|
Disagree. As a tournament, there are two interests in mind: entertaining the audience and respecting the competitors with a fair atmosphere. I'm sure the audience could care less what happened in this game as long as they saw good starcraft. However, out of all the possible outcomes, the most fair is that Game 2 be replayed. Regardless of anything else. As a competitor, you always want a good game. It's understandable if things are frustrating, but nobody deserves a free win unless rules are broken. To accept or even argue for a free win isn't right.
I have nothing against Strelok and he seems like a good guy, but inaction is sometimes just as bad as performing the wrong action. He should know in a competitive tournament that the best possible action for him to do would be to accept a Game 2 rematch or offer one. However, I can't pretend like he wouldn't be justified into feeling lucky that what was believed to be a "ref" ruled in his favor and gave him equal grounding to restart the series. But still, there is no point in later complaining about the changing of rulings.
There was a frustrating beginning, which is understandable. There was lag, which is understandable. There was a decision made that seemed to be the best thing to happen in the series for Strelok, which was later overturned (irritating and understandable). However, also understandable is that upon a disconnect, the game should be replayed as long as there is no clear winner. True, there may be some abuse of this, but is it worse to penalize a player that doesn't deserve it or let a few instances of potentially abusing the system through?
Also, I think the latest FBH vs. Flash game should show that even a game where one player has a "clear advantage" doesn't always result in a way for said player.
|
Fenix was the lagger, Strelok had a huge advantage. Even if he didn't the one disconnecting should lose by default imo.
|
The overturning of decisions is just a display of lack of integrity as an organization, where you don't have a rule that covers the case and you're evaluating on a case-by-case basis, which can result in bias. You can overturn it, and you probably have to, but the damage to your reputation is already done, and that was the whole point of Strelok's thread. Some people still think it was about the games, even after he said he wouldn't return even if they gave him the wins for free.
I'm not sure you get what happened but you really have got it backwards. Keeping the original decision shows clear 'bias', for Strelok (from going by the video interview). Overturning it shows objectivity. My argument is that your reputation will be better by overturning a bad decision instead of keeping it. I think you will find noone disagreeing that not making mistakes is the best.
Fenix was the lagger, Strelok had a huge advantage. Even if he didn't the one disconnecting should lose by default imo.
That is just an arbitrary rule set by mass-orgs such as Blizzard/WGTour etc because it is impossible to judge every game. In a well-ran smaller tournament that is definitely the worst solution. If you know which person disced, then that person should never get the win but that's about as far as it goes.
|
On July 01 2009 20:24 SmokeMaxX wrote:
Disagree. As a tournament, there are two interests in mind: entertaining the audience and respecting the competitors with a fair atmosphere. I'm sure the audience could care less what happened in this game as long as they saw good starcraft. However, out of all the possible outcomes, the most fair is that Game 2 be replayed. Regardless of anything else. As a competitor, you always want a good game. It's understandable if things are frustrating, but nobody deserves a free win unless rules are broken. To accept or even argue for a free win isn't right.
I have nothing against Strelok and he seems like a good guy, but inaction is sometimes just as bad as performing the wrong action. He should know in a competitive tournament that the best possible action for him to do would be to accept a Game 2 rematch or offer one. However, I can't pretend like he wouldn't be justified into feeling lucky that what was believed to be a "ref" ruled in his favor and gave him equal grounding to restart the series. But still, there is no point in later complaining about the changing of rulings.
There was a frustrating beginning, which is understandable. There was lag, which is understandable. There was a decision made that seemed to be the best thing to happen in the series for Strelok, which was later overturned (irritating and understandable). However, also understandable is that upon a disconnect, the game should be replayed as long as there is no clear winner. True, there may be some abuse of this, but is it worse to penalize a player that doesn't deserve it or let a few instances of potentially abusing the system through?
Also, I think the latest FBH vs. Flash game should show that even a game where one player has a "clear advantage" doesn't always result in a way for said player.
