I can't believe no topic is up about it yet. So here it goes:
Ex, white-ra and Stork are in a 3 way tie. So they needed rematch.
1st rematch was Stork vs Ex
They played and Stork won Ex signed the sheet saying he lost and all was good
That was counting without the cunning senses of the Storm Observer himself, Tasteless.
See, Tasteless saw Stork placing an observer on on of Ex turret during te game. Now that my friends is called an observer bug and it is banned from any respectable tournament.
Instead of just shutting the fuck up (what anyone who would not risk upsetting the whole korean fanbase of starcraft would do), Tasteless told the teachers err the referees...
What followed was a huge controversy (huge in the korean way) The referee debated what to do and in a matter of minutes, all the korean press was there. Big buzzzz all over.
The referee gave a rematch to Ex, who lost.
Now, that doesn't seem like a big deal to Stork, but it is.
The koreans do not seem to take lightly something like tis from one of their own.
I personally hope they will let go, cause Stork is a nice guy, and that is not too much of a deal.
But you guys probably have your own idea about it, so let the flame war start.
(anyone who was there and who want to add to my version is welcome to, I do not have the infuse science about all tat incident
hm thanks for sharing what's going on. I think if the obs stayed there just for a lil while and wasn't a setback for ex, there should be no problems, but if it was critical or on purpose then rematch/loss gogo.
edit: oh 4 people posted before me... romeo, you linked to the rules pic, not the rules itself.
I didn't know it was legal in korean tournament, interesting... didn't know about the stop thing either. I am really glad I woke up this morning, I learned 2 thing
On October 06 2007 10:51 GTR-2-Go wrote: Why? It's completely legal in Korean Tournaments because its possible to stop the jam by just simply pressing stop on the Turret.
It was just a simple misunderstanding from Stork, believeing that he thought it was legal.
You know, I was in a martial arts tournament once which allowed no knees in the clinch.... I didn't read that part of the rules, so when I clinched and kneed, then the guy got KO'd...I got disqualified.
It is the competitors job to learn the rules beforehand.
Couldn't it just be that Stork didn't know that he was forcing the Observer on top of the Turret? Maybe if we can get an FPVOD or something of that game maybe we'll be able to tell if Stork was indeed exploiting this bug?
Even if it is allowed in Korean tournaments, Stork should've known.
On October 06 2007 11:15 Dknight wrote: d4d's description of how everyone found out about the bug is pretty inaccurate
=[
Errr, no it's not. It's simplified but if you want to correct it, just go ahead and do it, don't just diss that without adding anything dude, that's not the way to go.
1- It's stupid to ban this bug, it's very easy to avoid. But if you don't notice it in time, it might give your opponent a great advantage, ie shuttles passing by won't get hit, not to mention your opponent seeing your stuff. 2- Technically, stork should have been disq'd imo, not reading the rules is not a good excuse.
On October 06 2007 12:24 LG)Sabbath wrote: 1- It's stupid to ban this bug, it's very easy to avoid. But if you don't notice it in time, it might give your opponent a great advantage, ie shuttles passing by won't get hit, not to mention your opponent seeing your stuff. 2- Technically, stork should have been disq'd imo, not reading the rules is not a good excuse.
what sabbath said, mind you, I don't know about disqualification (I guess you meant loss game?).. it's a little harsh for 1st time use of a bug.. plus what if bug use is unintentional? Anyway even when intentional I think the rule is *Intentional Use of Game/Program Bugs: A warning at the minimum or Loss by Default and it's always the referee's call. Personally if the bug didn't have much impact on the game I would have called a warning only (and not a rematch) unless I wanted to see more stork action (in a good way, i.e. more Korean progamer ownage lol)
On October 06 2007 11:28 Equinox_kr wrote: Wow that's odd ...
Couldn't it just be that Stork didn't know that he was forcing the Observer on top of the Turret? Maybe if we can get an FPVOD or something of that game maybe we'll be able to tell if Stork was indeed exploiting this bug?
Even if it is allowed in Korean tournaments, Stork should've known.
On October 06 2007 11:28 Equinox_kr wrote: Wow that's odd ...
