what you think koreans are magically honest self-sacrificing competitors? every kor cw on west has semi pro friends smurfing and w/e else.
the difference is that once they reach the progaming level its very controlled and regulated, professionalized. you would not have a proleague admin making a decision that benefits a team because they cheated.

and everything being offline cuts out alot of the stuff too.

RaGe

Belgium9950 Posts

December 23 2007 22:08 GMT

#22

Well, for once, I KIND OF agree with Bartar.

I think its unfair to let ToT choose another player, but I also think its unfair to let xLo. replace him with Idra or Lx. Bartar, you CAN NOT make the fact that ToT refused postponing critical, you can not use it in this discussion. The fairest would indeed be that HayprO played again, against Signal.

Emerald made an understandable decision, but he should communicate with both team's leaders too. If ToT) agrees to xLo.'s terms, it should be played. And eventhough HayprO left ToT), I think it would still be fair to play this match for ToT)

nOob

Spain120 Posts

December 23 2007 22:13 GMT

#23

In every league, player hacked = got his match reversed

anything to discuss here

who cares if he hacked in that particular game, that wasn't asked never before, shouldn't be asked now

Seems like we have several tot-lover admins

Xeris

Iran17695 Posts

December 23 2007 22:15 GMT

#24

well I understand that Bartar, but I guess you should be used to it by now!! Anyways, I really don't know what the correct choice would be here =O

IdrA

United States11541 Posts

December 23 2007 22:17 GMT

#25

i think its pretty obvious that both teams should get to replace their players, given that theyre not gonna forfeit haypro.

Sadist

United States7328 Posts

December 23 2007 22:37 GMT

#26

xLo should be able to change IMO

Bartar

Greece83 Posts

December 23 2007 22:47 GMT

#27

yea Xeris and now you understand why sometimes i get too upset. Not only i was the one fucked up but also the one who will probably get the negative image for being fucked up ;o
Idra obvious indeed but already denied cause "ToT deserves to win more".
Imo if Mondragon respected his " wannabe manner image" at all he would step up and say: "We no want this, we will both replace".

TreK

Sweden2089 Posts

December 23 2007 22:55 GMT

#28

donno is it even worth all this trouble? got nothing better to do ? ;p
maybe the decision wasnt 100% fair, but its "emeralds league" and his rules, nobody forces you to play in it etc :o and yes maybe it sucks but i doubt emerald will change his mind cause you call him an idiot and a totfanboy, id rather say it made him even more unwilling to change his mind.

But i might be wrong

GrandInquisitor

New York City13113 Posts

December 23 2007 23:51 GMT

#29

wow emerald comes off as the most childish in this whole situation =X

lol @ tournament organizer saying stuff like "you have no chance anyway"

poGDI

Sweden87 Posts

December 24 2007 00:09 GMT

#30

The bw community is funny, time to get out of here ~

Asjo

Denmark664 Posts

December 24 2007 00:24 GMT

#31

At first I felt that it made sense that ToT got to pick a new player (since they had to), while xLo shouldn't get the advantage of being able to play with other players all of a sudden. Needless to say, when I was presented with the image of replayed match where ToT had the advantage of matching up anyone against Signal, I could see the problem. There is no good reason why xLo should play the regamed match as such disadvantage - either is a fair regame or no regame. It seems that Emerald wanted to set up a conditional regame to fit what he found much just - in this case not wanting to validate the win of a supposed hacker but still not wanting to ignore the fact that ToT already won that submatch. So, yes, we can probably assume this he has some kind of bias towards ToT.

Yet, I find it a bit silly for Bartar to say "We simply had no chance to win with such a handycap enforced. ToT keeps the championship.". That's like dooming starcraft, saying that match-ups are a deciding factor and that as long as you've seen your opponent play, you can take him down easily. Obviously, Signal would still have every change to win. Of course, for the sake of professionalism in the Starcraft scene, it's good that xLo don't put up with the unfair decision of regaming on uneven terms, but playing the game wouldn't really have presented a problem either.

IdrA

United States11541 Posts

December 24 2007 00:33 GMT

#32

playing the game would validate emerald's decision

PuertoRican

United States5709 Posts

December 24 2007 00:40 GMT

#33

On December 24 2007 09:09 poGDI wrote:
The bw community is funny, time to get out of here ~

I thought you were "out of here" years ago.
I haven't seen you post or be around for that matter, in a long time.

Get your ass to Germany for WCG 2008!

Kennigit

Canada19447 Posts

December 24 2007 00:43 GMT

#34

On December 24 2007 09:33 IdrA wrote:
playing the game would validate emerald's decision

Exactly. Its decisions like these that really amateurize (is that a word?) the foriegn scene. Whether he's a head admin or not leaving a critical decision like that up to one person is prone to flaw, but i think xLo really made the right call here in not playing that match.

If you are going to have a rematch, make if fair - especially given these unusual circumstances. If you allow one team to change player, allow the other team.

SolaR-

United States2686 Posts

December 24 2007 00:47 GMT

#35

tot should get an auto loss for the match because a hack was involved. Although its harsh on tot, its the price they pay due to haypros actions.

lake

Canada150 Posts

December 24 2007 00:48 GMT

#36

imo if you're caught cheating at any point in a tournament every one of your games should be overturned

Asjo

Denmark664 Posts

December 24 2007 00:49 GMT

#37

Yes, as I say, to forfeit was the professional thing to do and a decision which I approve of. My point was simply that xLo could still have played the match with a good chance of winning, and it wouldn't have been a big deal. This is to point out the difference between "no chance" in the words of Barter and "unfair conditions" as I put it.

NaW-Emerald

Sweden1 Post

December 24 2007 03:42 GMT

#38

Ye Bartar. Maybe you should tell the community the full story instead. I am getting sick of you and your methods to try getting a cheap win - Or if your battle now is just about trying to miscredit other people.

Since i want to put an end to this and explain everything behind my decision once for all, i've supplied the whole story for those who like plenty of reading.

http://sc.gosugamers.net/thread/188440

IdrA

United States11541 Posts

December 24 2007 03:55 GMT

#39

....
you can post another 40 paragraphs. that doesnt change the fact that you're rewarding tot for using a hacker in a clan war.

and the fact that you, as an admin, say "Haypro was one of ToT:s best players and my judgement tells me that Signal, to be realistic, would not have been able in any way to pull that BO5 victory against haypro. " and use it in part to make your decision is fucking ridiculous.

Kennigit

Canada19447 Posts

December 24 2007 04:17 GMT

#40

....So i just read the post on gg.net. How can you blatantly admit a bias in your decision making and then claim that it is fair? Hopefully tournament organizers will learn that this is what happens when you have 1 guy making the final call. The defense for Emerald's argument is not only "haypro is better than Signal" but that in retrospect you should have made a better call at the time.

If it you allowed xLo to delay without penalty so that you could have final matches, then that is your issue. It is not relevant to the question of whether xLo should be allowed to replace their final player when ToT was given the option. xLo is being punished then by your poor management at the time of the event. Very amateurish.