|
On July 13 2012 12:23 orewakami wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 12:07 Shiori wrote:On July 13 2012 11:36 orewakami wrote:On July 13 2012 11:22 Shiori wrote:On July 13 2012 10:34 HolyArrow wrote:On July 13 2012 10:27 Shiori wrote:On July 13 2012 10:03 HolyArrow wrote:On July 13 2012 09:52 Shiori wrote:On July 13 2012 09:42 HolyArrow wrote:On July 13 2012 09:31 ohampatu wrote:1. Nestea could have paused when he noticed. 2. If Nestea didn't notice ingame, thats his fault for lack of awareness. 3. Nestea is the only person to blame for not asking for a regame upong noticing the depot. 4. Bunker rush is a fair strategy, people use it all the time, just not ramp blocks  . So no, thats not irrelevant. We brought it u because Nestea didn't react even semi appropiately to the bunkers. 5. A simple patrol done correctly beats this, it shouldn't even be in the game. Its lazy. It wasn't added for balance. It was added for viwership. The maps are balanced on ladder, where they dont have the depot. It doesn't matter if byun did or didn't know the depot was needed. Earlier i stated my opinion on him thinking it was legit, but even if he knew it should be there, he did his homework where others didn't. I feel like you're not getting the gist of my points. The important thing to understand is that the ramp-block bunker rush wasn't supposed to be allowed to happen on the GSL version of Metropolis, and the fact that it did happen is the issue. Whether or not the neutral depots should be there is irrelevant. How well or badly Nestea reacted to it is irrelevant. And in the context of the GSL, I completely agree that non-ramp block bunker rushes are completely fair. But ramp-block bunker rushes are unfair due to the intended rules and regulations of the tournament. The only thing that matter is that that sort of ramp-blocking bunker rush isn't supposed to happen in the GSL, yet it did. That's literally all that matters. You cannot make points that involve scenarios that would have been impossible to occur had the intended depots been there. Any point that meets that criteria is irrelevant. Furthermore, the very presence of neutral depots at the ramp is a completely different discussion altogether. This is about how they were supposed to be there, yet they weren't. This isn't about whether or not they should be there in the first place. The fact is that they should have been there, and they weren't, and that's where the unfairness arises. So what exactly do you want? Like, what do you think can actually be done, at this point, to rectify something that already occurred. When the games go live, the games go live. You don't simply stop the series and declare one of the games invalid after the fact because there was an error that neither player was responsible for. If anything is going to tilt someone, it'd be stopping the series and replaying the game. What you're bringing up is irrelevant to what I'm saying. I never said anything about what should or shouldn't be done. That's not what my points are about. My points are just there to refute all the faulty rationalizations people are making, simply because it annoys me when people do that. That's it. In the end, I don't blame Byun because I'm giving him the benefit of doubt that he didn't realize it was the wrong map version. However, whether or not Byun gets blame is again irrelevant. The point is that a win achieved in a way that tournament regulations are supposed to prevent is an unfair win. It's not Byun's fault that the win was unfair, and he doesn't deserve to be penalized for it or blamed for it at all. But the win is still, by definition, unfair. Luckily "by definition" is the only sense in which this win is unfair. Sure, I don't disagree with you there. Ergo, it is irrelevant. If nothing more than definitions can be supplied then it means that in every other, important sense, the issue is settled. Yes, it was only unfair based on what unfair actually means. But, if you want to consider the important senses of what unfair does't mean, for example crocodiles and long walks on the beach, then yes, ergo, it wasn't crocodiles and long walks on the beach. No, you're failing to understand my point. When people say "by definition" what they really mean is that something doesn't resemble the term in question except according to a purposefully narrow definition. For example, if I argue that atheism is a religion by definition then the error of conversation is to ignore that this narrow adherence to a preconceived definition is, in fact, the only sense in which atheism resembles religion. In the case of fairness, Nestea was only treated unfairly in the sense that Gom incorrectly used an improper map, making the situation trivially unfair in the sense that it would be "unfair" for them to use a differently textured, but not officially sanctioned, map. In terms of how the game actually played out, it has yet to be shown that any of the following are true: 1) Nestea suffered an undue disadvantage viz a vis the game itself from the map's condition (i.e. are Bunker rushes actually overpowered in the current meta?) 2) Was Nestea mislead by someone other than himself about the state of the map? 3) Did Byun have access to any information that Nestea did not have access to with regard to the map being used? 4) Did Nestea request referee action only to have it rejected? None of these have been satisfied. I've yet to hear an argument for what was unfair (as opposed to unfortunate) about this that isn't "Gom generally intends to have Supply Depots." The two are not equivalent. I think you're failing to understand the definition of definition, so to speak. If A is B by definition, then there is no important sense in which A is not B. It is a contradiction to say that that both A is B by definition, and also that in "important senses" A is not B. This is logic. Your examples do not contradict this. If you give a definition of religion, and you show that atheism fulfills that definition, you either need to reject that definition of religion and therefore claim that atheism is not a religion by definition, or you need to accept that atheism is a religion. Your list of terms of what "has yet to be shown" is as a random assortment of things you might be (rather idiosyncratically) worried about. Did Nestea's power turn off on his computer? Did space aliens abduct his mouse? Did Byun have sex with Nestea's girlfriend? Did he have a balanced breakfast and 8 hours of sleep? But they do not aid up to a definition of 'unfair'.