Couldn't it just be that Stork didn't know that he was forcing the Observer on top of the Turret? Maybe if we can get an FPVOD or something of that game maybe we'll be able to tell if Stork was indeed exploiting this bug?
Even if it is allowed in Korean tournaments, Stork should've known.
Although I don't want him DQed; I want him to win
You have to click multiple times on the turret to make it work.
DQing a korean progamer on the first offence is a slap in the face to koreans. I essentially thought the rule just meant that if such bug was used, the player would get warned. Not immediately DQ'ed.
Stork > Ex regardless if he used any type of bug. So DQ'ing him wouldn't make any sense whatsoever other than getting another community mad.
On October 06 2007 13:26 Lycaeus wrote: DQing a korean progamer on the first offence is a slap in the face to koreans. I essentially thought the rule just meant that if such bug was used, the player would get warned. Not immediately DQ'ed.
Stork > Ex regardless if he used any type of bug. So DQ'ing him wouldn't make any sense whatsoever other than getting another community mad.
You have to think these guys come from a league were rules are severe. Players get a lose for pausing the game, etc.
On October 06 2007 14:11 koryano321 wrote: and to these guys, that bug isnt illegal, so what u said wow has no meaning whatsoever
To WHOM that bug isn't illegal? This is WCG not a Starleague so saying not knowing the rules here are different is a very unacceptable excuse. And also you cannot say that just because Stork was going to win nevertheless, he should not be punished, that's ridiculous.
On October 06 2007 14:11 koryano321 wrote: and to these guys, that bug isnt illegal, so what u said wow has no meaning whatsoever
To WHOM that bug isn't illegal? This is WCG not a Starleague so saying not knowing the rules here are different is a very unacceptable excuse. And also you cannot say that just because Stork was going to win nevertheless, he should not be punished, that's ridiculous.
WCG 07 blog: KeSPA’s #1 ranked StarCraft player exploits during match We just got this breaking report that StarCraft owner Song “Stork” Byung Goo used a banned bug in his group tiebreaker match against IP.EX. It’s unclear why Stork, the KeSPA’s #1 ranked StarCraft player as of this month, whipped out the exploit, but GGL Wire’s Nick “Tasteless” Plott narrates this shakycam footage of the event and outcome. Video:Direct Link to Video Source:GGL Wire
On October 06 2007 14:11 koryano321 wrote: and to these guys, that bug isnt illegal, so what u said wow has no meaning whatsoever
yes, it is
and 99% it was intentional, the odds of ex happening to build a turret exactly under an obs so that it stalled on its own (that does work if it happens just right) are very very low.
On October 06 2007 14:37 Coach wrote: WCG 07 blog: KeSPA’s #1 ranked StarCraft player exploits during match We just got this breaking report that StarCraft owner Song “Stork” Byung Goo used a banned bug in his group tiebreaker match against IP.EX. It’s unclear why Stork, the KeSPA’s #1 ranked StarCraft player as of this month, whipped out the exploit, but GGL Wire’s Nick “Tasteless” Plott narrates this shakycam footage of the event and outcome. Video:http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1231046196/bctid1231017722
On October 06 2007 13:28 HonestTea wrote: Everyone forgetting that Ex signed the sheet.
Not only that, but the referees were informed, and they made a decision. Why on earth would anyone want Stork to be disqualified after that?
Maybe people pissed he tried to "fix brackets" loosing on purpose (if that's even true) ~_~ People wanting one of the most skilled person, one of the few reasons why wcg is interesting - at least for me - to be kicked from tournament, ignoring the fact he was already punished, kinda, make me sad
On October 06 2007 14:37 Coach wrote: WCG 07 blog: KeSPA’s #1 ranked StarCraft player exploits during match We just got this breaking report that StarCraft owner Song “Stork” Byung Goo used a banned bug in his group tiebreaker match against IP.EX. It’s unclear why Stork, the KeSPA’s #1 ranked StarCraft player as of this month, whipped out the exploit, but GGL Wire’s Nick “Tasteless” Plott narrates this shakycam footage of the event and outcome. Video:Direct Link to Video Source:GGL Wire
Man, Tasteless is such a pimp. Go Storm Observer ! Kick some korean ass !
do you think doing that bug wins the game for stork? no way.. rules are dead, humans are live. give the win to stork and or at least a rematch . BOOO !
