|
On August 23 2010 10:41 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
I never thought I'd agree with Catreina on anything, but she made the correct initial decision.
Right and wrong from a morality's stand point can not exist for a tournament admin. They can't. Your job isn't to right wrongs in society or player's mind. Your job and duty is to run the tournament based upon the rules you set up and enforce them properly and without bias.
Silver was good mannered. LastShadow has a bad past and might be an ass in this situation. None of that matters. None of it. All that matters is you had rules in place that you chose not to follow. Your rule was that players who disconnected after 7 minutes would either get a loss or the non-discer could be allowed to call a regame. That is a fine rule and should not be changed. If you change the rule, the only way to change it is that any disconnect now becomes a loss.
From a logistics stand point the rule and the INITIAL enforcement of it is the only way to handle it. This is not an invite tourny with many refs capable of making judgment calls for in game discs. What I mean is, the ability to examine a replay and truly determine if one player was in an absolutely dominating position is extremely difficult (e.g. Slush vs Artosis incident in TL Invitational in Beta). Because of this, you can not logistically expect replay examination in the case of disc's throughout the tournament that has this many of players and games being played. You cant simply allow for a regame upon all discs for obvious reasons.
Now, if you want to amend these rules for future competitions and say that "in the quarterfinals, all disconnects will result in a regame/loss/win based on an admin's decision," that is something that should be considered. However, this is still the same tournament and you're punishing Last Shadow for doing nothing wrong. I want to repeat that for everybody crying: Last Shadow did nothing wrong. If you want to claim that you have higher morals and would never stoop to such a level and he should be ashamed that is your prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact that his decisions were completely allowed by the rules set in place.
Great arguement and all, HOWEVER:
Once again, both players were told last night that the decision last night might change. So they had enough time to be fully prepared for it. So the decision was changed and there is really - No further need for discussion on this.
Congrats to our winners though!!
|
a true champion never backs down to a challenge. props to silver
|
well deserved Silver... ajtls shouldn't be in the finals in the first place, it's just that Trump decided not to play Silver
|
On August 23 2010 10:41 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
I never thought I'd agree with Catreina on anything, but she made the correct initial decision.
Right and wrong from a morality's stand point can not exist for a tournament admin. They can't. Your job isn't to right wrongs in society or player's mind. Your job and duty is to run the tournament based upon the rules you set up and enforce them properly and without bias.
Silver was good mannered. LastShadow has a bad past and might be an ass in this situation. None of that matters. None of it. All that matters is you had rules in place that you chose not to follow. Your rule was that players who disconnected after 7 minutes would either get a loss or the non-discer could be allowed to call a regame. That is a fine rule and should not be changed. If you change the rule, the only way to change it is that any disconnect now becomes a loss.
From a logistics stand point the rule and the INITIAL enforcement of it is the only way to handle it. This is not an invite tourny with many refs capable of making judgment calls for in game discs. What I mean is, the ability to examine a replay and truly determine if one player was in an absolutely dominating position is extremely difficult (e.g. Slush vs Artosis incident in TL Invitational in Beta). Because of this, you can not logistically expect replay examination in the case of disc's throughout the tournament that has this many of players and games being played. You cant simply allow for a regame upon all discs for obvious reasons.
Now, if you want to amend these rules for future competitions and say that "in the quarterfinals, all disconnects will result in a regame/loss/win based on an admin's decision," that is something that should be considered. However, this is still the same tournament and you're punishing Last Shadow for doing nothing wrong. I want to repeat that for everybody crying: Last Shadow did nothing wrong. If you want to claim that you have higher morals and would never stoop to such a level and he should be ashamed that is your prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact that his decisions were completely allowed by the rules set in place.
First of all, Caterina and Tesla are running this tournament so they are free to change the rules as they see fit.
Secondly, I don't think when Tesla wrote the rules for the disconnect, she intended that if Player B (AJ) disconnects and Player A (Silver) forgoes the win to do a rematch, and the reverse situation happens later on, that Player B should be allowed to take the win given that Player A was gracious enough in the first place. The rule she wrote was a simple rule but an unforseen situation occurred and it was further complicated because Player B - AJ - refused good sportsmanship in this rare circumstance.
