|
On November 07 2010 13:02 Trang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 12:55 Vimsey wrote:On November 07 2010 12:46 Trang wrote:On November 07 2010 12:24 Vimsey wrote:On November 07 2010 12:21 Slow Motion wrote:On November 07 2010 12:15 Vimsey wrote:On November 07 2010 12:05 Slow Motion wrote:
Letting players chat isn't bending the rules, it's explicitly breaking the rules. MLG shouldn't have that rule in the first place if they don't intend to enforce it. I suspect its there to stop smack talk or bm and its a lot better to have an all encompassing one like that that you will only enforce when needed rather than one with lots of loopholes in that could be argued over what is and isnt BM/smack talking to gain an advantage. No, when you make a rule you need to be honest about its scope. Having a strict rule, then saying "we'll only enforce the rule when needed" is the same as not having a rule and telling refs to punish people for BM. It gives too much discretion to refs with little guidance (exactly what OP is worried about). The whole point of the strict rules regime MLG is advocating is to have the rules spell out exactly what happens in a given situation. This gives players fair notice, and limits the discretion of refs. When you get to choose when to enforce the rule, then this accomplished neither. No rule is strictly applied 100% all the time. It happens that in all sports common sense is the overriding factor in a decision of a referee. Starcraft should be no exception to this otherwise you need to add a clause to it running over pages as to what chat will get you banned or just ban someone like Huk and look like a jumped up hitler by saying Huk DQ'd I dont care if you wanted to see the mothership and the end of the game. That's a common misconception that common sense tends to override the application of rules in many real life situations. The reason why people have this common misconception is that rules are often drafted in either (1) terms that allow room for interpretation; or (2) give the decision maker discretion. An example of (1) would be where a rule states "Where a game is played on the wrong map, the game should be restarted if it would otherwise cause unfairness to the players". The application of the term "unfair" leaves room for flexible interpretation. An example of (2) would be where a rule states "Where a game is played on the wrong map, the game should be restarted unless the referee decides otherwise, taking into account any unfairness to the players or any circumstance he sees fit". Many rules are usually drafted in this way, the result being that there is a degree of flexibility. And this is why people think there should be flexibility in the way rules are applied. However, if the rules are NOT drafted in such a way, then the referee cannot really go against it without undermining the force of the rules. And you can't really expect a referee to undermine the credibility of their rule enforcement by bending rules rather than going through the proper purpose of fixing the rules afterwards. This is why the OP has stated the importance of setting good rules BEFORE the tournament, and not bending the rules DURING the tournament. The criticism is unwarranted and not founded on a proper understanding of how discretion fits in the relationship between drafting and applying rules. Last year a player in the premier league was punished by a ban of a number of matches. The rule plainly states if a player is booked for an offence it was deemed as the right decision by the referee so it cannot be overridden by review after the game. However because it was such a terrible decision and outrage ensued in the press the day after he was subsequently disciplined and banned. This is not a conceived perception this happens in all sports and I could give examples over many sports where a very clearly rigid rule is either ignored or changed to suit a situation of common sense. Yeah it can happen, but at the expense of the credibility of an institution's adherence to the rules they set. Like I and others have tried to say. It is about the bigger picture of respecting the system of rule making and enforcement. The fact that this principle is not followed on some occasions does not of itself show that the principle is a bad one. It's like me telling you that you shouldn't commit murder because it goes against principle, and you replying 'but some guy murdered someone last year!'.
Or I could say he was raping my daughter in front of me and he had a gun and I the law would use some common sense.
Edit to add that laws like that are very well written by legal experts and have in many cases stood for hundreds of years but I think some Judge said (I forget who) that 99% of the law is common sense.
|
On November 07 2010 11:56 Synk wrote:
Its been said above as well but, yea don't sweat it MLG one thing people will always do is fucking complain its a universal truth.
...and this means no criticism should be taken seriously?
You can't brush this off with a "people always complain". There is enough consensus that this was a problematic ruling.
No your making a sweeping generalization my point pertains to this situation in particular. Also after working in several very successful companies and some not successful I now know that no matter how good your policies are, no matter how pure your intentions, no matter how noble your cause. Your going to have about 5-10% of people ( customers ) that hate you and think your company/ organization/ team is pure evil and always does things incorrectly ( sometimes more and yea sometimes its legitimate but even if it isn't ). There is so much truth in the old saying " you can't please everyone " it's literally impossible. You pick a topic and I promise you can have a thread filled with hate and negativity just like this one, no matter how well handled it may have been and it only gets worse on the interwebz.
|
279 Posts
On November 07 2010 12:11 ptell wrote:
Lee, what I find most surprising were
1) The players did not know what the correct maps were. The players can prepare their strategies much better if they knew what the maps are for each round. It seems the first map is only communicated to the players during warm-up just before the game.