You can also stop the bug by just manually targeting the obs or anything else or pressing stop.
The bug is not only achieved by a turret building under it either. It can be done from just flying the ob to the top of the turret (if it lives, which it usually can).
tasteless is pimp even for me it isn't a serious deal that bug, it is good that someone take this seriously, that's a difference about professional gaming and gaming
Umm stupid rule, it does not give that type of unfair advantage, and can be avoided. Like what if the terran builds a turret under my obs, should I be now responsible to move it elsewhere?
And of course fuck you Tasteless, you should be banned instead. If you saw it why didn't you stop the game right away and notify the corresponding person that he is about to do something against the law. Would it ruin the game? NO. Would one of the player's get unfair advantage? NO. Would it prevent this Disaster from happening? YES.
ya this is just another example of rule-makers not knowing the game sufficiently i think you just have to press s many times and the turret starts firing and observer dies..
and honestly, if someone abuses this through making a turret not work for 5 seconds right before they're zealot bombing, they deserve the advantage:[
Hm, I would argue Stork should be given a warning rather than a DQ, as disqualification for a bug like this which is unlikely to actually change the game does seem a little over the top. Then again, it's also arguably that Stork comes from a system where small rules infractions can have major consequences.
God some people can be so gay about the rules, no real harm was done to the match so fuck it. Sure rules are rules but that doesn't mean you have to be a bitch about it. If it didn't have effect on the match itself a warning should've been suffiecient, common sense.
WCG aims to be the standard in competative gaming around the world. If they want to do that, then they have to set rules and abide by them. The rule was broken, there must be action. If you left it at "oh well he was going to win anyway" then you totally undermine the competition. The rules said that the bug was an illegal tactic. The rules stated that the punishment was anywhere from a warning to a disqualification. Its the players responsibility to make sure they know the rules of competition, and it is the organisers and refeerees responsibility to make sure they rules are adhered to. In this case, the rule was broken, an acceptable punishment was handed out. As far as I'm concerned it was handled well.
WCG doesn't seem to aim for that. They just say they do.
Instead, they want to switch to real life soap of progamers because the games themselves aren't interesting enough for the audience. At least that's what one of the guys said at WCG US.
On October 06 2007 11:24 mahnini wrote: Don't blame Tasteless. >: [
he's not blaming me, i was there when he wrote this post.
stork was definitely winning in the game vs ex anyways, i asked the refs if the bug was illegal because i was sitting behind stork watching and i saw him do it. Some of the Koreans i asked there said it was illegal in Korean tournaments too. Anyways, i didn't know it was going to cause a shit storm of drama.
I do think it's very important for a tournament to uphold it's rules, regardless of how minor this bug abuse was.
i also think it's important to uphold the rules. but disqualifying someone for using a minor bug in a game he would have won anyway and won anyway would be far too harsh of a penalty. making them rematch should be more than sufficient, in fact I think even that is usually going too far, but there needs to be a penalty so that I can agree with.
it's more that there really shouldn't be a rule against that bug. and if there is a rule against both this bug, and say, peonstacking, or even more severe bugs, the penalty for the two cannot be the same.. if someone did a fast flying drone and expanded to an island after 2 minutes of the game, disqualifying them from the entire competition seems proper. but that, and wasting 25/75 to make something that costs 75/0 not work for a temporary period of time, can't really be compared, at all.
On October 07 2007 01:08 Phleiart wrote: yea but then he needs to be given a loose as the rules say!
The rules don't say that. The rules say it is up to the referees to determine his punishment. They determined what his punishment was and things moved on. If its not worth arguing about why the rules are in place then its not worth arguing about how the punishments to the rules are handed out.