Thirdly, you have to realize that rules are written all the time for sports but commisioners override their league's rules depending on the circumstance. I'm sorry if you think all professional sports leagues follow their rules to a T - that is simply not true. Commisioners of all major sports will override the rules if the circumstance calls for it.
|
To make it clear, I (Lyra) lost to Silver 0-3 in finals.
|
On August 23 2010 13:54 Nightmarjoo wrote:
To make it clear, I (Lyra) lost to Silver 0-3 in finals.
You still did your best Lyra! No one could have asked for more. I hope to see you in next months.
|
On August 23 2010 13:38 StarcraftMan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2010 10:41 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
I never thought I'd agree with Catreina on anything, but she made the correct initial decision.
Right and wrong from a morality's stand point can not exist for a tournament admin. They can't. Your job isn't to right wrongs in society or player's mind. Your job and duty is to run the tournament based upon the rules you set up and enforce them properly and without bias.
Silver was good mannered. LastShadow has a bad past and might be an ass in this situation. None of that matters. None of it. All that matters is you had rules in place that you chose not to follow. Your rule was that players who disconnected after 7 minutes would either get a loss or the non-discer could be allowed to call a regame. That is a fine rule and should not be changed. If you change the rule, the only way to change it is that any disconnect now becomes a loss.
From a logistics stand point the rule and the INITIAL enforcement of it is the only way to handle it. This is not an invite tourny with many refs capable of making judgment calls for in game discs. What I mean is, the ability to examine a replay and truly determine if one player was in an absolutely dominating position is extremely difficult (e.g. Slush vs Artosis incident in TL Invitational in Beta). Because of this, you can not logistically expect replay examination in the case of disc's throughout the tournament that has this many of players and games being played. You cant simply allow for a regame upon all discs for obvious reasons.
Now, if you want to amend these rules for future competitions and say that "in the quarterfinals, all disconnects will result in a regame/loss/win based on an admin's decision," that is something that should be considered. However, this is still the same tournament and you're punishing Last Shadow for doing nothing wrong. I want to repeat that for everybody crying: Last Shadow did nothing wrong. If you want to claim that you have higher morals and would never stoop to such a level and he should be ashamed that is your prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact that his decisions were completely allowed by the rules set in place. First of all, Caterina and Tesla are running this tournament so they are free to change the rules as they see fit. Secondly, I don't think when Tesla wrote the rules for the disconnect, she intended that if Player B (AJ) disconnects and Player A (Silver) forgoes the win to do a rematch, and the reverse situation happens later on, that Player B should be allowed to take the win given that Player A was gracious enough in the first place. The rule she wrote was a simple rule but an unforseen situation occurred and it was further complicated because Player B - AJ - refused good sportsmanship in this rare circumstance. Thirdly, you have to realize that rules are written all the time for sports but commisioners override their league's rules depending on the circumstance. I'm sorry if you think all professional sports leagues follow their rules to a T - that is simply not true. Commisioners of all major sports will override the rules if the circumstance calls for it.
First off, feeling free to change rules as you please is quite possibly one of the worst things you can say. Who would want to know that at anytime they could be DQ'd or given a loss because the admins randomly decide to change their minds about something arbitrary. Would it be likely? No, but that's not the point.
Further, you don't get to interpret rules for the tournament. You can't go back in hindsight and say, "Well, these rules apply.... except in case of exceptions A through J occur. We understand the situation and why it makes lastshadow look bad, but if you start making amendments to rules that don't need them it only opens up more and more loopholes and possibilities. You make a hard line stance on an issue and say, "Tough shit, this is the way it is."
And onto your last point (don't worry, I'll keep it brief), when was the last time, in any sport, you saw a do-over? The perfect game call that was blown by an umpire (who admitted it after the game that he blew it) doesn't get to say, "Well, my B. He gets the perfect game." Rules do get changed, but they don't go back retroactively and change results because of new rules. You learn from your mistakes and don't repeat them a 2nd time, not try to rewrite the past.
|
On August 23 2010 14:32 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2010 13:38 StarcraftMan wrote:On August 23 2010 10:41 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
I never thought I'd agree with Catreina on anything, but she made the correct initial decision.