2) The casters also did not know what the correct maps were. I just feel this kind of crucial information (and also the bracket) should be available to them at all times, maybe on a monitor by the side.
I suggest for the map information to be included and integrated into the bracket website so it acts like a one-stop reference that all players, caster, viewers can quickly look up.
re: 1) http://www.mlgpro.com/pro-circuit/2010/ that list has been up for some time.
re: 2) The casters are NOT the tournament admins. They're not responsible for that. There was a mistake made. The admins corrected it, doing their jobs. And they do a great job. But they're human, and that's why we have rules to guide us. We have a good off season ahead of us, so we'll be evaluating all the rules on the table.
Re: suggestion on bracket website. Good one. i'll pass this along.
|
On November 07 2010 13:03 nedamise wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 12:59 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On November 07 2010 12:55 nedamise wrote:Once again that is the point, nobody here is actually agreeing on what the "fair" thing to do was. They made a judgment based on the rules they had. People are suggesting common sense, but what was common sense? I think common sense is restarting the match, wrong map, who cares at what point the game was at the game isn't real at that point... that is my opinion. You have one player in a clearly dominant position after a 13 minute game (which is fairly long by SC2 standards) Everyone saw there was no coming back from that and GG was imminent. Game is suddenly stopped and a guaranteed win is taken away from a player because of the mistake made by the staff. Is it common sense to punish the player for that? Have you ever played a live tournament or competed in anything? Psychologically it's a big deal and influences the player state of mind, not only his but his opponents as well. It's different playing when you are 0:1 in a BO3 and even more so when you actually won the first game but it gets reset to a 0:0. I hope you realize that.
But what is the right thing to do here? Let the players decide? Ok well how long do the players have to decide if they want to continue? Do they have to decide right then? Do they get 3 minutes to look over the map and decide? At that point you are making up new rules which is just as bad.
No, not let the players decide. But also not punishing the players. Making up new rules isn't the same as applying common sense to the existing ones. If the rules are written way too rigid and absolutely need to be enforced (leaving no room for the situational decisions) then they are poorly written. The problem, once again, is saying "common sense". What if the game was a tiny bit closer? Leaving discretion, especially in matters of regame, is a very, very touchy subject that will result in hurt feelings. Having a set in stone rule avoids problems for the future. When a mistake happens there is no good result, so people have to stop with this notion of an answer that is good for both players. How about the guy who is mentally wrecked because he just realized he lost a match on a map he wasn't supposed to play on? That wouldn't be discouraging? It'll end shitty no matter what, best you can do is make sure you're not biased in your enforcement of rules so you make them universal. Once again, well played MLG. Stick to your guns in this case. But it wasn't closer. We are not playing a game of IF's, the situation was pretty much clear. The game itself wasn't controversial, it was over. Nothing hypothetical in this. Just to prove how speculation is pointless: how about a guy who is mentally wrecked because he just got his win snatched from underneath him? I also guarantee you that the Terran was feeling more then relieved when he realized he didn't lose in the first place. Which gave him another edge over Tyler. It's a shitty situation no matter what but the only one who ended up in a shitty position is Tyler.
We are playing a game of IF's. The people scrutinising this decision are very much the people who will scrutinise a future decision if they think it isn't a consistent outcome. And what will the refs do if presented with a more borderline situation? Consistency or correctness? Tournament organisers have to look at a bigger picture than one game.
And if you're going to argue all this doesn't matter, then how about the ref doesn't want to lose his job? Yeah, think about that for a moment. The problem here lies in the strict wording of the rules, not the application.
|
I watch a lot of Formula One (like indycar but with some right handed corners too) and a couple of years ago the sport with rife with the stewards (the panel that oversees the race and punishes the drivers for infringments etc) making stupid calls that completely ruined races. the calls were "following the rules to the letter" but the fact of the matter was that the rules were too basic, and did not take into account all the eventualities.
Races were being ruined, even championships being decided because of decisions made by people who didn't understand motorracing, who just opened up a rule book to a page and then dished out punishments for infringements with no sense of scale or context.