On October 07 2007 01:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: i also think it's important to uphold the rules. but disqualifying someone for using a minor bug in a game he would have won anyway and won anyway would be far too harsh of a penalty. making them rematch should be more than sufficient, in fact I think even that is usually going too far, but there needs to be a penalty so that I can agree with.
it's more that there really shouldn't be a rule against that bug. and if there is a rule against both this bug, and say, peonstacking, or even more severe bugs, the penalty for the two cannot be the same.. if someone did a fast flying drone and expanded to an island after 2 minutes of the game, disqualifying them from the entire competition seems proper. but that, and wasting 25/75 to make something that costs 75/0 not work for a temporary period of time, can't really be compared, at all.
i think you missread the post.
the game was disqualified, not the player, stork rematched and won.
That video is not the game of the observer. I'm a referee this year and I was helping out thru out the whole day. That is not what happened. Storm moved over the observer to the turret thinking it was allowed in WCG. Not knowing that it wasnt, so we made them do a rematch. that is what happened. And it's not a loss because it did not effect game at all. If it affected the game in a certain way then it would of been loss of match.
Seems to me to be a minor fault by Stork, nice handling by the refs, and imo nothing wrong by Tasteless either. I just read the rules again and it seems to be completely by the book too.
On October 06 2007 23:34 LastWish wrote: Umm stupid rule, it does not give that type of unfair advantage, and can be avoided. Like what if the terran builds a turret under my obs, should I be now responsible to move it elsewhere?
And of course fuck you Tasteless, you should be banned instead. If you saw it why didn't you stop the game right away and notify the corresponding person that he is about to do something against the law. Would it ruin the game? NO. Would one of the player's get unfair advantage? NO. Would it prevent this Disaster from happening? YES.
Concerning your first question. If there is a non-hardware related problem in the game, the game is not paused. Players submit a complaint after the match is finished which is what Ex did.
How can you even say that about Tasteless? We, the admin crew, saw it in game and were discussing what to do about it. As soon as the game finished, Ex came over and submitted a complaint. After what seemed to be a bit, the decision was made to regame.
do you guys know why they closed the top level tournament area to spectators today? kinda sucked not being able to watch the other games. the security guard said something about too many people.?
On October 06 2007 10:51 GTR-2-Go wrote: Why? It's completely legal in Korean Tournaments because its possible to stop the jam by just simply pressing stop on the Turret.
It was just a simple misunderstanding from Stork, believeing that he thought it was legal.
I agree. The Korean community shouldn't make a big deal of this; it was probably just a misunderstanding, and it's good enough that they rematched again afterwards.
On October 06 2007 10:51 GTR-2-Go wrote: Why? It's completely legal in Korean Tournaments because its possible to stop the jam by just simply pressing stop on the Turret.
It was just a simple misunderstanding from Stork, believeing that he thought it was legal.
I agree. The Korean community shouldn't make a big deal of this; it was probably just a misunderstanding, and it's good enough that they rematched again afterwards.
Well this could be not a missunderstanding. Rules are set up on Screen before the first games start, player get hold on to read them. Koreans have a translater in area, so if they would not understand them they could ask. If you play professionell you should not "believe" you have to "know" For this game it had not much influenz on the game Stork would have won either way, like Dissy said "monsters"
tbh i think this is more of a vacation for the korean to begin with. that being said, i still think its bull shit they they called this out as a bug/exploint forcing rematchs.