Right and wrong from a morality's stand point can not exist for a tournament admin. They can't. Your job isn't to right wrongs in society or player's mind. Your job and duty is to run the tournament based upon the rules you set up and enforce them properly and without bias.
Silver was good mannered. LastShadow has a bad past and might be an ass in this situation. None of that matters. None of it. All that matters is you had rules in place that you chose not to follow. Your rule was that players who disconnected after 7 minutes would either get a loss or the non-discer could be allowed to call a regame. That is a fine rule and should not be changed. If you change the rule, the only way to change it is that any disconnect now becomes a loss.
From a logistics stand point the rule and the INITIAL enforcement of it is the only way to handle it. This is not an invite tourny with many refs capable of making judgment calls for in game discs. What I mean is, the ability to examine a replay and truly determine if one player was in an absolutely dominating position is extremely difficult (e.g. Slush vs Artosis incident in TL Invitational in Beta). Because of this, you can not logistically expect replay examination in the case of disc's throughout the tournament that has this many of players and games being played. You cant simply allow for a regame upon all discs for obvious reasons.
Now, if you want to amend these rules for future competitions and say that "in the quarterfinals, all disconnects will result in a regame/loss/win based on an admin's decision," that is something that should be considered. However, this is still the same tournament and you're punishing Last Shadow for doing nothing wrong. I want to repeat that for everybody crying: Last Shadow did nothing wrong. If you want to claim that you have higher morals and would never stoop to such a level and he should be ashamed that is your prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact that his decisions were completely allowed by the rules set in place. First of all, Caterina and Tesla are running this tournament so they are free to change the rules as they see fit. Secondly, I don't think when Tesla wrote the rules for the disconnect, she intended that if Player B (AJ) disconnects and Player A (Silver) forgoes the win to do a rematch, and the reverse situation happens later on, that Player B should be allowed to take the win given that Player A was gracious enough in the first place. The rule she wrote was a simple rule but an unforseen situation occurred and it was further complicated because Player B - AJ - refused good sportsmanship in this rare circumstance. Thirdly, you have to realize that rules are written all the time for sports but commisioners override their league's rules depending on the circumstance. I'm sorry if you think all professional sports leagues follow their rules to a T - that is simply not true. Commisioners of all major sports will override the rules if the circumstance calls for it. First off, feeling free to change rules as you please is quite possibly one of the worst things you can say. Who would want to know that at anytime they could be DQ'd or given a loss because the admins randomly decide to change their minds about something arbitrary. Would it be likely? No, but that's not the point. Further, you don't get to interpret rules for the tournament. You can't go back in hindsight and say, "Well, these rules apply.... except in case of exceptions A through J occur. We understand the situation and why it makes lastshadow look bad, but if you start making amendments to rules that don't need them it only opens up more and more loopholes and possibilities. You make a hard line stance on an issue and say, "Tough shit, this is the way it is." And onto your last point (don't worry, I'll keep it brief), when was the last time, in any sport, you saw a do-over? The perfect game call that was blown by an umpire (who admitted it after the game that he blew it) doesn't get to say, "Well, my B. He gets the perfect game." Rules do get changed, but they don't go back retroactively and change results because of new rules. You learn from your mistakes and don't repeat them a 2nd time, not try to rewrite the past.
Well let me put this very simply then for you and for anyone else who isn't happy with my call. Yes, I personally made this call. Cat later agreed it was the right thing for us to do but I did a lot of reviewing today and said that no matter what happened, this is the call that should be made.
If you don't like our decision and the fact that we said we would make things more clear in the future - Then just don't post in our thread and further more don't participate in our tournaments. No offense but we don't want the drama or the arguing. Our call is final and we have made it. Thus it really doesn't matter if you feel its right, wrong or anything else. Please accept it, drop it and move on. Thank you kindly for stating your opinion.
