|
On April 29 2009 14:59 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2009 13:39 Malongo wrote:On April 29 2009 07:45 Abydos1 wrote:UPDATE: After discussing the issue we are not going to penalize  Leta owners for the inadvertent forfeit. No one really expected the DQ/forfeit to ever come up and it was more a joke in that regard. DQ/forfeits are such a random occurance that there's no way anyone could predict if/when they would occur (its akin to giving +4 points to anyone that wears a hat); as such we're removing the -4 points from the scoring. I know theres almost 0 chance that my voice matters but im against this. I agree that the DQ situation was idiot but if any DQ could happen then nobody can expect that in any way. If something, this was a big mistake to have as a rule in first place, but now that actually "matters" then it should be counted imo. You are saying that the -4 DQ rule is stupid, but because it matters, we should count it? Shouldn't we actually do the opposite and NOT compound the mistake by counting the -4? You are basically saying that because this DQ happened, we should maximize the impact this random rule has on our fantasy standings? That makes no sense. Also, if "nobody can expect it in any way" then doesn't that mean we shouldn't count it because its almost impossible to predict? I don't understand why you want it counted.
- Thats what im saying: it is a stupid rule, but it is a rule afterall and not a rule that needs a referee to apply or decide about it, it is a direct scoring rule. If I remember well that rule was put there by semioldguy and never reviewed until now that is important because it impacts the game. While I understand (and agree) this rule was a mistake, the appropiate way to fix it is, in my opinion, to remove it from now on (that is assigning -4 to leta) or not to remove it this round. Not to remove it and make like it never happened or the rule never existed.
- My opinion is based in the fact that, the only justification and explanation the moderators of the game give to this "change of rules" is that "it is a random rule", that is, the expectation of the outcome in the point system due to this rule is not accurately defined. This is a very bad base to change this rule, since all the game is based in a random events (namely the results in a set of starcraft games). You coudnt predict who was going to be DQ, as you cant predict who will score more points, but thats the base of the game. By removing this rule and the effect that "already took place" you are indeed changing the fairness of the game, you are giving a group of players (a minority) an unfair advantage. Dont dodge this.
- You suggested that the game rules where indeed changed before, but lets be serious: everyone that participates in the game knew the changes (tax trade and scoring system) before the game started, and the changes apply to all players equally. That obviously means those changes cant be unfair at all.
- My last point supporting my opinion in this matter is equally important but a little more subtle: I really think the way Leta was DQ has a big impact in this decision. Should have being Leta DQ after a very bad mannered celebration after the game (so making the general opinion about the DQ a fair decision) the outcome in this game could have been different. However by removing the rule and not appling the -4 to Leta you are not only removing the rule, but also judging the DQ and the referee himself, a fact that is not related to this game at all.
- I understand that you are a TL moderator, and that you like to joke about things like this (im pointing to the timetravel post). However joking doesnt constitute a valid form of explanation for this case, I took a lot of time to make my team and id like some respect from the people that run the game, that means that if a rule is changed and i feel this is unfair id like at least to understand the explanation. Maybe im not able to understand the explanation on how this was handled (note that I understand why the rule is removed, but not why Leta doesnt get -4). If your explanation is simply: I do whatever I want and I dont have to answer or debate with anyone, then its ok just state it. But take in mind that by running this game for fun the competitiveness of the game is one of the main points. If this game were "choose your players" without rules, point system/value and all the other rules that matter in it, the level of participation would be seriously diminished. Im convinced that part of the fun is based in the competition and that can only be achieved with fair play.
@Liquid`Nazgul:
- Your post isnt a reply to me but i think this applies to me as well. Yes, I can see clearly that im acting in some way like the kespppa referee. Unfortunately, im a player in this game, not a referee, im not judging how to apply a rule nor appling it, im asking for the game to be fair. Im not saying the rule shouldnt be removed (read above) but basically that the change cant be retroactive. My last word to you is that Leta was indeed DQ and until now the bad decision of the referee hasnt been reverted.
|
On April 29 2009 18:52 Malongo wrote:
im asking for the game to be fair.
That is the whole point. If Leta had been DQ for a valuable reason, no questions would be asked.
The majority of the Starcraft community is raging against a decision made by the Kespa referee who was blindly "following the rule" (for it to be fair to all players). They think it is unfair for Leta to have been DQ. How would it be fair for the players having him in their team to lose points on a decision said to be unfair?
