EPTHopefully they don't try to avoid the situation.
EU CraftCup: what a joke - Page 9
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
skYfiVe
United States382 Posts
Hopefully they don't try to avoid the situation. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 01 2010 07:22 PokePill wrote: My predictions if the matches aren't played: Game 1: Huk 4 gates all in, Huk Wins Game 2: Huk 4 gates all in, Jinro Wins Game 3: Huk 4 gates all in, Jinro Wins Game 4: Huk 4 gates all in, Jinro Wins Exciting Series! Hehe, there were no 4 gate all-ins being used at all actually! :D Game 1: Huk 1 robo 3 gate (I think), Jinro goes thor drop, Jinro Wins Game 2: Huk goes zeal/sentry + void ray, Jinro goes reaper -> thor+starport, Jinro wins Game 3: Jinro goes 7 rax reaper, Huk defends, Huk wins Game 4: Huk goes proxy gates, Jinro defends, Jinro wins | ||
|
Erucious
Norway393 Posts
 .Moar tourney wins for you now! Also i like how you speak in 3rd person there  On topic: Any update yet on this matter? | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
On May 01 2010 08:15 FrozenArbiter wrote: Hehe, there were no 4 gate all-ins being used at all actually! :D Game 1: Huk 1 robo 3 gate (I think), Jinro goes thor drop, Jinro Wins Game 2: Huk goes zeal/sentry + void ray, Jinro goes reaper -> thor+starport, Jinro wins Game 3: Jinro goes 7 rax reaper, Huk defends, Huk wins Game 4: Huk goes proxy gates, Jinro defends, Jinro wins replays? ? | ||
|
Maista
Germany131 Posts
Super Short Summary: 2 guys having a Bnet bug. One guy refusing to play after bug is resolved. Same guy has to leave the tournament. Circumstances: During the tournament a B.net bug occured for many users, that we documented like this. It was possible for a User A not to see a User B, although both were online. At the exact same time a User C was able to see A but no B. So it was pretty much random and it happened to admins and players. Testimonial linked at the bottom. So this is true. The full story: Both players were online all the time. I have no doubts about that. Mountas (aka DeA on TL.net) was the first one to file a freewin request because in his eye, Nightend appeared offline. This is an obvious and correct reaction. He had the bug described above and didnt see Nightend. The ticket was worked out by the referee brotkohl. He went through the regular procedure, checked if Nightend was online or not, and based his decision on that. Rare case popped up: He also didn't see him online. So he obviously gave a freewin. Based on two wrong facts which he wasn't aware of. When I was personally contacted that something might be strange I tried to contact both Nightend and Mountas. And for me it was possible to contact both. Sadly Mountas was already playing his round 3 match at the time we noticed we were all suffering from a bug. After winning that match I explained the bug to him and that the freewin that he got wasn't a decision base don the right facts. He instantly refused to "re-play" the match against Nightend. It was the fairest solution to me to decide that on the battlefield and not in a discussion. I even gave him a clear warning and explained it to him multiple times. Also to be mentioned: Nightend did not follow the rules and contacted an admin for a freewin when he was waiting more than 15 minutes. It is up to the reader to interpret this. Rule background: In Mountases argumentation he is talking about a missing background in the rules for such a case. I just keep it simple: If something unforseeable happens, and there is a possibility for a game to be played, then it has to be played. For me that feels so natural that i didnt even include it in the rules. Bottom notes: Testimonial of the bug by Frozenarbiter and Jdanzi: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=5149486 Why did this press release take so long? There are indicators that Mountas was ignoring messages from a friend of Nightend during the situation on purpose. We did not find evidence on that. Also people complaining about favouritism: Guys, two weeks ago we kicked the maybe best American player right now out of a tournament. Everybody who would like to discuss anything of this topic with me, you will be able to find my contact details on the CraftCup site or just PM me here. | ||
|
Ao_Jun
Denmark396 Posts
http://craftcup.com/?site=upload&matchid=9142 | ||
|
Mios
United States686 Posts
I still think mountas got a shitty deal EDIT: Moutas*, dont know why euros always randomly add n's to peoples names. | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
Also, no explanation on why Nightend was given a bye to Round 4 instead of having to play the Round 3 opponent that Moultas faced. Clearly it's their tournament to run as they see fit, but the formal explanation was left lacking. In other news: Congrats to Jinro!!! I can't wait to see these replays, I couldn't watch the streams. | ||
|
Maista
Germany131 Posts
| ||
|
WorkersOfTheWorld
United States619 Posts
Grats to Jinro though, nice matches. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