On October 07 2007 01:08 Phleiart wrote: yea but then he needs to be given a loose as the rules say!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loose Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This loose /lus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[loos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, loos·er, loos·est, adverb, verb loosed, loos·ing. –adjective 1. free or released from fastening or attachment: a loose end. 2. free from anything that binds or restrains; unfettered: loose cats prowling around in alleyways at night. 3. uncombined, as a chemical element. 4. not bound together: to wear one's hair loose. 5. not put up in a package or other container: loose mushrooms. 6. available for disposal; unused; unappropriated: loose funds. 7. lacking in reticence or power of restraint: a loose tongue. 8. lax, as the bowels. 9. lacking moral restraint or integrity; notorious for his loose character. 10. sexually promiscuous or immoral; unchaste. 11. not firm, taut, or rigid: a loose tooth; a loose rein. 12. relaxed or limber in nature: He runs with a loose, open stride. 13. not fitting closely or tightly: a loose sweater. 14. not close or compact in structure or arrangement; having spaces between the parts; open: a loose weave. 15. having few restraining factors between associated constituents and allowing ample freedom for independent action: a loose federation of city-states. 16. not cohering: loose sand. 17. not strict, exact, or precise: a loose interpretation of the law. 18. Sports. a. having the players on a team positioned at fairly wide intervals, as in a football formation. b. (of a ball, hockey puck, etc.) not in the possession of either team; out of player control. –adverb 19. in a loose manner; loosely (usually used in combination): loose-flowing. –verb (used with object) 20. to let loose; free from bonds or restraint. 21. to release, as from constraint, obligation, or penalty. 22. Chiefly Nautical. to set free from fastening or attachment: to loose a boat from its moorings. 23. to unfasten, undo, or untie, as a bond, fetter, or knot. 24. to shoot; discharge; let fly: to loose missiles at the invaders. 25. to make less tight; slacken or relax. 26. to render less firmly fixed; lessen an attachment; loosen. –verb (used without object) 27. to let go a hold. 28. to hoist anchor; get under way. 29. to shoot or let fly an arrow, bullet, etc. (often fol. by off): to loose off at a flock of ducks. 30. Obsolete. to become loose; loosen. —Idioms 31. break loose, to free oneself; escape: The convicts broke loose. 32. cast loose, a. to loosen or unfasten, as a ship from a mooring. b. to send forth; set adrift or free: He was cast loose at an early age to make his own way in the world. 33. cut loose, a. to release from domination or control. b. to become free, independent, etc. c. to revel without restraint: After the rodeo they headed into town to cut loose. 34. hang or stay loose, Slang. to remain relaxed and unperturbed. 35. let loose, a. to free or become free. b. to yield; give way: The guardrail let loose and we very nearly plunged over the edge. 36. on the loose, a. free; unconfined, as, esp., an escaped convict or circus animal. b. behaving in an unrestrained or dissolute way: a bachelor on the loose. 37. turn loose, to release or free, as from confinement: The teacher turned the children loose after the class. [Origin: 1175–1225; (adj.) ME los, loos < ON lauss loose, free, empty; c. OE léas (see -less), D, G los loose, free; (v.) ME leowsen, lousen, deriv. of the adj.]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lose Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This lose /luz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[looz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, lost, los·ing. –verb (used with object) 1. to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery: I'm sure I've merely misplaced my hat, not lost it. 2. to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered: I just lost a dime under this sofa. 3. to suffer the deprivation of: to lose one's job; to lose one's life. 4. to be bereaved of by death: to lose a sister. 5. to fail to keep, preserve, or maintain: to lose one's balance; to lose one's figure. 6. (of a clock or watch) to run slower by: The watch loses three minutes a day. 7. to give up; forfeit the possession of: to lose a fortune at the gaming table. 8. to get rid of: to lose one's fear of the dark; to lose weight. 9. to bring to destruction or ruin (usually used passively): Ship and crew were lost. 10. to condemn to hell; damn. 11. to have slip from sight, hearing, attention, etc.: to lose him in the crowd. 12. to stray from or become ignorant of (one's way, directions, etc.): to lose one's bearings. 13. to leave far behind in a pursuit, race, etc.; outstrip: She managed to lose the other runners on the final lap of the race. 14. to use to no purpose; waste: to lose time in waiting. 15. to fail to have, get, catch, etc.; miss: to lose a bargain. 16. to fail to win (a prize, stake, etc.): to lose a bet. 17. to be defeated in (a game, lawsuit, battle, etc.): He has lost very few cases in his career as a lawyer. 18. to cause the loss of: The delay lost the battle for them. 19. to let (oneself) go astray, miss the way, etc.: We lost ourselves in the woods. 20. to allow (oneself) to become absorbed or engrossed in something and oblivious to all else: I had lost myself in thought. 21. (of a physician) to fail to preserve the life of (a patient). 22. (of a woman) to fail to be delivered of (a live baby) because of miscarriage, complications in childbirth, etc. –verb (used without object) 23. to suffer loss: to lose on a contract. 24. to suffer defeat or fail to win, as in a contest, race, or game: We played well, but we lost. 25. to depreciate in effectiveness or in some other essential quality: a classic that loses in translation. 26. (of a clock, watch, etc.) to run slow. —Verb phrase 27. lose out, to suffer defeat or loss; fail to obtain something desired: He got through the preliminaries, but lost out in the finals. —Idiom 28. lose face. face (def. 48). [Origin: bef. 900; ME losen, OE -léosan; r. ME lesen, itself also reflecting OE -léosan; c. G verlieren, Goth fraliusan to lose. See loss]
I'm sorry but this really annoys me for some reason and people use these words wrong a lot. And not only that but you used the incorect word improper grammatically as well. The word you need is 'LOSS'.