The outcry from the public, drivers, teams, and virtually everyone else just got so huge that nowadays the FIA hire an ex-racing driver to sit on the stewards panel every race weekend. His job is to help the stewards make their decisions, to use common sense and draw from his wealth of experiance as a driver. It's been a massive improvement. Drivers are still punished for breaking the rules, but we don't have races ruined by silly decisions.
Consider something like this for MLG.
|
thanks for the post here mlg lee. i'm sure its been asked/suggested but maybe a referee call when something like the wrong map or a disconnect happens that late in the game happens. from my pov liquidtyler had the game won, with double the worker count/fully running expansion, and killing much of pain's army.
|
Look nobody is arguing that a mistake was made and one player got screwed. People are letting their emotions and like for Tyler get in the way with the argument. The point I'm making is, a mistake was made and someone was going to get screwed. As someone else stated above, what if someone leaned over the PU and said, "Hey dude you just lost a game on a map you weren't even suppose to play on." What then? How about the psychological affect on him?
At the end of the day, a mistake was made and the only thing they had to go on was the rules that they had written and their best interpretation of them.
How about another similar situation, for those that follow sports(if there are any out there). Calvin Johnson clearly catches a touchdown pass to win the game for the Lions in their week 1 opener. However, the way the rules were written the catch was not allowed and the NFL came out after and basically said, "the ref made the right call according to the rules, however it is a bad rule, should probably have been a catch and we are looking into changing it." It is a very similar situation, and we are talking about an organization like the NFL with much more on the line, at least monetarily. So it happens.
|
"About to lose game in MLG" ..... pulling the plug with my sleek looking toes.......
Regame I win and move on.... Yay Smart player 1 - Retarded admins 0.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 07 2010 13:06 Vimsey wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 13:02 Trang wrote:On November 07 2010 12:55 Vimsey wrote:On November 07 2010 12:46 Trang wrote:On November 07 2010 12:24 Vimsey wrote:On November 07 2010 12:21 Slow Motion wrote:On November 07 2010 12:15 Vimsey wrote:On November 07 2010 12:05 Slow Motion wrote:
Letting players chat isn't bending the rules, it's explicitly breaking the rules. MLG shouldn't have that rule in the first place if they don't intend to enforce it. I suspect its there to stop smack talk or bm and its a lot better to have an all encompassing one like that that you will only enforce when needed rather than one with lots of loopholes in that could be argued over what is and isnt BM/smack talking to gain an advantage. No, when you make a rule you need to be honest about its scope. Having a strict rule, then saying "we'll only enforce the rule when needed" is the same as not having a rule and telling refs to punish people for BM. It gives too much discretion to refs with little guidance (exactly what OP is worried about). The whole point of the strict rules regime MLG is advocating is to have the rules spell out exactly what happens in a given situation. This gives players fair notice, and limits the discretion of refs. When you get to choose when to enforce the rule, then this accomplished neither. No rule is strictly applied 100% all the time. It happens that in all sports common sense is the overriding factor in a decision of a referee. Starcraft should be no exception to this otherwise you need to add a clause to it running over pages as to what chat will get you banned or just ban someone like Huk and look like a jumped up hitler by saying Huk DQ'd I dont care if you wanted to see the mothership and the end of the game. That's a common misconception that common sense tends to override the application of rules in many real life situations. The reason why people have this common misconception is that rules are often drafted in either (1) terms that allow room for interpretation; or (2) give the decision maker discretion. An example of (1) would be where a rule states "Where a game is played on the wrong map, the game should be restarted if it would otherwise cause unfairness to the players". The application of the term "unfair" leaves room for flexible interpretation. An example of (2) would be where a rule states "Where a game is played on the wrong map, the game should be restarted unless the referee decides otherwise, taking into account any unfairness to the players or any circumstance he sees fit". Many rules are usually drafted in this way, the result being that there is a degree of flexibility. And this is why people think there should be flexibility in the way rules are applied. However, if the rules are NOT drafted in such a way, then the referee cannot really go against it without undermining the force of the rules. And you can't really expect a referee to undermine the credibility of their rule enforcement by bending rules rather than going through the proper purpose of fixing the rules afterwards. This is why the OP has stated the importance of setting good rules BEFORE the tournament, and not bending the rules DURING the tournament. The criticism is unwarranted and not founded on a proper understanding of how discretion fits in the relationship between drafting and applying rules. Last year a player in the premier league was punished by a ban of a number of matches. The rule plainly states if a player is booked for an offence it was deemed as the right decision by the referee so it cannot be overridden by review after the game. However because it was such a terrible decision and outrage ensued in the press the day after he was subsequently disciplined and banned. This is not a conceived perception this happens in all sports and I could give examples over many sports where a very clearly rigid rule is either ignored or changed to suit a situation of common sense. Yeah it can happen, but at the expense of the credibility of an institution's adherence to the rules they set. Like I and others have tried to say. It is about the bigger picture of respecting the system of rule making and enforcement. The fact that this principle is not followed on some occasions does not of itself show that the principle is a bad one. It's like me telling you that you shouldn't commit murder because it goes against principle, and you replying 'but some guy murdered someone last year!'. Or I could say he was raping my daughter in front of me and he had a gun and I the law would use some common sense. Edit to add that laws like that are very well written by legal experts and have in many cases stood for hundreds of years but I think some Judge said (I forget who) that 99% of the law is common sense.