--------------
For everyone else - The OP will be updated soon and rules will be changing. Please consider this your notification. It will be done sometime this week, not sure exactly when though. Thanks again everyone for doing your best to work with us and bare with us as we dealt with everything this weekend! ^^
|
I don't see the vods for Lyra vs Stalife in semifinals, will those be uploaded later?
|
Regardless of Ajtls' past transgressions, he is not the one at fault in this scenario. The precedence was set by Catreina in game 1 to allow Silver to take a win or re-game. He chose to re-game. Ajtls uses the previous ruling to his advantage to take the win and is called BM. This ruling is later retroactively overturned for Ajtls. It seems the rules don't apply to those who are perceived as BM.
This is what happens when you try to base your rulings around peoples' twisted preoccupation of manners instead of fairness. I think players for the most part don't want special treatment and only want the rules to be applied equally to everyone. In this case, it did not happen.
I appreciate that the people running this tourney are contributing to the community but it was riddled with problems from the very start. Hopefully all the problems will be ironed out once the next tourney rolls around.
Lesson: Given a choice, always take the win.
|
On August 23 2010 15:44 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Regardless of Ajtls' past transgressions, he is not the one at fault in this scenario. The precedence was set by Catreina in game 1 to allow Silver to take a win or re-game. He chose to re-game. Ajtls uses the previous ruling to his advantage to take the win and is called BM. This ruling is later retroactively overturned for Ajtls. It seems the rules don't apply to those who are perceived as BM.
This is what happens when you try to base your rulings around peoples' twisted preoccupation of manners instead of fairness. I think players for the most part don't want special treatment and only want the rules to be applied equally to everyone. In this case, it did not happen.
I appreciate that the people running this tourney are contributing to the community but it was riddled with problems from the very start. Hopefully all the problems will be ironed out once the next tourney rolls around.
Lesson: Given a choice, always take the win.
This was no fair treatment. Regardless of who was playing - I would have made the same decision. So do not think this was any fair treatment. Everything is going to be different in the next tournament though, thankfully.
|
On August 23 2010 15:44 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Regardless of Ajtls' past transgressions, he is not the one at fault in this scenario. The precedence was set by Catreina in game 1 to allow Silver to take a win or re-game. He chose to re-game. Ajtls uses the previous ruling to his advantage to take the win and is called BM. This ruling is later retroactively overturned for Ajtls. It seems the rules don't apply to those who are perceived as BM.
This is what happens when you try to base your rulings around peoples' twisted preoccupation of manners instead of fairness. I think players for the most part don't want special treatment and only want the rules to be applied equally to everyone. In this case, it did not happen.
I appreciate that the people running this tourney are contributing to the community but it was riddled with problems from the very start. Hopefully all the problems will be ironed out once the next tourney rolls around.
Lesson: Given a choice, always take the win.
I actually think Tesla and Cat did the right thing because the situation that came up was rare, complicated by AJ's unsportsmanslike behaviour which made the situation even more rare.
An ammendment they (and other tourney admins) can make for future tourneys is if Player B loses connection and Player A is gracious enough to allow a rematch rather than taking the win, that Player A be allowed a regame should Player A lose connection, provided that Player A was in a "competitive" position when he/she lost connection. Such an ammendment would have granted Silver an immediate rematch on his loss of connection, provided that the admins believed Silver was in a "competitive" position based on the replay.
Why I think Tesla and Cat did the right thing is because this was not a major professional tournament (unlike GSL) and it's impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules with their manpower. If this were a major tournament like the GSL, one would expect that all rules be fleshed out to cover even the rarest scenarios. However, like you saw with the Flash vs Jaedong power outage, even professional organizations like KESPA don't have every conceivable possibility covered.
|
On August 23 2010 14:32 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
And onto your last point (don't worry, I'll keep it brief), when was the last time, in any sport, you saw a do-over?
Well, it's obvious you are not well informed. FYI, it's very easy to find a rematch in a professional sport where the other team/player lost within the rules of the game but lost in an unjustified manner- just google it FFS:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-fifa-goahead-for-arsenal-rematch-1072773.html
The moral of the story above? Arsenal didn't deserve the win. Arsenal and their manager Arsene Wenger, were gracious enough unlike AJ, to offer the rematch, even though they scored a goal legally and within the rules of the game.