a lot of the writeup as in i forgot to say you can press s on the turret instead of making a second one? pls elaborate. i wrote about info i gathered from everyones POVs. some might be old news.
This is pretty off topic but I wanted to bring it up and I didn't want to make a whole other thread. My segway is going to be: if you allow stop lurker "bug" then you should also allow ob over turret bug Anyways, an interesting thing with overlords and them being selected with lurkers and/or another unit.
A burrowed lurker by itself only has the attack and stop command. Now a burrowed lurker with an overlord has all possible commands including patrol, everyone already knows this part. However oddly enough its ONLY with an overlord. If you select a Lurker with another unit, for example, a hydra, there will be NO available commands. None at all. You can still move and target with right click but thats it. Now interestingly enough selecting an overlord with a burrowed lurker and a hydra gives back ALL possible commands again. So theres something weird about selecting an overlord
This information is actually somewhat usefull. Despite how useless it seems. Im sure at least a few times youve tried to select some units who were sitting on lurkers and were unable to issue an attack move command(like when sending reenforcements from your choke to battle). It can be a real pain. However if you always have an overlord within selection range of your lurkers then its a lot easier to quickly select and attack move those units into battle, without having to move them off the lurkers first. Ok its still pretty useless, but hey it was interesting to me
Friend, please read the articles you have linked to me.
Meet Your Makers’ Norwegian Counter-Strike: 1.6 team beat eSTRO from Korea by 16 rounds to 9 on de_inferno and de_nuke. While the MYM players were celebrating what seemed like a spot in the quarter finals the Koreans refused to sign the official match papers.
eStro's appeal against MYM was listened to because they did so without signing the papers.
Had Fnatic appealed before signing their papers against eStro, Fnatic probably would have been rewarded a rematch as well.
I really don't understand the controversy (with Stork). By signing the papers, you are admitting that you have no objections with anything that happened in the game, or the final result.
Every team has the right to object before signing their papers. It is the last line of defense for any percieved cheating.
If a team chooses to not sign and appeal, that is within their rights. If a team signs the papers they give up their rights to appeal about the match.
eStro does not sign papers against MYM, asks for rematch -> correct. Fnatic signs papers against eStro, cannot ask for rematch -> correct. EX signs his fucking papers, and Stork STILL has to play a rematch? That is ultimate retardation and should never had happened.
Again, if you took the time to disengage yourself from PJ's teat and read the articles before sending them to me... well you would not have sent those articles to me.
Because Estro went through the reps and accused MYM of crouch jumping which is banned for some retarded reason. From there, the VP and P showed up (korean) and ordered that a Bo1 be played. Total bullshit
On October 10 2007 12:19 Kennigit wrote: Because Estro went through the reps and accused MYM of crouch jumping which is banned for some retarded reason. From there, the VP and P showed up (korean) and ordered that a Bo1 be played. Total bullshit
It's not crouch jumping, it's something else. Basically involves tapping crouch while moving, and the end result is that you can essentially run silently.
if u want use this stupid reason: EX signed the paper. lol, as u like.