They (I don't have him in my team) already lost a possibility to win 2 points since the game vs Kal was not in the favor of anyone when the incident happened, is it really worth going further?
|
my team fails too hard, everyone loosing in their best MU, CJ losing to MBC, what will come next time?
|
God damn! My Samsung-heavy anti-team has failed me 
-36 is very bad
|
Braavos36389 Posts
On April 29 2009 18:52 Malongo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2009 14:59 Hot_Bid wrote:On April 29 2009 13:39 Malongo wrote:On April 29 2009 07:45 Abydos1 wrote:UPDATE: After discussing the issue we are not going to penalize Leta owners for the inadvertent forfeit. No one really expected the DQ/forfeit to ever come up and it was more a joke in that regard. DQ/forfeits are such a random occurance that there's no way anyone could predict if/when they would occur (its akin to giving +4 points to anyone that wears a hat); as such we're removing the -4 points from the scoring. I know theres almost 0 chance that my voice matters but im against this. I agree that the DQ situation was idiot but if any DQ could happen then nobody can expect that in any way. If something, this was a big mistake to have as a rule in first place, but now that actually "matters" then it should be counted imo. You are saying that the -4 DQ rule is stupid, but because it matters, we should count it? Shouldn't we actually do the opposite and NOT compound the mistake by counting the -4? You are basically saying that because this DQ happened, we should maximize the impact this random rule has on our fantasy standings? That makes no sense. Also, if "nobody can expect it in any way" then doesn't that mean we shouldn't count it because its almost impossible to predict? I don't understand why you want it counted. - Thats what im saying: it is a stupid rule, but it is a rule afterall and not a rule that needs a referee to apply or decide about it, it is a direct scoring rule. If I remember well that rule was put there by semioldguy and never reviewed until now that is important because it impacts the game. While I understand (and agree) this rule was a mistake, the appropiate way to fix it is, in my opinion, to remove it from now on (that is assigning -4 to leta) or not to remove it this round. Not to remove it and make like it never happened or the rule never existed. - My opinion is based in the fact that, the only justification and explanation the moderators of the game give to this "change of rules" is that "it is a random rule", that is, the expectation of the outcome in the point system due to this rule is not accurately defined. This is a very bad base to change this rule, since all the game is based in a random events (namely the results in a set of starcraft games). You coudnt predict who was going to be DQ, as you cant predict who will score more points, but thats the base of the game. By removing this rule and the effect that "already took place" you are indeed changing the fairness of the game, you are giving a group of players (a minority) an unfair advantage. Dont dodge this.
The game is NOT meant to be based on entirely random events, otherwise we'd just play fantasy dice. Obviously the entire point of the game is to predict which players do better than other players. Wins, streaks, team wins, etc. are thus all "predictable" (even though people do a very bad job at predicting them). Who wears hats, how many times people yawn, who gets the left and right booth, how many times they blink, and number of disqualifications are "more random" than the first set of scoring stats. Our goal is to ultimately make fantasy SC a "game of skill" while still keeping it fun and accessible to the casual user. That means eliminating truly random events like disqualifications to emphasize "good" predictable events like wins. If you look at the "misc" tab, the "Former Top 10" group is #1, which means that there are people who are consistently good at fantasy. "All the game" isn't based on random events like you said.
We aren't giving anyone an unfair advantage because the rule was unfair in the first place. If there was a rule that banned black people from voting, then the rule was removed, would you say that you are giving black people an unfair advantage? No, because removing the rule made the playing field fair. Your argument means that removing any rule that affects people is giving someone an unfair advantage. This is just wrong. Sure we're giving owners who have their players DQ'd an advantage. We give owners whose players win an advantage. We give owners whose players are in lineups a lot an advantage. But none of these advantages are unfair.
- You suggested that the game rules where indeed changed before, but lets be serious: everyone that participates in the game knew the changes (tax trade and scoring system) before the game started, and the changes apply to all players equally. That obviously means those changes cant be unfair at all.
Rules can be unfair if people know about them. Are you saying that the only thing that separates a fair rule and an unfair rule is notice to the participants? If we made a rule saying "people named Malongo start with -50 points" and you knew this before playing, that would make the rule fair? Of course not. The DQ -4 rule was a mistake on our part, and its effects are clearly unfair. The fact that it existed before the game started doesn't change this at all.
- My last point supporting my opinion in this matter is equally important but a little more subtle: I really think the way Leta was DQ has a big impact in this decision. Should have being Leta DQ after a very bad mannered celebration after the game (so making the general opinion about the DQ a fair decision) the outcome in this game could have been different. However by removing the rule and not appling the -4 to Leta you are not only removing the rule, but also judging the DQ and the referee himself, a fact that is not related to this game at all.
