Outside of the fact that "intentionally gamethrowing" is redundant, since by definition, gamethrowing requires intent... I mostly agree. If town's significantly hindered when someone throws, it should be refunded, yes.
I can't remember the exact cause of events that led to the refunding guidelines getting way more strict, though. For some reason I want to say Lucid had something to do with it? Riot would probably know.
i think it's really more or less common sense that instantly killing someone as sheriff only serves the purpose of dramatically reducing that player's chances of winning
deletedabout 10 years
It's not even that much work
I know that was sarcastic but I had to emphasize it seriously
and i'm wondering why this even needed to be said. i don't understand how this fact is in the minority.
deletedabout 10 years
Nevermind:
"How determining refund situations works:
Every case will be taken into consideration individually and reviewed by at least three moderators. The decision will be based on the severity of the throw's hindrance on the game's outcome for either alignment.
A refund will only be made once three moderators agree that the game should be refunded.
However, for a refund to be considered, the losing team must continue to play with the intent of winning the game regardless of the throw. If the game receives no violation, it is NOT refunded."
So basically you decided that Gira didn't deserve a refund because?
deletedabout 10 years
intentionally throwing a game should be grounds for a refund every single time. epicmafia needs standards. each heart guarantees fair play. having someone steer a game toward a loss is a waste of a heart. people shouldn't be given losses or wins when they don't deserve it.