Precisely. I'm rejecting your definition of unfair, because it's purposely contrived to fit this case.
|
On July 13 2012 12:18 bokchoi wrote:
People are blaming ByuN? Nothing he did was illegal, he took advantage of a situation to win. Its not like he flopped or cheated to get an advantage.
Some people I guess feel that Byun had a responsibility to report the issue that frankly should have been noticed by a lot of people and isn't his responsibility.
I have no qualms with what happened. Byun won 3-0, complaint came too late, it is GOM's fault/mistake, they're fixing it, not like they'll replay the entire match, strategy isn't invincible, etc.
|
haha ANOTHER controversy from byun. good stuff, he should have told the admins
|
On July 13 2012 12:28 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 12:23 orewakami wrote:On July 13 2012 12:07 Shiori wrote:On July 13 2012 11:36 orewakami wrote:On July 13 2012 11:22 Shiori wrote:On July 13 2012 10:34 HolyArrow wrote:On July 13 2012 10:27 Shiori wrote:On July 13 2012 10:03 HolyArrow wrote:On July 13 2012 09:52 Shiori wrote:On July 13 2012 09:42 HolyArrow wrote:
[quote]
I feel like you're not getting the gist of my points. The important thing to understand is that the ramp-block bunker rush wasn't supposed to be allowed to happen on the GSL version of Metropolis, and the fact that it did happen is the issue. Whether or not the neutral depots should be there is irrelevant. How well or badly Nestea reacted to it is irrelevant. And in the context of the GSL, I completely agree that non-ramp block bunker rushes are completely fair. But ramp-block bunker rushes are unfair due to the intended rules and regulations of the tournament.
The only thing that matter is that that sort of ramp-blocking bunker rush isn't supposed to happen in the GSL, yet it did. That's literally all that matters.
You cannot make points that involve scenarios that would have been impossible to occur had the intended depots been there. Any point that meets that criteria is irrelevant. Furthermore, the very presence of neutral depots at the ramp is a completely different discussion altogether. This is about how they were supposed to be there, yet they weren't. This isn't about whether or not they should be there in the first place. The fact is that they should have been there, and they weren't, and that's where the unfairness arises.
So what exactly do you want? Like, what do you think can actually be done, at this point, to rectify something that already occurred. When the games go live, the games go live. You don't simply stop the series and declare one of the games invalid after the fact because there was an error that neither player was responsible for. If anything is going to tilt someone, it'd be stopping the series and replaying the game. What you're bringing up is irrelevant to what I'm saying. I never said anything about what should or shouldn't be done. That's not what my points are about. My points are just there to refute all the faulty rationalizations people are making, simply because it annoys me when people do that. That's it. In the end, I don't blame Byun because I'm giving him the benefit of doubt that he didn't realize it was the wrong map version. However, whether or not Byun gets blame is again irrelevant. The point is that a win achieved in a way that tournament regulations are supposed to prevent is an unfair win. It's not Byun's fault that the win was unfair, and he doesn't deserve to be penalized for it or blamed for it at all. But the win is still, by definition, unfair. Luckily "by definition" is the only sense in which this win is unfair. Sure, I don't disagree with you there. Ergo, it is irrelevant. If nothing more than definitions can be supplied then it means that in every other, important sense, the issue is settled. Yes, it was only unfair based on what unfair actually means. But, if you want to consider the important senses of what unfair does't mean, for example crocodiles and long walks on the beach, then yes, ergo, it wasn't crocodiles and long walks on the beach. No, you're failing to understand my point. When people say "by definition" what they really mean is that something doesn't resemble the term in question except according to a purposefully narrow definition. For example, if I argue that atheism is a religion by definition then the error of conversation is to ignore that this narrow adherence to a preconceived definition is, in fact, the only sense in which atheism resembles religion. In the case of fairness, Nestea was only treated unfairly in the sense that Gom incorrectly used an improper map, making the situation trivially unfair in the sense that it would be "unfair" for them to use a differently textured, but not officially sanctioned, map. In terms of