You're right that law is about common sense. But if you're going to argue law, then law is NOT about overriding the clear intention of parliament. It's about the common sense approach to interpreting the words of the legislative instrument before them. Judges don't do magic, and words don't appear out of nowhere. So no, don't try to pull that argument here.
|
On November 07 2010 12:56 Trang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 12:52 upinthis wrote:On November 07 2010 12:46 Pleiades wrote:
Most progamers, or even any paid professionals in a sport, already know that they are consented to follow the call of the referee or whoever it is in charge of the authority in the game. If there are any serious problems or conflicts that arises, it is usually taken to the next higher level of authority to deal with. Sure people will criticize some of the decisions that will be made, but the players already know that they have to follow them regardless. I have to point out that progamers and professionals get salary. Actual athletes don't lose money when a referee makes a call; Tyler might be losing some if he ends up finishing in a lower place. You know that team sports based mainly on salary, rather than prize winnings, aren't the only sports out there? Eg tennis, golf, to name only a few ... And I'm pretty sure they all. on the most part. go by the ref's decision.
You know that tennis and golf are plagued by the same problems?
http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/blog/devil_ball_golf/post/Dustin-Johnson-s-rules-violation-costs-him-a-sho?urn=golf-262517
Even so, I don't think prestigious tournaments in tennis and golf make silly mistakes like playing on a the wrong court or course, anyways.
Or, not having a member of the staff (who all should know what map is first in the WB semifinals) watch THE televised game
|
It's unfortunate that a mistake was made, but MLG has been running events for a long time now and I personally am going to trust their experience in dealing with the incident. You can bet that no one feels worse about it than the MLG admins, and I'm also willing to bet that they will at least review the rule(maybe not change it, but it will be reviewed).
I also thought this post was a very class act.
|
No matter how badly called the decision was, the players still have to follow it. The refs/admins base their decisions on applying the rules to the situation and the players obey those decisions. Yes mistakes happen, decisions are criticized, but the point is to get the tournament running according to the rules and regulations in place.
Google Armando Galarraga, and you'll see. 
|
On November 07 2010 13:10 Trang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 13:03 nedamise wrote:On November 07 2010 12:59 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On November 07 2010 12:55 nedamise wrote:Once again that is the point, nobody here is actually agreeing on what the "fair" thing to do was. They made a judgment based on the rules they had. People are suggesting common sense, but what was common sense? I think common sense is restarting the match, wrong map, who cares at what point the game was at the game isn't real at that point... that is my opinion. You have one player in a clearly dominant position after a 13 minute game (which is fairly long by SC2 standards) Everyone saw there was no coming back from that and GG was imminent. Game is suddenly stopped and a guaranteed win is taken away from a player because of the mistake made by the staff. Is it common sense to punish the player for that? Have you ever played a live tournament or competed in anything? Psychologically it's a big deal and influences the player state of mind, not only his but his opponents as well. It's different playing when you are 0:1 in a BO3 and even more so when you actually won the first game but it gets reset to a 0:0. I hope you realize that.
But what is the right thing to do here? Let the players decide? Ok well how long do the players have to decide if they want to continue? Do they have to decide right then? Do they get 3 minutes to look over the map and decide? At that point you are making up new rules which is just as bad.