This is why, for example, Backho vs Firefist incident was ruled badly. Why? They started to chat with players and asking their ruling. Obviously they (players) have reputation to care about and Firefist couldn't request win for him. If KeSPA would have ruled win for Firefist and then later on said that they are changing rules to not let these things happen again, it would have been proper way to handle that situation because nobody could have blame players anymore.
|
Props for clearing up the confusion. 
|
On July 01 2009 20:33 Shauni wrote:
Fenix was the lagger, Strelok had a huge advantage. Even if he didn't the one disconnecting should lose by default imo.
where are you getting these facts? I'm curious because they directly contradict what Tasteless said:
"that there was no clear indication of who was going to win the game"
|
On July 01 2009 20:46 Danka wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 20:33 Shauni wrote:
Fenix was the lagger, Strelok had a huge advantage. Even if he didn't the one disconnecting should lose by default imo. where are you getting these facts? I'm curious because they directly contradict what Tasteless said: "that there was no clear indication of who was going to win the game"
That is just playing with words. There is never a clear indication until its OVER. He just didn't say Strelok had an advantage because that'd make his statement a bit diffuse. From Strelok's own post it is clear that he had a big advantage, but he had not made the finishing move yet.
|
This sort of reminds me of the F-91 vs NoNy liquidbition. When F-91 was up 1-0 and then Nony cried about lag etc. And they decided on resetting the score and play it all over again. Man F-91 was such a pimp/MAN to agree to that cause he knows he was just THAT MUCH better than Nony. Maybe starting over is a trend in the pro scene but not yet adapted to the foreign scene. Maybe?
|
On July 01 2009 20:44 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +The overturning of decisions is just a display of lack of integrity as an organization, where you don't have a rule that covers the case and you're evaluating on a case-by-case basis, which can result in bias. You can overturn it, and you probably have to, but the damage to your reputation is already done, and that was the whole point of Strelok's thread. Some people still think it was about the games, even after he said he wouldn't return even if they gave him the wins for free. I'm not sure you get what happened but you really have got it backwards. Keeping the original decision shows clear 'bias', for Strelok (from going by the video interview). Overturning it shows objectivity. My argument is that your reputation will be better by overturning a bad decision instead of keeping it. I think you will find noone disagreeing that not making mistakes is the best.
I'm not saying that the overturning makes it biased, I'm saying that if you're overturning a decision, then you didn't have a rule to cover the case in the first place, so you were deciding on a case-by-case basis, which would have allowed for bias to appear. Later in the same post I agreed that overturning it would be best, but that the damage is done already anyway and you're already looking bad... you overturn the decision in an attempt to not look even worse as time goes by and the decision is analyzed by more and more people.
|
On July 01 2009 19:25 LG)Sabbath wrote:
The overturning of decisions is just a display of lack of integrity as an organization, where you don't have a rule that covers the case and you're evaluating on a case-by-case basis, which can result in bias. You can overturn it, and you probably have to, but the damage to your reputation is already done, and that was the whole point of Strelok's thread. Some people still think it was about the games, even after he said he wouldn't return even if they gave him the wins for free.
So the promise of a professional tournament run by a professional organization was clearly broken... it is understandable that Strelok is disappointed. Maybe he's just not in for the money, maybe he just wanted to be part of the pro scene for a while here and, the tournament being not what was promised, he had no reason to continue, as the prestige of winning it would be mostly if not completely gone.
What is integrity? is it fairness? lack of integrity as an organization means lacking in fairness?
What are rules? is it to protect fair play in the context of games? rules of iccup for not allowing maphack is to protect fair play right? rules of iccup for now allowing people to abuse the ladder is to protect fair play right?
When savior got reset by iccup because he played the same dude 20times in one day was because admins were following the rules to protect fair play. The admins would be right if savior had the need to abuse to get #1 rank on iccup.
When Gorush typed ppp instead of pp and the rule says that's a disqualification. What rule was applied here? the same rule that trying to protect fair play right? typing all game long to distract the other guy is not fair play, and hence there is a need of no typing rules.
What happens when the very same rule we created trying to protect fair play themselves are impeding fair play? the very same reason we created them in the first place? We should fucking ignore the rules. Rules are created by people, they are just guidelines in which the true value lies on the reason of why we needed the rules, not the rules themselves.
Integrity is something along the line of holding high standard on fairness, not sticking to the decision even knowing it is wrong. I hope you learned something for my effort
|
There's been a lot of mis-communication and I feel tasteless's video response just added to it. He stated that there was no final decision, yet strelok provided an email response with the words final in it. He said there was no way to show a winner, but strelok said that he was winning at the time. He should have addressed those issues instead of dodging them.
Obviously, Tasteless and Daniel thought they made the correct decision, and I personally agree with them, but the video response did nothing to help the situation. It just fanned the flames TBH.
|
If the first two games were laggy shit, why wouldn't they replay the series? I certainly wouldn't want to be judged by how well I play when the game isn't working...
|
On July 01 2009 21:25 rei wrote:
What happens when the very same rule we created trying to protect fair play themselves are impeding fair play? the very same reason we created them in the first place? We should fucking ignore the rules. Rules are created by people, they are just guidelines in which the true value lies on the reason of why we needed the rules, not the rules themselves.