How did the FA and FIFA respond? The FA and FIFA immediately sactioned the rematch even though Arsenal scored their goal legally and within the rules of the game. In this particular circumstance, the FA and FIFA valued fair play over a win that was legal by ever rule of the book.
Using the above as a precedence, Cat and Tesla were well within their rights of requesting the rematch between Silver and AJ.
|
On August 23 2010 18:47 StarcraftMan wrote:
An ammendment they (and other tourney admins) can make for future tourneys is if Player B loses connection and Player A is gracious enough to allow a rematch rather than taking the win, that Player A be allowed a regame should Player A lose connection, provided that Player A was in a "competitive" position when he/she lost connection. Such an ammendment would have granted Silver an immediate rematch on his loss of connection, provided that the admins believed Silver was in a "competitive" position based on the replay.
Sure, just leave it ambiguous again...
If Player A is provided one set of rules, player B should be provided the exact same rules, regardless of the actions of player A.
Ajtls has every right to be pissed in this scenario.
@Cat: If you're going to tell them a decision could be reversed, you're better off just telling them to chill out and a decision will be made later.
@Tesla: Threatening to DQ Ajtls from this and future tournaments for acting completely legally within the rules of the tournament provided to him is really low. Whether you or anyone agrees with the ethics of the situation, the fact of the matter is thus:
He was offered option A or B by the rules. He chose option A.
If you guys don't like the outcome of option A, that sucks, and change it in the next tournament. But him being on tilt for being forced into a redo is completely acceptable and understandable - why is Silver given one set of rules and he another?
Just like to point out, in addition to all of this, that if Silver took the win, no one would be QQing about it.
|
On August 24 2010 00:10 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2010 18:47 StarcraftMan wrote:
An ammendment they (and other tourney admins) can make for future tourneys is if Player B loses connection and Player A is gracious enough to allow a rematch rather than taking the win, that Player A be allowed a regame should Player A lose connection, provided that Player A was in a "competitive" position when he/she lost connection. Such an ammendment would have granted Silver an immediate rematch on his loss of connection, provided that the admins believed Silver was in a "competitive" position based on the replay. Sure, just leave it ambiguous again... If Player A is provided one set of rules, player B should be provided the exact same rules, regardless of the actions of player A. Ajtls has every right to be pissed in this scenario. @Cat: If you're going to tell them a decision could be reversed, you're better off just telling them to chill out and a decision will be made later. @Tesla: Threatening to DQ Ajtls from this and future tournaments for acting completely legally within the rules of the tournament provided to him is really low. Whether you or anyone agrees with the ethics of the situation, the fact of the matter is thus: He was offered option A or B by the rules. He chose option A. If you guys don't like the outcome of option A, that sucks, and change it in the next tournament. But him being on tilt for being forced into a redo is completely acceptable and understandable - why is Silver given one set of rules and he another? Just like to point out, in addition to all of this, that if Silver took the win, no one would be QQing about it.
Listen and listen very closely...or read very carefully please. It is not very often I actually straight out swear so I am going to say something. "STOP BITCHING!". Its our damn tournament. We put the work in, we fucking hosted it...We take all the flack REGARDLES of what happens. So just stop it already. This month's tournament is over. I was not saying we would disqualify him, however I also thought I put the rules about disconnect in there, which I clearly did not. Which is also going to change. There will be no vague or ambiguous rules here. I will say this one final time..
EVERYONE needs to drop this. At this point it doesn't matter if you think you are right, if you think you are wrong, if you feel the decision was fair or unfair. Our FINAL call was made and done. The matches were played out and all is done. I am so sick of reading all the bullshit excuses. Since most Starcraft players are male, I can say this without offending people. But all of you fighting about this still and dragging this on need to just grow the fuck up and man up. Thats right - MAN up. Be a man about it and accept it as it is. I don't even care if you guys are mad at me for posting like this. You have NO clue how stressful this tournament was. How close I came to a panic attack a few times cause of it. We put weeks into it.