No, not let the players decide. But also not punishing the players. Making up new rules isn't the same as applying common sense to the existing ones. If the rules are written way too rigid and absolutely need to be enforced (leaving no room for the situational decisions) then they are poorly written. The problem, once again, is saying "common sense". What if the game was a tiny bit closer? Leaving discretion, especially in matters of regame, is a very, very touchy subject that will result in hurt feelings. Having a set in stone rule avoids problems for the future. When a mistake happens there is no good result, so people have to stop with this notion of an answer that is good for both players. How about the guy who is mentally wrecked because he just realized he lost a match on a map he wasn't supposed to play on? That wouldn't be discouraging? It'll end shitty no matter what, best you can do is make sure you're not biased in your enforcement of rules so you make them universal. Once again, well played MLG. Stick to your guns in this case. But it wasn't closer. We are not playing a game of IF's, the situation was pretty much clear. The game itself wasn't controversial, it was over. Nothing hypothetical in this. Just to prove how speculation is pointless: how about a guy who is mentally wrecked because he just got his win snatched from underneath him? I also guarantee you that the Terran was feeling more then relieved when he realized he didn't lose in the first place. Which gave him another edge over Tyler. It's a shitty situation no matter what but the only one who ended up in a shitty position is Tyler. We are playing a game of IF's. The people scrutinising this decision are very much the people who will scrutinise a future decision if they think it isn't a consistent outcome. And what will the refs do if presented with a more borderline situation? Consistency or correctness? Tournament organisers have to look at a bigger picture than one game. And if you're going to argue all this doesn't matter, then how about the ref doesn't want to lose his job? Yeah, think about that for a moment. The problem here lies in the strict wording of the rules, not the application.
No, we are not. It wasn't a situation where one player had a certain advantage and "who knows how the game would have unfolded." Tyler won. That's all there is to it.
If the game was (again with the bloody IF) was closer or if it was stopped much earlier then there would be nothing to discuss. It wasn't. I'm arguing this specific situation because to me it's an extreme case. A player won and then got punished for a mistake that wasn't even remotely his.
And really? Think about what you just said carefully:
The ref screws up and creates a very awkward situation for everyone involved as well as the viewers.
But I have to think about him not getting fired over making a decision I hoped would involve more common sense? What?
Nobody is bashing the MLG here, we are discussing a specific event and a specific decision. I don't agree it was a correct one even tho I realize the position they were in.
It was unfair and no amount of debate will change that.
|
i believe its the players fault for this one. Don't blame the admins. The players neglected to play on the proper map therefore a re game. Very simple
|
On November 07 2010 12:26 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 12:14 Etherone wrote:On November 07 2010 11:53 Jibba wrote:On November 07 2010 11:43 Pills wrote:On November 07 2010 11:37 Jibba wrote:
It's really unfortunate, but I believe you made the correct decision and I'm especially pleased that you were forthright about the situation and its reasoning. Follow the rules now, revise them later. That's how it needs to go.
There's minor infractions and then there's ones that actually affect gameplay. Having the wrong starting map obviously falls in the latter, while chitchat and switched colors are the former. Chit chat can be distracting to your opponent. Switching your color can be advantageous too: Qxc chose purple, which is the same color as the creep, and allows him to almost be camouflaged on the minimap while he's on creep. I say you restart all of those games if you're intent on following the rules without fail. Stop being a facetious ass. he has a point though, there are reasons for the rules, and reasons not to follow them in certain situations. Usually organizations deal with the latter by doing one of 2 things: 1. blindly following the rules set in place regardless of situational exceptions. 2. allowing leniency to previously designated officials to "bend" the rules to accommodate what would be the fairest solution to each particular situation that merits attention. what MLG did was claim to blindly follow the rules on this call, and then bend the rules to accommodate what would be fair on other calls. This is inconsistent as hell which is about as unfair as it can get. they allude to following the strict rules regime due to being overworked, because it does in fact take time and effort to make a situational call like that ( and many more like it im sure). on the other cases where they didn't follow the strict rules, they were calls of omission, where they didn't go out of their way to enforce the rules. So where do you draw the line where you go out of your way to enforce the rules? That's a fair argument to make, that there should be no distinction between major and minor infractions. Arguing that making "^_^" before the game or having blue/red switched distracts the players is not a real argument.
thing is making a ^_^ or "thats halo" or whatever WILL result in the forfeiture of the game according to their own rules. that's a pretty big deal imo, it is as important as the one brought up.
do i feel that it's a bit harsh in most cases, but i do agree that they should have the leeway to impose a forfeit loss in case certain lines are crossed in what is said in chat.
as i said his examples are a bit off, but his overall point is valid.
|
The game wasn't decided. It was obviously in Tyler's favor, but you can never say a game is over until it is. Tyler could mismicro. Painuser could have an amazing comeback. You just don't know. It was a great decision on MLG, that although leaves Tyler probably unhappy was the right call.