No, you should change the rules, but not in the middle of the tournament. After it's over, before the next one.
In this context I would consider "integrity" as applying the same rule equally for everyone. If the rule gets a pro gamer banned from the ladder, then you should probably change it.
This isn't really a complex situation, either you have a rule that says that disc = instant loss, or one that says that disc = replay the game, or whatever, but you don't make the rule up when the situation appears, you need to have it in place before the tournament begins. If you don't, then don't call yourself an experienced tournament admin or a pro-gaming organization or anything like that.
|
I still don't understand why this demanded a video be made instead of just writing an explanation
|
On July 02 2009 00:27 floor exercise wrote:
I still don't understand why this demanded a video be made instead of just writing an explanation
perhaps because tasteless likes to be in the limelight just talking about anything. I think Tasteless should stick to commentating and not be a judge, because he seems a bit whimsy.
|
United States12607 Posts
On July 02 2009 00:27 floor exercise wrote:
I still don't understand why this demanded a video be made instead of just writing an explanation
Videos are more entertaining than text. Why would you bash Tasteless for making one?
That said, I agree with Nazgul that the explanation Tasteless gave in the video was really unsatisfying. "Final decision" versus "decision" is semantics. It would have been much more tactful and honest for Tasteless simply to acknowledge that a decision (mistake) was made and then corrected.
|
On July 02 2009 00:30 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2009 00:27 floor exercise wrote:
I still don't understand why this demanded a video be made instead of just writing an explanation perhaps because tasteless likes to be in the limelight just talking about anything. I think Tasteless should stick to commentating and not be a judge, because he seems a bit whimsy.
Cant believe you said this crap..
|
On July 01 2009 21:25 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 19:25 LG)Sabbath wrote:
The overturning of decisions is just a display of lack of integrity as an organization, where you don't have a rule that covers the case and you're evaluating on a case-by-case basis, which can result in bias. You can overturn it, and you probably have to, but the damage to your reputation is already done, and that was the whole point of Strelok's thread. Some people still think it was about the games, even after he said he wouldn't return even if they gave him the wins for free.
So the promise of a professional tournament run by a professional organization was clearly broken... it is understandable that Strelok is disappointed. Maybe he's just not in for the money, maybe he just wanted to be part of the pro scene for a while here and, the tournament being not what was promised, he had no reason to continue, as the prestige of winning it would be mostly if not completely gone. What is integrity? is it fairness? lack of integrity as an organization means lacking in fairness? What are rules? is it to protect fair play in the context of games? rules of iccup for not allowing maphack is to protect fair play right? rules of iccup for now allowing people to abuse the ladder is to protect fair play right? When savior got reset by iccup because he played the same dude 20times in one day was because admins were following the rules to protect fair play. The admins would be right if savior had the need to abuse to get #1 rank on iccup. When Gorush typed ppp instead of pp and the rule says that's a disqualification. What rule was applied here? the same rule that trying to protect fair play right? typing all game long to distract the other guy is not fair play, and hence there is a need of no typing rules. What happens when the very same rule we created trying to protect fair play themselves are impeding fair play? the very same reason we created them in the first place? We should fucking ignore the rules. Rules are created by people, they are just guidelines in which the true value lies on the reason of why we needed the rules, not the rules themselves. Integrity is something along the line of holding high standard on fairness, not sticking to the decision even knowing it is wrong. I hope you learned something for my effort
So wrong, you just said that if Gorush could abuse and play same person 20 times because its obvious that he is too good and doesn´t need to "abuse" but other ppl are not allowed to do same because they are not that good and it would help them so its a "real abuse"?
Rules do not work like that, you either got rules should apply for everyone same way, no matter who he is, who are you that you take out the right to judge who needs to follow them and who not? So the value of every good tournament are the rules and the admins that follows them 100%.
Oh and the admin should have at least a knowledge about the game/sport whatever he works with.
|
On July 01 2009 17:09 Etherone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 16:11 Strelok. wrote:+ Show Spoiler +1. Subject: Re: btw
Date: 6/26/09 13:19
SDM's final ruling:
Replay both game 1 and game 2. So go ahead and tell Fenix, I just emailed him too.
Do you see word final here or it's only mine vision?