This is true, and it supports our decision in this specific case. Even if he was DQ'd for bad manner we probably still would have removed the rule. For FPL, the player is already penalized enough by getting a loss instead of a win.
- I understand that you are a TL moderator, and that you like to joke about things like this (im pointing to the timetravel post). However joking doesnt constitute a valid form of explanation for this case, I took a lot of time to make my team and id like some respect from the people that run the game, that means that if a rule is changed and i feel this is unfair id like at least to understand the explanation. Maybe im not able to understand the explanation on how this was handled (note that I understand why the rule is removed, but not why Leta doesnt get -4). If your explanation is simply: I do whatever I want and I dont have to answer or debate with anyone, then its ok just state it. But take in mind that by running this game for fun the competitiveness of the game is one of the main points. If this game were "choose your players" without rules, point system/value and all the other rules that matter in it, the level of participation would be seriously diminished. Im convinced that part of the fun is based in the competition and that can only be achieved with fair play.
I don't understand how you can make the point that its "all random" and not based on skill and thus the DQ rule is not unfair, then go ahead and make this point too. Your arguments are entirely inconsistent. It's either a game based on skill and competition so we want to avoid huge point swings for random events like DQs, or its based on luck and we should put in +10 points for who guesses the number of times the camera cuts to mascots every match.
In fact, all the stuff you say about fair competition actually supports us removing this rule this time. It's pretty much accepted that the -4 DQ rule is unfair and not well thought out. We are removing it because of that. Nobody is arguing that the -4 DQ rule should stay, just that it should be applied this time because "we had it in the rules." This is a flawed argument, because we are trying to achieve the most fair result. It's not "we do whatever we want and don't answer or debate with anyone." However, let me make it clear to you that ultimately this is our game and we could just do that. I could simply call you an idiot and give all Leta owners +10 points, and you would be able to do nothing about it. But we're clearly working toward making fantasy fair and competitive. If you think keeping this rule this time makes this round's fantasy fair, you are simply wrong.
@Liquid`Nazgul:
- Your post isnt a reply to me but i think this applies to me as well. Yes, I can see clearly that im acting in some way like the kespppa referee. Unfortunately, im a player in this game, not a referee, im not judging how to apply a rule nor appling it, im asking for the game to be fair. Im not saying the rule shouldnt be removed (read above) but basically that the change cant be retroactive. My last word to you is that Leta was indeed DQ and until now the bad decision of the referee hasnt been reverted.
If the rule should be removed why can't it be retroactive? Especially if this is the first DQ that has happened. If we had a rule stating all players who clapped twice during the match gets +500 points (automatically winning them the season) are you saying we must keep this rule simply because we stated it? Again, just because we wrote the rule beforehand does not mean it is fair, and does not mean we have to abide by it. The fairest result here is to remove it.
|
A rule being fair is not decided by its existence. That is mindless bureaucracy babbling. If that were the case each countries' laws were fair even though they differ all over the world. Be happy an unfair rule was removed and let that be it.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
I think the intention of the DQ rule was more or less along the line of using an illegal bug/exploit in game or doing something clearly stupid like typing "rofl, you're so bad". The rule was never meant to encapsulate KeSPA being fuckheads
|
Braavos36389 Posts
On April 29 2009 21:04 Plexa wrote:
I think the intention of the DQ rule was more or less along the line of using an illegal bug/exploit in game or doing something clearly stupid like typing "rofl, you're so bad". The rule was never meant to encapsulate KeSPA being fuckheads
The -4 DQ rule is still very unfair even if its invoked by a bug or BM or something. We're removing it from all cases.
|
On April 29 2009 18:52 Malongo wrote:
- My last point supporting my opinion in this matter is equally important but a little more subtle: I really think the way Leta was DQ has a big impact in this decision. Should have being Leta DQ after a very bad mannered celebration after the game (so making the general opinion about the DQ a fair decision) the outcome in this game could have been different. However by removing the rule and not appling the -4 to Leta you are not only removing the rule, but also judging the DQ and the referee himself, a fact that is not related to this game at all.
very good point indeed. This is my guess also, if the DQ was "fair" the -4 would have been given without any arguing.
|
I think what HotBid et al are saying is that because the -4 is obviously ridiculous in this case (just like the KESPA DQ is obviously ridiculous) and FPL has no way to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable DQs, it makes the most sense to just scrap the rule. Especially as this is the first case, so it's merely a question of changing one decision.
And admit it, no one expected Leta to be hit with one of these. You know the probable targets were BackHo and fbh, and we all know exactly why we would love to see either of those characters get with a DQ for bm. I would find it hilarious, even though I'm a fan of both (and both on my team).
