|
If I were Artosis I would refuse a showmatch on principle. I don't see it as being a baby but as making a statement. He has a lot more to lose than he does to gain in a showmatch. If he goes in there and loses, it's pretty bad for him. Even if you're the better player, anyone can lose a series in starcraft 2. No one has a 100% record.
If he plays and wins, it looks like he is legitimizing the idea that he needed to play another match. He already won, why prove himself again? The only thing you could argue that he could gain from this is money, but at what cost? He has little to gain and everything to lose.
And that's just talking about fame... as a principle of morality you have no duty to play someone that you believe to have cheated the system. This is nothing against Slush but from Artosis' pov he definitely cheated in a moral sense, even if not from a technical one.
|
On May 10 2010 03:06 dogabutila wrote:
Actions like this may not be unacceptable, but only because we choose to let it be acceptable. Yet, clearly wrong actions such as this should NOT be acceptable. Not being honest and admitting you lost is quite clearly wrong, it SHOULD be unacceptable.
TL made a mistake, yes. It only happened because SLUSH did not do the right thing. Does the sense of fair play not exist anymore?
I am pretty sure that Slush wasn't done with that game yet. He was still seeing a chance to win or else he would have gg'ed already. It doesn't matter if he really had a chance. If he thinks he has a chance (as small as it might be) then there is nothing wrong with not "admitting" defeat, because from his perspective he wasn't defeated yet. He is not omniscient; that's the job of the referees.
So as long as Slush didn't clearly see that he had 100% lost (and this can be very hard to see if you are one of the players), he didn't do anything wrong.
|
GJ TL very manner about the whole situation
|
Agree with what louder said, he even gets offered a rematch for money.... I mean come on... Don't refuse this...
|
On May 10 2010 03:49 spinesheath wrote:
I am pretty sure that Slush wasn't done with that game yet. He was still seeing a chance to win or else he would have gg'ed already. It doesn't matter if he really had a chance. If he thinks he has a chance (as small as it might be) then there is nothing wrong with not "admitting" defeat, because from his perspective he wasn't defeated yet. He is not omniscient; that's the job of the referees.
So as long as Slush didn't clearly see that he had 100% lost (and this can be very hard to see if you are one of the players), he didn't do anything wrong.
People hang on all the time. I have stayed in games I know I was going to lose for just a little while longer out of spite to make them spend more of their time. There wasn't any realistic chance that he could come back. Slush knew he had it lost but was holding on for whatever reason. If TL has the policy of "if there's a chance" they should just make all DCs instant loss for the sake of consistency. If you have a hatchery and one drone there's still technically a chance you could come back. Who cares what I think though, just a nobody here.
|
wonder wats going to be on this weeks artosis weekly news
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
To anyone arguing against it: the disconnect rules are probably the best possible. Explanation:
On one hand, it strongly discourages players from disconnecting so that they can receive a win without taking the risk that they might screw up or the opponent might come back. Not just in theory, but even in reality, where a win might be awarded by human error even if the game is not 100% over. In order for that error to occur, the player has to be so close to winning already (say, 98% chance of winning) that the probability of winning by playing the game out is far higher than the probability of winning by intentionally discing and receiving an erroneous favourable decision. So there is zero motivation to try to get a win by discing: only a giant idiot would try it.
On the other hand, it also discourages players from waiting around until their last building is destroyed and hoping their opponent disconnects so they can get a regame. If you have only a handful of pylons left and your opponent discs, then you still lose since they had it 100% won. If this part of the rule didn't exist, then every player could maximize their chances of winning a lost game by never GG-ing and waiting until they are eliminated. Even if it sounds like a silly thing for the player to do, a rule system that encourages pain-in-the-ass behaviour like this is a flawed rule system. With the TL rule system, you don't gain anything from waiting to be eliminated. You don't lose anything either, in terms of your chances of winning, but you do lose things outside the game, such as respect in the community, thus players are ultimately discouraged from doing it.
And that's why the current rule system is ideal. Mistakes can happen due to human error, as with any rule system, but it motivates the players to do the right things: play out your wins and gg your losses. Cases like this one are very rare and even if they do arise, they can be handled by improving the ref system -- which TL plans to do.
|
Personally, I would also refuse the showmatch if I were in Artosis' shoes. Had this happened to me in a tourney I would have felt extremely aggrieved, but that shit happens from time to time and you gotta move on. Having to play Slush in an apologetic "showmatch?" For me it would have been a more frustrating than enjoyable experience, regardless of the outcome. And then there's the whole principle thing... I don't like seeing people hate on Artosis because I'm sure a LOT of people would feel the same way in his shoes. Best we all just move on from this clusterfuck and learn from this.
|
Id refuse the rematch/showmatch if i was Slush. He already won
|
On May 10 2010 04:28 iamtt1 wrote:
wonder wats going to be on this weeks artosis weekly news
LOL I was already thinking about that, too.
|
On May 10 2010 04:30 jonich0n wrote:
Personally, I would also refuse the showmatch if I were in Artosis' shoes. Had this happened to me in a tourney I would have felt extremely aggrieved, but that shit happens from time to time and you gotta move on. Having to play Slush in an apologetic "showmatch?" For me it would have been a more frustrating than enjoyable experience, regardless of the outcome. And then there's the whole principle thing... I don't like seeing people hate on Artosis because I'm sure a LOT of people would feel the same way in his shoes. Best we all just move on from this clusterfuck and learn from this.
obviously we would all be mad if we were in his shoes, but he's way overreacting here, and he says he's been robbed of 300$.... this is totally wrong, this wasn't even the semis....
|
Even if he did lose 300$, he also lost the respect from a lot of people. I hope he thinks it was worth it.
|
Well most people knew artosis as a commentator, not as a player, he was like that years ago too
|
On one hand, I want to be sympathetic.