2. During the game vs Fenix we had very many issues i didn't want to talk previously, since i didn't want to discuss that game, but about which i talk now:
a) We couldn't arrrange games during more then 2 weeks.
b) He wanted to play only between 23:00 CET and 04:00 CET. He coudldn't play other time due to his univercity. This time was unacceptable for me, because i usually sleep this time. Admin didn't do anything to deal with the problem.
c) When we, at last, met - we got straight lag in both games (even Fenix talked about that in the replay). Drop table appeared several times, so that is why i said the games are EVEN. Because if i dropped him game N1 when he got lead, he would have complainted either.
d) the last thing is about this game. I don't want to break out Valor rules, so i won't post replay here. Anyway i will just point out on our final position. If they cast replay you will see it yourself.
- upgrades. i have 1-1, he has 1-0. Both making 2 more.
- limits. I have 170, protoss has 142.
- high tech. His arbiter still not out, though his storms should be ready in 10 seconds.
- number of bases. I had 3 and 4-th just incoming. He had 3 and 2 just incoming. Though he had problems with probes, so some bases wouldn't work properly anyways.
- final point. In just 1 minute i collect 185 limit and go straight to 8 and 7 o clock bases. He would have had maximum 160-165 limit at this time, no statis, 3 stormers. It's not enough to hold such push. He can't counter with recall. Ofc such limit is not enough to counter just by ground. The game would be finished in 3 or 5 mins maximum i'm pretty sure about that. So just... watch replay, make your own opinion.
and LG)Sabbath Argentina. July 01 2009 13:52. Posts 2268
I won't return to the tournament even if they give me 1-0 lead or autowin. I already made decision. pretty much what i expected, thank you for clarifying. Valor staff dropped the ball imo, and sadly although i know tasteless was trying to do what should have been done in the first place, he never should have retracted SDM's decision, even if it was the wrong one. all they can do now, is apologize to both players for the debacle and make sure this never happens again, or work something out with both players, although highly unlikely.
that's pretty much what i wanted to say
|
On July 02 2009 01:32 Ilvy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 21:25 rei wrote:On July 01 2009 19:25 LG)Sabbath wrote:
The overturning of decisions is just a display of lack of integrity as an organization, where you don't have a rule that covers the case and you're evaluating on a case-by-case basis, which can result in bias. You can overturn it, and you probably have to, but the damage to your reputation is already done, and that was the whole point of Strelok's thread. Some people still think it was about the games, even after he said he wouldn't return even if they gave him the wins for free.
So the promise of a professional tournament run by a professional organization was clearly broken... it is understandable that Strelok is disappointed. Maybe he's just not in for the money, maybe he just wanted to be part of the pro scene for a while here and, the tournament being not what was promised, he had no reason to continue, as the prestige of winning it would be mostly if not completely gone. What is integrity? is it fairness? lack of integrity as an organization means lacking in fairness? What are rules? is it to protect fair play in the context of games? rules of iccup for not allowing maphack is to protect fair play right? rules of iccup for now allowing people to abuse the ladder is to protect fair play right? When savior got reset by iccup because he played the same dude 20times in one day was because admins were following the rules to protect fair play. The admins would be right if savior had the need to abuse to get #1 rank on iccup. When Gorush typed ppp instead of pp and the rule says that's a disqualification. What rule was applied here? the same rule that trying to protect fair play right? typing all game long to distract the other guy is not fair play, and hence there is a need of no typing rules. What happens when the very same rule we created trying to protect fair play themselves are impeding fair play? the very same reason we created them in the first place? We should fucking ignore the rules. Rules are created by people, they are just guidelines in which the true value lies on the reason of why we needed the rules, not the rules themselves. Integrity is something along the line of holding high standard on fairness, not sticking to the decision even knowing it is wrong. I hope you learned something for my effort So wrong, you just said that if Gorush could abuse and play same person 20 times because its obvious that he is too good and doesn´t need to "abuse" but other ppl are not allowed to do same because they are not that good and it would help them so its a "real abuse"? Rules do not work like that, you either got rules should apply for everyone same way, no matter who he is, who are you that you take out the right to judge who needs to follow them and who not? So the value of every good tournament are the rules and the admins that follows them 100%. Oh and the admin should have at least a knowledge about the game/sport whatever he works with.
he is not saying that rules shouldnt apply to some people, hes saying that the rule should be applied intelligently to everyone. rules cannot be written to address every specific situation, that is why we have referees and judges and administrators, to judge how a rule should be applied under various circumstances. the game limit on iccup is to prevent players from cheating the system and gaining points without earning them. but when 2 high ranked players play each other 20 times in a row and go 10-10 its obviously not abuse, just practice. so they are technically violating the rule, but anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that they arent violating the purpose of the rule and so should not be punished.
rules are not perfect, they are guidelines. you cannot follow them 100% and expect to have a well run tournament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