how the game actually played out, it has yet to be shown that any of the following are true: 1) Nestea suffered an undue disadvantage viz a vis the game itself from the map's condition (i.e. are Bunker rushes actually overpowered in the current meta?) 2) Was Nestea mislead by someone other than himself about the state of the map? 3) Did Byun have access to any information that Nestea did not have access to with regard to the map being used? 4) Did Nestea request referee action only to have it rejected? None of these have been satisfied. I've yet to hear an argument for what was unfair (as opposed to unfortunate) about this that isn't "Gom generally intends to have Supply Depots." The two are not equivalent. I think you're failing to understand the definition of definition, so to speak. If A is B by definition, then there is no important sense in which A is not B. It is a contradiction to say that that both A is B by definition, and also that in "important senses" A is not B. This is logic. Your examples do not contradict this. If you give a definition of religion, and you show that atheism fulfills that definition, you either need to reject that definition of religion and therefore claim that atheism is not a religion by definition, or you need to accept that atheism is a religion. Your list of terms of what "has yet to be shown" is as a random assortment of things you might be (rather idiosyncratically) worried about. Did Nestea's power turn off on his computer? Did space aliens abduct his mouse? Did Byun have sex with Nestea's girlfriend? Did he have a balanced breakfast and 8 hours of sleep? But they do not aid up to a definition of 'unfair'. Precisely. I'm rejecting your definition of unfair, because it's purposely contrived to fit this case.
Yes... Precisely...
You know that old Soviet Union radio show joke? Well...
What you say is quite right. Except, it wasn't me that provided the definition of unfair, it was someone else; and, rather than rejecting the definition of unfair, you accepted it; and rather than the definition being contrived to fit this case, it wasn't.
|
On July 13 2012 12:25 ore0z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 12:13 ragz_gt wrote:On July 13 2012 12:08 ore0z wrote:On July 13 2012 11:52 ragz_gt wrote:
The rule simply says: you must use the current version of GSL_Metropolis, and that was exactly the map used.
"The map will be changed immediately, and will once again feature neutral supply depots at the ramp starting with tomorrow's GSTL games." It was not the map used. Your causal relationship makes no sense. The fact that they are changing it again does not mean the one without supply was not "In the GSL map pool", which is all the rule requires. They effed up, that's bad; they are now are fixing, that's good. It does not mean that the rule "You must use the map in map pool" was broken. It's like I hold up a red shirt and say "You must look at the shirt I'm holding, or you owe me $10". Then for some reason I changed the shirt I'm holding yellow shirt, and went "Oops, didn't mean to do that", and changed back to the red shirt. That does NOT mean you are now owe me $10 for looking at the yellow shirt. This also implies that you know, and Gom knows, this is not the map intended. You know very well that that this "current version" of GSL_Metropolis was not the map in the "GSL map pool"
We know this AFTER the fact, because this thread state so in the OP. At the point this happened it was not obvious. What we know NOW does not matter since GomTV or anyone else cannot base their decision on knowledge that available 2hr later.
And we know that "Wrong map got into the map pool", which is not the same as "Wrong map never got into the map pool and was used anyway". The rule says the map in the map pool should be used, the fact that A WRONG MAP WAS IN THE POOL AND LATER FIXED DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS NOT IN THE POOL.
If I say I'm holding up a red shirt but held up a yellow shirt, it does NOT mean I held up a red shirt, nor does it mean I never held up a yellow shirt; it just says I held up the wrong shirt. Similarly, Gom used a wrong map, but a wrong map that was in the pool, which is all rule 4 requires.
There SHOULD be rule says that a pre-defined map with specific feature agreed upon should be the map of the play, but as far as anyone knows, there is no such rule.
|
SoCal8910 Posts
sucks for nestea bc you hate to see stupid shit like this, but the fact remains that winners play to win the game and byun did just that. it is preventable, but obviously you dont practice that bc you get used to having the neutral depots to protect you from the cheese. gl to him in his next GSL matches!
|
Nestea was never going to win anyway. Byun completely outclassed him.
