 8 mins?
Trust me, I don't give a shit about not liking you or not. You must have some ego problem to think that is the factor here. My opinion? Void make some comments that irritated you, you couldn't let it go, and now you're upset that I don't think a ban is justified on Void so I must be against you.

Maybe, you're just wrong?