Further more - I said if he didn't like what we did, he doesn't need to join the next one. Same stands for people like you, vx70GTOJudgexv. I can never understand how people who work their asses off get so much flack for doing their best and not meeting your expectations. Is every baseball game, football game, basketball game or even, ever WPT fair? Does everyone always follow the Ethic thing to do? NO! The organizers have gotta do what they gotta do. Btw - This isn't poker. So please stop using poker terms on here. I play poker to but COME ON! Comparing Poker to Starcraft 2? Really now? They aren't really that relatively related. Poker is more or less knowing the cards, reading the people you play against, bluffing and knowing when to ride on your own luck. Btw - I play poker. So do me a favor and don't attempt to correct what I say, cause I've made money off of playing poker...I just don't see it as a job. I prefer to do it for fun and laugh when guys get their butts kicked by a chick.
Now all of you please stop this. This is really far enough and beating an already dead horse is terrible.
|
I understand that it was a rough situation and a very hard call, but it is hardly fair to allow one player to choose, then overturn the decision you allowed the other player to make because you didn't like it. Again, not saying I agree that what ajtls did was right but he should have had the same opportunity either way, BM or not.
|
On August 23 2010 19:02 StarcraftMan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2010 14:32 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
And onto your last point (don't worry, I'll keep it brief), when was the last time, in any sport, you saw a do-over? Well, it's obvious you are not well informed. FYI, it's very easy to find a rematch in a professional sport where the other team/player lost within the rules of the game but lost in an unjustified manner- just google it FFS: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-fifa-goahead-for-arsenal-rematch-1072773.htmlThe moral of the story above? Arsenal didn't deserve the win. Arsenal and their manager Arsene Wenger, were gracious enough unlike AJ, to offer the rematch, even though they scored a goal legally and within the rules of the game. How did the FA and FIFA respond? The FA and FIFA immediately sactioned the rematch even though Arsenal scored their goal legally and within the rules of the game. In this particular circumstance, the FA and FIFA valued fair play over a win that was legal by ever rule of the book. Using the above as a precedence, Cat and Tesla were well within their rights of requesting the rematch between Silver and AJ.
Rematches or "do-overs" are actually pretty rare. Honestly the only time that I remember a do-over in any profession sport was in the NBA a few seasons ago where the hawks and heat replayed the last few minutes of a game because the people doing the boxscore incorrectly gave shaq his 6th foul with a few minutes left. On the other hand, I can think of a good 10 instances off the top of my head where the wrong decision was made and the commissioner stuck to the rules as opposed to overturning it and I'm a huge espn/sport nut.
That's funny how you had to go back to a 1999 FIFA article to find an instance where there was a rematch when there was at least a few instances in the 2010 world cup alone where the wrong decision was made.
Honestly if the teams didn't agree to a rematch beforehand, I doubt FIFA would issue a do-over. What happened to FIFA's sense of righteousness in this year's world cup when the ref called an invisible foul on the US and took away the goal at the last second? Or what happened when England didn't get their goal when the ball hit the crossbar and bounced pass the goal line?
|
|
|
To be perfectly honest Tesla, when you make calls like you did, you open yourself up to people questioning whether you have the legitimate judgement skills to run a tournament properly. This is a forum where we discuss all aspects of starcraft, and how they're managed and officiated is one of them. Clearly a portion of the community is concerned to the extent where they feel the need to discuss the legitimacy of your tournament. It's time for you to man up and realize that our concerns are both founded, and our's to have.
I say this with all due respect, believe me. I have a hard time tolerating the "it was my decision, I made it, now don't even question it on a forum of public discussion" approach. You are much in the wrong here. TL forums exist for conversations like this. Evidence that questionable officiating took place, was recognized, and discussed ad nauseam will honestly only strengthen the community as it will serve as a learning tool for budding officials looking to hold their own competitions, and help upcoming players see fleshed out arguments about what is acceptable to expect as far as "calls" go in tournys that they might participate in. Let this incident be a learning experience for them, as I hope it should have been a learning experience for you.