http://craftcup.com/?site=upload&matchid=9142 All should be there =] On May 01 2010 08:17 Erucious wrote: Grats jinro on your win! I feel so sorry sometimes seeing you underperform in high pressure tourney situations (razer domi, HDH etc etc). Good to see you in form and taking control of the matches .Moar tourney wins for you now! Also i like how you speak in 3rd person there On topic: Any update yet on this matter? Thx, was nice to be able to play without any nerves this time. On May 01 2010 08:30 Maista wrote: Here is the official CraftCup "Pressrelease". Same version as linked in the latest CraftCup news. Super Short Summary: 2 guys having a Bnet bug. One guy refusing to play after bug is resolved. Same guy has to leave the tournament. Circumstances: During the tournament a B.net bug occured for many users, that we documented like this. It was possible for a User A not to see a User B, although both were online. At the exact same time a User C was able to see A but no B. So it was pretty much random and it happened to admins and players. Testimonial linked at the bottom. So this is true. The full story: Both players were online all the time. I have no doubts about that. Mountas (aka DeA on TL.net) was the first one to file a freewin request because in his eye, Nightend appeared offline. This is an obvious and correct reaction. He had the bug described above and didnt see Nightend. The ticket was worked out by the referee brotkohl. He went through the regular procedure, checked if Nightend was online or not, and based his decision on that. Rare case popped up: He also didn't see him online. So he obviously gave a freewin. Based on two wrong facts which he wasn't aware of. When I was personally contacted that something might be strange I tried to contact both Nightend and Mountas. And for me it was possible to contact both. Sadly Mountas was already playing his round 3 match at the time we noticed we were all suffering from a bug. After winning that match I explained the bug to him and that the freewin that he got wasn't a decision base don the right facts. He instantly refused to "re-play" the match against Nightend. It was the fairest solution to me to decide that on the battlefield and not in a discussion. I even gave him a clear warning and explained it to him multiple times. Also to be mentioned: Nightend did not follow the rules and contacted an admin for a freewin when he was waiting more than 15 minutes. It is up to the reader to interpret this. Rule background: In Mountases argumentation he is talking about a missing background in the rules for such a case. I just keep it simple: If something unforseeable happens, and there is a possibility for a game to be played, then it has to be played. For me that feels so natural that i didnt even include it in the rules. Bottom notes: Testimonial of the bug by Frozenarbiter and Jdanzi: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=5149486 Why did this press release take so long? There are indicators that Mountas was ignoring messages from a friend of Nightend during the situation on purpose. We did not find evidence on that. Also people complaining about favouritism: Guys, two weeks ago we kicked the maybe best American player right now out of a tournament. Everybody who would like to discuss anything of this topic with me, you will be able to find my contact details on the CraftCup site or just PM me here. Hmm, it's definitely a weird situation... but I think the best thing to have done would have been to let Moutas continue on, just because it creates the least amount of trouble (as he had already started his 3rd round game). It's not an easy choice of course... | ||
|
The-Dom
United States165 Posts
| ||
|
killerdog
Denmark6522 Posts
On May 01 2010 08:30 Maista wrote: Also to be mentioned: Nightend did not follow the rules and contacted an admin for a freewin when he was waiting more than 15 minutes. as far as i can tell you are saying that one player did everything he was told to, won all his games and was then told to replay a match that he auto-won because the other person didnt follow the rules. if nightend had contacted an admin before the time was up none of this would have happened. you cant expect anyone to respect your tournament if the admins don't stand by their decisions, even if they don't fit into your personal idea of "fairness." also, how far would you go? if he had won the tournament or was in the semifinals or something would you still tell him to not play the finals until he had played the person who didnt follow the rules in R2? | ||
|
Gryffes
United Kingdom763 Posts
Not only that but the guy he played in r3 got screwed as well. Not reasonable at all from the organisers. | ||
|
cyclone25
Romania3344 Posts
On May 01 2010 08:30 Maista wrote: Why did this press release take so long? There are indicators that Mountas was ignoring messages from a friend of Nightend during the situation on purpose. We did not find evidence on that. I can post the print screen I made with me asking DeA to play the game vs Nightend, but DeA already confirmed it earlier in this thread, that I messaged him, and that he didn't gave me any reply. No reason to post it ... | ||
|
Maista
Germany131 Posts
interesting thought, and thats clearly a great way to handle a tournament. But please accept that this is just an opinion. I have my own idea of fairness and refusing to play a match thats clearly possible to play is unfair imho | ||