Befor the 3rd game,MYM want to check the 2nd game's demo to find if eStro use bug or not, WCG said: if u want to check,ok,but if u can't find anything, u will be out.
haha,eStro can use 2-3 hours to find if MYM use "bug" or not,but MYM cant?
There's just too much heresay and confusion for anybody to make sense out of any of this.
I was told that EX signed the paper before Tasteless spotted the observer bug, and that the complaint came after EX signed the paper. However, DKnight tells me that it was the other way around.
Wufan was told by MYM players that they saw Estro signing the paper, but according to official accounts the appeal came first.
Who's right? Who knows?
Everybody is being told things and reporting unclear things and painting things one way or another. Even people who were there are giving such conflicting reports that it's impossible for me to have a clear idea about any of this. Hell, I bet even the players themselves are somewhat confused.
So I will avoid from making any assumptions or opinions from now on.
I still think that anyone who kept with official procedure (appeal before sign, cannot appeal after sign) is clean in my book.
I also realize that arguing with wufan is useless. I shall refrain. lol, as u like.
It's funny how people have to do the Samsung's "I swear to play Fair in the spirit of etcetc" and then Samsung orders korean players to lose games on purpose. Pretty bs imo.
About the Stork vs Ex game. What if you'd be playing some and didn't see him use a bug and lose. Then just sign documents cause you think he won fair. Don't you deserve a rematch/win if a referee saw it ? Hah. The eSTRO crap is also nice. They can waste 3 hours of people's time looking for some nonexistant bug play but when MYM wants to do it they are told that if they don't find anything they will get DQ. Next WCG shouldn't have anything to do with Samsung or korean sponsoring.
next WCG shouldn´t have stupid rules. The organizers need learn more starcraft... all of us learn from the korean players. My opinion from thhe stork case? the rules are rules, doesnt matters the stupid they are. Stork should be disqualified... but the referee have always the last word and he say "the show must go on"... the best thing that we can ask for the next time its: "please use the korean maps and the korean rules, they know more about starcraft that anyone in the world"
Yes! Let's give them some more advantage ! ^^. Anyway, a half brain players check the tournament rules before playing in one (but that's just my opinion )
what blind adherence to low quality rules - rules which are already inconsistently enforced - must prompt someone to suggest that stork should be disqualified for something as insignificant as a use of the observer bug.
On October 07 2007 01:08 Phleiart wrote: yea but then he needs to be given a loose as the rules say!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loose Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This loose /lus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[loos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, loos·er, loos·est, adverb, verb loosed, loos·ing. –adjective 1. free or released from fastening or attachment: a loose end. 2. free from anything that binds or restrains; unfettered: loose cats prowling around in alleyways at night. 3. uncombined, as a chemical element. 4. not bound together: to wear one's hair loose. 5. not put up in a package or other container: loose mushrooms. 6. available for disposal; unused; unappropriated: loose funds. 7. lacking in reticence or power of restraint: a loose tongue. 8. lax, as the bowels. 9. lacking moral restraint or integrity; notorious for his loose character. 10. sexually promiscuous or immoral; unchaste. 11. not firm, taut, or rigid: a loose tooth; a loose rein. 12. relaxed or limber in nature: He runs with a loose, open stride. 13. not fitting closely or tightly: a loose sweater. 14. not close or compact in structure or arrangement; having spaces between the parts; open: a loose weave. 15. having few restraining factors between associated constituents and allowing ample freedom for independent action: a loose federation of city-states. 16. not cohering: loose sand. 17. not strict, exact, or precise: a loose interpretation of the law. 18. Sports. a. having the players on a team positioned at fairly wide intervals, as in a football formation. b. (of a ball, hockey puck, etc.) not in the possession of either team; out of player control. –adverb 19. in a loose manner; loosely (usually used in combination): loose-flowing. –verb (used with object) 20. to let loose; free from bonds or restraint. 21. to release, as from constraint, obligation, or penalty. 