|
|
|
On July 13 2012 12:37 orewakami wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 12:28 Shiori wrote:On July 13 2012 12:23 orewakami wrote:On July 13 2012 12:07 Shiori wrote:On July 13 2012 11:36 orewakami wrote:On July 13 2012 11:22 Shiori wrote:On July 13 2012 10:34 HolyArrow wrote:On July 13 2012 10:27 Shiori wrote:On July 13 2012 10:03 HolyArrow wrote:On July 13 2012 09:52 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
So what exactly do you want? Like, what do you think can actually be done, at this point, to rectify something that already occurred. When the games go live, the games go live. You don't simply stop the series and declare one of the games invalid after the fact because there was an error that neither player was responsible for. If anything is going to tilt someone, it'd be stopping the series and replaying the game. What you're bringing up is irrelevant to what I'm saying. I never said anything about what should or shouldn't be done. That's not what my points are about. My points are just there to refute all the faulty rationalizations people are making, simply because it annoys me when people do that. That's it. In the end, I don't blame Byun because I'm giving him the benefit of doubt that he didn't realize it was the wrong map version. However, whether or not Byun gets blame is again irrelevant. The point is that a win achieved in a way that tournament regulations are supposed to prevent is an unfair win. It's not Byun's fault that the win was unfair, and he doesn't deserve to be penalized for it or blamed for it at all. But the win is still, by definition, unfair. Luckily "by definition" is the only sense in which this win is unfair. Sure, I don't disagree with you there. Ergo, it is irrelevant. If nothing more than definitions can be supplied then it means that in every other, important sense, the issue is settled. Yes, it was only unfair based on what unfair actually means. But, if you want to consider the important senses of what unfair does't mean, for example crocodiles and long walks on the beach, then yes, ergo, it wasn't crocodiles and long walks on the beach. No, you're failing to understand my point. When people say "by definition" what they really mean is that something doesn't resemble the term in question except according to a purposefully narrow definition. For example, if I argue that atheism is a religion by definition then the error of conversation is to ignore that this narrow adherence to a preconceived definition is, in fact, the only sense in which atheism resembles religion. In the case of fairness, Nestea was only treated unfairly in the sense that Gom incorrectly used an improper map, making the situation trivially unfair in the sense that it would be "unfair" for them to use a differently textured, but not officially sanctioned, map. In terms of how the game actually played out, it has yet to be shown that any of the following are true: 1) Nestea suffered an undue disadvantage viz a vis the game itself from the map's condition (i.e. are Bunker rushes actually overpowered in the current meta?) 2) Was Nestea mislead by someone other than himself about the state of the map? 3) Did Byun have access to any information that Nestea did not have access to with regard to the map being used? 4) Did Nestea request referee action only to have it rejected? None of these have been satisfied. I've yet to hear an argument for what was unfair (as opposed to unfortunate) about this that isn't "Gom generally intends to have Supply Depots." The two are not equivalent. I think you're failing to understand the definition of definition, so to speak. If A is B by definition, then there is no important sense in which A is not B. It is a contradiction to say that that both A is B by definition, and also that in "important senses" A is not B. This is logic. Your examples do not contradict this. If you give a definition of religion, and you show that atheism fulfills that definition, you either need to reject that definition of religion and therefore claim that atheism is not a religion by definition, or you need to accept that atheism is a religion. Your list of terms of what "has yet to be shown" is as a random assortment of things you might be (rather idiosyncratically) worried about. Did Nestea's power turn off on his computer? Did space aliens abduct his mouse? Did Byun have sex with Nestea's girlfriend? Did he have a balanced breakfast and 8 hours of sleep? But they do not aid up to a definition of 'unfair'. Precisely. I'm rejecting your definition of unfair, because it's purposely contrived to fit this case. Yes... Precisely... You know that old Soviet Union radio show joke? Well... What you say is quite right. Except, it wasn't me that provided the definition of unfair, it was someone else; and, rather than rejecting the definition of unfair, you accepted it; and rather than the definition being contrived to fit this case, it wasn't.
I did reject the given definition of unfair, but, more than that, I reject any discussion which frames itself as being reliant on definitions, because common speech is a rather poor tool when we're trying to talk about something precisely. When we
I don't want to argue about the meaning of words anymore (since they're contextual and subjective) but regardless, nothing that happened today was particularly immoral or bad. Nestea not only scouted the strategy, but didn't complain. Semantical nonsense regarding Gom's rules is irrelevant because Gom's response is necessarily within their own ruling. So, if the argument is reliant on a reading of the rules (which most arguments here have been) then Gom's response to the incident, provided it doesn't break their own regulations, should also be accepted at face value.
Otherwise, we're back to arguing about whether what happened was "wrong," and it obviously wasn't for the reasons I listed previously. Your earlier implication that Byun should have reported his knowledge is reaching and silly.
|
Nestea had the chance to stop the rush, but pulled his units back before making sure the SCV building the bunker was dead. If not for this mistake he would've easily killed the other SCV and no bunkers would've been built.