|
ghostnuke1234
164 Posts
On May 01 2010 08:30 Maista wrote: Here is the official CraftCup "Pressrelease". Same version as linked in the latest CraftCup news. (snip) Everybody who would like to discuss anything of this topic with me, you will be able to find my contact details on the CraftCup site or just PM me here. No disrespect, but you need to learn from the airline industry on how to handle situations like this. The bug is not your fault, nor any of the players fault. However, two players were wronged by the actions of one of your admins. What you should have done, was offer some type of incentive to one of the players, or both of the players. Possible incentives you could have offered the players: 1) Explain the bug to Nightend and offer Nightend a seeded placement in your next tournament if Nightend is willing to forgoe the current tournament. For instance, if you offered Nightend an automatic spot in the Ro8, or Ro4 at your next tournament, he probably would have accepted his disqualification from the current tournament. 2) Be willing to pay DeA portion of the tournament prize, if he agrees to a rematch with Nightend and loses. Or, perhaps seed DeA at the next tournament, if he is willing to go back to round 2. There needs to be some incentive for DeA to play Nightend, given the administrative mistsake on your end. Either way, your admin team handled the situation poorly. You did not give an incentive to either player, and if I were DeA, I would feel cheated if I were forced to replay a round 2 match, after getting the clear from an admin to play round 3 and winning that round 3 match. | ||
|
cyclone25
Romania3344 Posts
On May 01 2010 08:45 ghostnuke1234 wrote: No disrespect, but you need to learn from the airline industry on how to handle situations like this. The bug is not your fault, nor any of the players fault. However, two players were wronged by the actions of one of your admins. What you should have done, was offer some type of incentive to one of the players, or both of the players. Possible incentives you could have offered the players: 1) Explain the bug to Nightend and offer Nightend a seeded placement in your next tournament if Nightend is willing to forgoe the current tournament. For instance, if you offered Nightend an automatic spot in the Ro8, or Ro4 at your next tournament, he probably would have accepted his disqualification fromt he current tournament. 2) Be willing to pay DeA portion of the tournament prize, if he agrees to a rematch with Nightend and loses. Or, perhaps seed DeA at the next tournament, if he is willing to go back to round 2. There needs to be some incentive for DeA to play Nightend, given the administrative mistsake on your end. Either way, your admin team handled the situation poorly. You did not give an incentive to either player, and if I were DeA, I would feel cheated if I were forced to replay a round 2 match, after getting the clear from an admin to play round 3 and winning that round 3 match. Sorry but both options posted by you are not professional at all ... | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 01 2010 08:45 ghostnuke1234 wrote: No disrespect, but you need to learn from the airline industry on how to handle situations like this. The bug is not your fault, nor any of the players fault. However, two players were wronged by the actions of one of your admins. What you should have done, was offer some type of incentive to one of the players, or both of the players. Possible incentives you could have offered the players: 1) Explain the bug to Nightend and offer Nightend a seeded placement in your next tournament if Nightend is willing to forgoe the current tournament. For instance, if you offered Nightend an automatic spot in the Ro8, or Ro4 at your next tournament, he probably would have accepted his disqualification from the current tournament. 2) Be willing to pay DeA portion of the tournament prize, if he agrees to a rematch with Nightend and loses. Or, perhaps seed DeA at the next tournament, if he is willing to go back to round 2. There needs to be some incentive for DeA to play Nightend, given the administrative mistsake on your end. Either way, your admin team handled the situation poorly. You did not give an incentive to either player, and if I were DeA, I would feel cheated if I were forced to replay a round 2 match, after getting the clear from an admin to play round 3 and winning that round 3 match. I agree that it's a problem that 2 players were wronged by this decision, but seeding anyone would wrong 100s of players for the next cup... | ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
On May 01 2010 08:43 cyclone25 wrote: I can post the print screen I made with me asking DeA to play the game vs Nightend, but DeA already confirmed it earlier in this thread, that I messaged him, and that he didn't gave me any reply. No reason to post it ... Pics. Or. It. Didn't. Happen. It applies here, even if DeA confirmed it. Also, he didn't even confirm it all; he claims what you state is not entirely true. According to the article, there is 0 evidence on DeA ignoring messages. | ||
| ||