If I were in his shoes, I'd probably be mad too, but it doesn't excuse such petulance.
Really, the chat logs were hilarious.
And seeing as how I agree with the disc rules, well...
|
On May 10 2010 04:58 Fayth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 04:30 jonich0n wrote:
Personally, I would also refuse the showmatch if I were in Artosis' shoes. Had this happened to me in a tourney I would have felt extremely aggrieved, but that shit happens from time to time and you gotta move on. Having to play Slush in an apologetic "showmatch?" For me it would have been a more frustrating than enjoyable experience, regardless of the outcome. And then there's the whole principle thing... I don't like seeing people hate on Artosis because I'm sure a LOT of people would feel the same way in his shoes. Best we all just move on from this clusterfuck and learn from this. obviously we would all be mad if we were in his shoes, but he's way overreacting here, and he says he's been robbed of 300$.... this is totally wrong, this wasn't even the semis....
Overreacting or not the fact remains that Artosis was right about opposing the decision of the refs. Pro players should be professional and by not being so they can be hated by the community but it does not strip him of his rights as a player which is to be treated fairly. Obviously his statement of being robbed of 300usd and this was an easy tourney was arrogant but still he was wronged and it should be corrected.
To the people who agree that Slush did the right thing by staying silent, I really don't know what to say. Just because other pro players in soccer or basketball stay silent to benefit their team it does not make doing so ok. Not because everybody is doing the wrong thing then you should do too. That is when you show characters by sticking to what you think is right even when people cheat to gain advantage.
Using an example in pro sports of tennis. I have seen many players gave their opponents point when the line judge make a mistake of calling a shot out when it was clearly in. I am surprised to see in the poll that so many people would not have conceded the game.
|
On May 09 2010 17:58 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 17:56 gngfn wrote:On May 09 2010 17:25 MorningMusume11 wrote:
Says the guy that has two posts Indeed. Perhaps he ought to hold off on making comments like that until he has 2241 posts' worth of serious Starcraft discu ![[image loading]](http://i43.tinypic.com/vqptua.jpg) loooooooooool
This needs more face time.
|
I don't understand why arrogance makes everyone tick in this community. It seems few here are capable of viewing things subjectively.
Whenever I play tennis I never contest the other player's calls unless it is obviously in (like a foot in). If I lose then that's that, but I discontinue any future association with that player. I might complain a little bit and tell my friend the guy was a douche bag, and I could have easily won, but I stop caring eventually. Would I be a "baby" for refusing to play against someone who I know acts poorly? It would be extremely irrational to call me one, because the rematch would not be enjoyable for me, and I would have nothing to prove to him, and would contently accept that he is a poor sportsman, and I would have probably won the first game.
|
On May 09 2010 22:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 22:00 Ghardo wrote:
Rules are only as good as the people carrying them out. In this case an "expert" admin decision would have been necessary, but as has been stated by Naz there was no one available at that time. So the admins in charge carried out the rules as they saw fit and made a mistake (not from their point of view). It has now been identified that the merit of the rule (which I think is a good rule) to give someone the win should he disc after his opponent should already have typed "GG" is highly dependent on the game sense of the admin judging the situation. And that's what Naz said would be secured for such future TL events - that there is always a top player / expert like Naz, Chill, Day[9], Drone who may appropriately judge what's the best decision. Naz incorrectly describes the situation. This probably isn't deliberate because he simply wasn't there but to characterise the ref team as ignorant of the situation because they're not good enough at sc2 to understand it is wrong. Several refs, myself included, are good at sc2. The subject was hotly debated by refs and the opinion of every ref who had seen the replay was taken into account (for the record my vote was that Artosis should be awarded the win). There was no misunderstanding about what happens with 3-2 hydralisks take on 1-0 mutalisks, I was very clear about that in the IRC channel. The conclusion was that the rules were clear and that a disconnect while ahead was a regame. If Slush felt the game was over then he could concede but he said he felt he still had a chance and it wasn't the place of the referees to deny him that chance.
What "Slush thinks" is irrelevant just like in any sports match (player has no role in ref's decision). However, if all the refs unanimously decided that Artosis should' have been awarded a win, then clearly whoever made the final call should've respected the refs' decision and should be here making the statement of apology (rather than flaming people in a thread, etc and letting Nazgul come in and patch things up).
|
I'm surprised so many people in this thread rage/tantrum enough to be able to sympathize or justify Artosis' behavior to themselves.
|
Such e-drama, that's actually quite funny.
Nazgul talked a lot about the comparison with soccer. In soccer, when the ref takes a decision and you rage and insult him and keep discussing, you get a red card and you are out for two match, whether the ref was right or wrong in the first place. If it was soocer, Artosis would be fucking out and his team would have finished the game with 10 players.
I would expect someone over 15 years old to accept ref's decision without needing to insult his opponent and the organizers who were kind enough to invite him in the first place.
Seriously...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