Clearly it was a stressful event for you and your volunteer staffing as it were. There was definitely not enough emphasis put on things like timeline and the almost clerical work of updating brackets, and hopefully in the future you can find a happy medium of between having an appropriate amount of participants and volunteers. Hopefully connection issues, et cetera, won't crop up like they did in this tournament. That really doesn't excuse your latest post where you raged (and boy did you rage) and levied some personal attacks against posters isn't the sort of behavior befitting an individual looking to run a competition of any format, broadcast in any medium.
|
On August 24 2010 01:23 ICCup.Tesla wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 00:10 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote:On August 23 2010 18:47 StarcraftMan wrote:
An ammendment they (and other tourney admins) can make for future tourneys is if Player B loses connection and Player A is gracious enough to allow a rematch rather than taking the win, that Player A be allowed a regame should Player A lose connection, provided that Player A was in a "competitive" position when he/she lost connection. Such an ammendment would have granted Silver an immediate rematch on his loss of connection, provided that the admins believed Silver was in a "competitive" position based on the replay. Sure, just leave it ambiguous again... If Player A is provided one set of rules, player B should be provided the exact same rules, regardless of the actions of player A. Ajtls has every right to be pissed in this scenario. @Cat: If you're going to tell them a decision could be reversed, you're better off just telling them to chill out and a decision will be made later. @Tesla: Threatening to DQ Ajtls from this and future tournaments for acting completely legally within the rules of the tournament provided to him is really low. Whether you or anyone agrees with the ethics of the situation, the fact of the matter is thus: He was offered option A or B by the rules. He chose option A. If you guys don't like the outcome of option A, that sucks, and change it in the next tournament. But him being on tilt for being forced into a redo is completely acceptable and understandable - why is Silver given one set of rules and he another? Just like to point out, in addition to all of this, that if Silver took the win, no one would be QQing about it. Listen and listen very closely...or read very carefully please. It is not very often I actually straight out swear so I am going to say something. " STOP BITCHING!". Its our damn tournament. We put the work in, we fucking hosted it...We take all the flack REGARDLES of what happens. So just stop it already. This month's tournament is over. I was not saying we would disqualify him, however I also thought I put the rules about disconnect in there, which I clearly did not. Which is also going to change. There will be no vague or ambiguous rules here. I will say this one final time.. EVERYONE needs to drop this. At this point it doesn't matter if you think you are right, if you think you are wrong, if you feel the decision was fair or unfair. Our FINAL call was made and done. The matches were played out and all is done. I am so sick of reading all the bullshit excuses. Since most Starcraft players are male, I can say this without offending people. But all of you fighting about this still and dragging this on need to just grow the fuck up and man up. Thats right - MAN up. Be a man about it and accept it as it is. I don't even care if you guys are mad at me for posting like this. You have NO clue how stressful this tournament was. How close I came to a panic attack a few times cause of it. We put weeks into it. Further more - I said if he didn't like what we did, he doesn't need to join the next one. Same stands for people like you, vx70GTOJudgexv. I can never understand how people who work their asses off get so much flack for doing their best and not meeting your expectations. Is every baseball game, football game, basketball game or even, ever WPT fair? Does everyone always follow the Ethic thing to do? NO! The organizers have gotta do what they gotta do. Btw - This isn't poker. So please stop using poker terms on here. I play poker to but COME ON! Comparing Poker to Starcraft 2? Really now? They aren't really that relatively related. Poker is more or less knowing the cards, reading the people you play against, bluffing and knowing when to ride on your own luck. Btw - I play poker. So do me a favor and don't attempt to correct what I say, cause I've made money off of playing poker...I just don't see it as a job. I prefer to do it for fun and laugh when guys get their butts kicked by a chick. Now all of you please stop this. This is really far enough and beating an already dead horse is terrible.
Run a smaller tournament next time. You don't have the abilities to run a 512 man tournament as this event shows. You can say all you want about how you worked weeks on this tournament, but the results speak for themselves. You're far to overambitious with this. I've been on Skype when you get stressed over 32 people so I'm not sure why you guys thought you could just go to 512.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