22. Chiefly Nautical. to set free from fastening or attachment: to loose a boat from its moorings. 23. to unfasten, undo, or untie, as a bond, fetter, or knot. 24. to shoot; discharge; let fly: to loose missiles at the invaders. 25. to make less tight; slacken or relax. 26. to render less firmly fixed; lessen an attachment; loosen. –verb (used without object) 27. to let go a hold. 28. to hoist anchor; get under way. 29. to shoot or let fly an arrow, bullet, etc. (often fol. by off): to loose off at a flock of ducks. 30. Obsolete. to become loose; loosen. —Idioms 31. break loose, to free oneself; escape: The convicts broke loose. 32. cast loose, a. to loosen or unfasten, as a ship from a mooring. b. to send forth; set adrift or free: He was cast loose at an early age to make his own way in the world. 33. cut loose, a. to release from domination or control. b. to become free, independent, etc. c. to revel without restraint: After the rodeo they headed into town to cut loose. 34. hang or stay loose, Slang. to remain relaxed and unperturbed. 35. let loose, a. to free or become free. b. to yield; give way: The guardrail let loose and we very nearly plunged over the edge. 36. on the loose, a. free; unconfined, as, esp., an escaped convict or circus animal. b. behaving in an unrestrained or dissolute way: a bachelor on the loose. 37. turn loose, to release or free, as from confinement: The teacher turned the children loose after the class. [Origin: 1175–1225; (adj.) ME los, loos < ON lauss loose, free, empty; c. OE léas (see -less), D, G los loose, free; (v.) ME leowsen, lousen, deriv. of the adj.]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lose Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This lose /luz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[looz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, lost, los·ing. –verb (used with object) 1. to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery: I'm sure I've merely misplaced my hat, not lost it. 2. to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered: I just lost a dime under this sofa. 3. to suffer the deprivation of: to lose one's job; to lose one's life. 4. to be bereaved of by death: to lose a sister. 5. to fail to keep, preserve, or maintain: to lose one's balance; to lose one's figure. 6. (of a clock or watch) to run slower by: The watch loses three minutes a day. 7. to give up; forfeit the possession of: to lose a fortune at the gaming table. 8. to get rid of: to lose one's fear of the dark; to lose weight. 9. to bring to destruction or ruin (usually used passively): Ship and crew were lost. 10. to condemn to hell; damn. 11. to have slip from sight, hearing, attention, etc.: to lose him in the crowd. 12. to stray from or become ignorant of (one's way, directions, etc.): to lose one's bearings. 13. to leave far behind in a pursuit, race, etc.; outstrip: She managed to lose the other runners on the final lap of the race. 14. to use to no purpose; waste: to lose time in waiting. 15. to fail to have, get, catch, etc.; miss: to lose a bargain. 16. to fail to win (a prize, stake, etc.): to lose a bet. 17. to be defeated in (a game, lawsuit, battle, etc.): He has lost very few cases in his career as a lawyer. 18. to cause the loss of: The delay lost the battle for them. 19. to let (oneself) go astray, miss the way, etc.: We lost ourselves in the woods. 20. to allow (oneself) to become absorbed or engrossed in something and oblivious to all else: I had lost myself in thought. 21. (of a physician) to fail to preserve the life of (a patient). 22. (of a woman) to fail to be delivered of (a live baby) because of miscarriage, complications in childbirth, etc. –verb (used without object) 23. to suffer loss: to lose on a contract. 24. to suffer defeat or fail to win, as in a contest, race, or game: We played well, but we lost. 25. to depreciate in effectiveness or in some other essential quality: a classic that loses in translation. 26. (of a clock, watch, etc.) to run slow. —Verb phrase 27. lose out, to suffer defeat or loss; fail to obtain something desired: He got through the preliminaries, but lost out in the finals. —Idiom 28. lose face. face (def. 48). [Origin: bef. 900; ME losen, OE -léosan; r. ME lesen, itself also reflecting OE -léosan; c. G verlieren, Goth fraliusan to lose. See loss]
I'm sorry but this really annoys me for some reason and people use these words wrong a lot. And not only that but you used the incorect word improper grammatically as well. The word you need is 'LOSS'.
lol man it took me a few seconds to realize what you were doing
I realized after all this, I care a lot less about WCG than before. I can't get my interest up for a product when the producers clearly don't care either.
EPT