In legal parlance, this would be called a test case. Hmm, you passed a (stupid?) law. Okay, first person/group arrested under the new law gets tried. Does it make sense to find them guilty? It only makes sense if what they did was both illegal and wrong. If it's just "illegal", change or repeal the law. It happens all the time in RL, I don't see the problem with it happening in FPL (which is, should I note, far less serious).
|
the worst day ever
|
Braavos36389 Posts
wow ph33r has a +29 trade gain holy crap
|
On April 29 2009 16:16 Hot_Bid wrote:
A lot of rules we tweaked to make it more fair. We didn't have a -1 point trade tax at the onset of the league either, and we added that in. Do the people wanting us to add in the -4 DQ rule also want all the trade taxes removed because they weren't explicitly stated in the first iteration of the rules?
I wouldn't mind the removal of trade tax 
|
On April 30 2009 02:57 ph33r wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2009 16:16 Hot_Bid wrote:
A lot of rules we tweaked to make it more fair. We didn't have a -1 point trade tax at the onset of the league either, and we added that in. Do the people wanting us to add in the -4 DQ rule also want all the trade taxes removed because they weren't explicitly stated in the first iteration of the rules? I wouldn't mind the removal of trade tax
Ph33r, you need a higher trade tax; flat tax was a bad idea...
|
I sooo wish i would have another captain...
somehow rank 27 with Jaedong as chief anyway... Strange... Seems like nearly everyone gets screwed over this season ^^.
ah, ive got 3d *best* antiteam :D
|
If i trade by.hero for Shuttle i won't lose points since i'll get 1 point for line-up appirance right ?
|
On April 29 2009 20:43 Hot_Bid wrote:
A big response to my post
Now that I read your response I can see and feel that we have a huge disparity in the understanding of some terms (randomness, rules and fairness). Then, without any intentions of going any further (because I still enjoy FPL the way it is atm and the site rules forbid me from keeping a longer argumentation with a staff member) I can only congratulate you and thank you for the work you do to keep this game running smoothly instead of call you idiot leaving this competition in anger, because your response has already taken care of my main interest for this case, wich is no other than understanding how the situation was handled and why the decision is not fair in my opinion (by understanding why it is fair and appropiate in your opinion). Thank you.
|
Braavos36389 Posts
On April 30 2009 16:21 Malongo wrote:Now that I read your response I can see and feel that we have a huge disparity in the understanding of some terms (randomness, rules and fairness). Then, without any intentions of going any further (because I still enjoy FPL the way it is atm and the site rules forbid me from keeping a longer argumentation with a staff member) I can only congratulate you and thank you for the work you do to keep this game running smoothly instead of call you idiot leaving this competition in anger, because your response has already taken care of my main interest for this case, wich is no other than understanding how the situation was handled and why the decision is not fair in my opinion (by understanding why it is fair and appropiate in your opinion). Thank you.
There are no site rules forbidding arguing with a staff member. I agree with you that we could've handled the situation better presentation and justification wise, but ultimately I think we reached the best and fairest result.
|
On April 30 2009 16:28 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2009 16:21 Malongo wrote:On April 29 2009 20:43 Hot_Bid wrote:
A big response to my post Now that I read your response I can see and feel that we have a huge disparity in the understanding of some terms (randomness, rules and fairness). Then, without any intentions of going any further (because I still enjoy FPL the way it is atm and the site rules forbid me from keeping a longer argumentation with a staff member) I can only congratulate you and thank you for the work you do to keep this game running smoothly instead of call you idiot leaving this competition in anger, because your response has already taken care of my main interest for this case, wich is no other than understanding how the situation was handled and why the decision is not fair in my opinion (by understanding why it is fair and appropiate in your opinion). Thank you. There are no site rules forbidding arguing with a staff member. I agree with you that we could've handled the situation better presentation and justification wise, but ultimately I think we reached the best and fairest result.
Unfortunately at this stage im unable to presentate the defense of my argument at its fullest too given my lack in the English language . However ill keep trying if I feel robbed again (obviously joking). To your favor I could add that I dont think it will impact the overall results in FPL, that nobody really believed that a DQ could occur in proleague (less the idiocity that happened) and that the rule itself is nonsense related to the skill of the players.
|
On April 30 2009 15:58 raga4ka wrote:
If i trade by.hero for Shuttle i won't lose points since i'll get 1 point for line-up appirance right ?
If Shuttle plays and loses he will have +1 for lineup -1 for a loss = 0
Since you paid -1 for the trade you can end with a final -1
If he wins you get +2 (-1 for the trade and +3 for his performance)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