Byun had no way of knowing that the removal of the neutral depots was by accident and not design. Why should he report anything?
Byun also dominated Nestea in every game. Nestea was never really in a position to win. Even if you throw out the Metropolis game, Byun would most likely have gone 3-0.
Gom and the mapmaker both made mistakes, but they had no impact on the outcome of the series. Byun did nothing wrong and Gom made the right call after the mistake was called to their attention.
|
I wonder what would have happened if the depot was there? Since, evidently Byun noticed it had been missing in past games and centered his strategy around it. He would have undoubtably noticed it was there when (he believed) it shouldn't be and surely would have paused the game and asked the question. What would the outcome have been?
The depots are suppose to be there, but Byun has proof that they arent there in recent GSL matches.. I wonder what gom would have done in this sitution.
I don't think anyone can blame Byun for this.. He studied the map, the games on the map and used it to his advantage. Just like any good player should. Should Nestea have noticed? Probably. Is it his fault? Partly.
Gom is at fault here but in no way do I believe the games were unfair. The same map has been previously used (disappearing depot version) so the information was out there. Gom didn't notice, Nestea didnt notice. Byun did. More power to him. If gom wants to fix it now then thats their decision but both players had access to the map that was going to be used prior to the games.
|
wow I can't believe it took that long for people to realize it has been missing for a while.
|
On July 13 2012 00:33 IdrA wrote:
byun is most definitely the bad guy. it does not matter if nestea was going to lose anyway, he probably was, and it doesnt matter if that version of the map was available for practice, although if it was nestea should have brought it up beforehand.
the bunker block is something that has been actively prevented on every map for the last year of competition. it is something that the community has collectively decided is unfair and the maps for every legitimate tournament have blocked it since, including every other version of metropolis.
for him to see that and plan on using it is utterly fucked up. its the same thing as pushing a guy down and kicking him in the balls because you realize the ref isnt looking. the only reason ramp blocking isnt explicitly banned in rules is because the community would get stupid about "banning a strategy" and its easily dealt with with map editting.
when you are playing for that much money you do what you need to win imo
|
On July 13 2012 10:31 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 07:46 karpo wrote:On July 13 2012 07:30 turdburgler wrote:
esvdiamond tweeted earlier to blame the map maker not the player, will remember that next time i find a knife on the street and go stab someone, dont blame me, blame the guy who dropped it. I hope this is sarcasm. No one is stupid enough to make this comparison seriously, right? you want more comparisons? i dont see why they are silly. if you jump out a window you dont blame the guy with the key. if you shoot someone with a gun you dont blame the manufacturer. byun needs to take some personal responsibility here. this isnt a grey area, every damn map has bunker blocks stopped, its clearly a mistake. he notices a week before hand and his only thought is to abuse it as hard as he can? what happened to good sportsmanship? or are we only stripping code s spots from white guys?
He played within the rules and won, it's that simple. All of your analogies are completely irrelevant. A progamer in korea who is striving to make something of his career, can't be handicapped by trying to please the fans or have the best sportsmanship. Their job is to continue their career and post good results.
Edit: the korean e-sports scene is also very different, they face much more pressure than the west. We have players in the west who are not very good yet recieve salaries and sponsorships. In korea there are so many unknown players who would easily compete with the best from the west. However they are completely unknown because of the fierce competition. My point being the pressure there is MUCH greater, and it is completely understandable when people act outside your confines of "sportsmanship" as long as it is within the rules.
|
Sad for Nestea. =(
My emotions this GSL are all flippy. DRG won over NaNiwa and Byun is going to get hate for this "exploit". =/
|
Byun's a tool.. Great player but a snake. He certainly won't be getting any favours from IM players anytime soon. I am surprised he would exploit this bug so shortly after coming back from his match-fixing scandal.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 13 2012 13:55 BrassMonkey27 wrote:
Byun's a tool.. Great player but a snake. He certainly won't be getting any favours from IM players anytime soon. I am surprised he would exploit this bug so shortly after coming back from his match-fixing scandal.
Its not a bug, its an undocumented feature. Byun was paying attention and noticed it. Nestea didnt. Byun won.
|
Seeing as he helped MVP win a GSL I don't think there is any bad blood.
|
Hahaha, props to Byun for noticing the "bug" (feature) and taking advantage of a tournament-legal method
Will be hoping he takes down another fan favourite with another sneaky method and I get to watch the LR thread explode :p
|
eh, im not outraged because ByuN was smacking nestea around in all 3 games so I doubt nestea coulda come back. I am glad they fixed it though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