|
On November 07 2010 13:16 upinthis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 12:56 Trang wrote:On November 07 2010 12:52 upinthis wrote:On November 07 2010 12:46 Pleiades wrote:
Most progamers, or even any paid professionals in a sport, already know that they are consented to follow the call of the referee or whoever it is in charge of the authority in the game. If there are any serious problems or conflicts that arises, it is usually taken to the next higher level of authority to deal with. Sure people will criticize some of the decisions that will be made, but the players already know that they have to follow them regardless. I have to point out that progamers and professionals get salary. Actual athletes don't lose money when a referee makes a call; Tyler might be losing some if he ends up finishing in a lower place. You know that team sports based mainly on salary, rather than prize winnings, aren't the only sports out there? Eg tennis, golf, to name only a few ... And I'm pretty sure they all. on the most part. go by the ref's decision. You know that tennis and golf are plagued by the same problems? http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/blog/devil_ball_golf/post/Dustin-Johnson-s-rules-violation-costs-him-a-sho?urn=golf-262517Even so, I don't think prestigious tournaments in tennis and golf make silly mistakes like playing on a the wrong court or course, anyways. Or, not having a member of the staff (who all should know what map is first in the WB semifinals) watch THE televised game
Yeah exactly, and you might want to read that article you so politely linked for us all again. It said the problem was the rule itself being against the spirit of the game. And it didn't criticise the ref. You proved my point for me, thanks.
|
On November 07 2010 13:19 nedamise wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 13:10 Trang wrote:On November 07 2010 13:03 nedamise wrote:On November 07 2010 12:59 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On November 07 2010 12:55 nedamise wrote:Once again that is the point, nobody here is actually agreeing on what the "fair" thing to do was. They made a judgment based on the rules they had. People are suggesting common sense, but what was common sense? I think common sense is restarting the match, wrong map, who cares at what point the game was at the game isn't real at that point... that is my opinion. You have one player in a clearly dominant position after a 13 minute game (which is fairly long by SC2 standards) Everyone saw there was no coming back from that and GG was imminent. Game is suddenly stopped and a guaranteed win is taken away from a player because of the mistake made by the staff. Is it common sense to punish the player for that? Have you ever played a live tournament or competed in anything? Psychologically it's a big deal and influences the player state of mind, not only his but his opponents as well. It's different playing when you are 0:1 in a BO3 and even more so when you actually won the first game but it gets reset to a 0:0. I hope you realize that.
But what is the right thing to do here? Let the players decide? Ok well how long do the players have to decide if they want to continue? Do they have to decide right then? Do they get 3 minutes to look over the map and decide? At that point you are making up new rules which is just as bad.
No, not let the players decide. But also not punishing the players. Making up new rules isn't the same as applying common sense to the existing ones. If the rules are written way too rigid and absolutely need to be enforced (leaving no room for the situational decisions) then they are poorly written. The problem, once again, is saying "common sense". What if the game was a tiny bit closer? Leaving discretion, especially in matters of regame, is a very, very touchy subject that will result in hurt feelings. Having a set in stone rule avoids problems for the future. When a mistake happens there is no good result, so people have to stop with this notion of an answer that is good for both players. How about the guy who is mentally wrecked because he just realized he lost a match on a map he wasn't supposed to play on? That wouldn't be discouraging? It'll end shitty no matter what, best you can do is make sure you're not biased in your enforcement of rules so you make them universal. Once again, well played MLG. Stick to your guns in this case. But it wasn't closer. We are not playing a game of IF's, the situation was pretty much clear. The game itself wasn't controversial, it was over. Nothing hypothetical in this. Just to prove how speculation is pointless: how about a guy who is mentally wrecked because he just got his win snatched from underneath him? I also guarantee you that the Terran was feeling more then relieved when he realized he didn't lose in the first place. Which gave him another edge over Tyler. It's a shitty situation no matter what but the only one who ended up in a shitty position is Tyler. We are playing a game of IF's. The people scrutinising this decision are very much the people who will scrutinise a future decision if they think it isn't a consistent outcome. And what will the refs do if presented with a more borderline situation? Consistency or correctness? Tournament organisers have to look at a bigger picture than one game. And if you're going to argue all this doesn't matter, then how about the ref doesn't want to lose his job? Yeah, think about that for a moment. The problem here lies in the strict wording of the rules, not the application. No, we are not. It wasn't a situation where one player had a certain advantage and "who knows how the game would have unfolded." Tyler won. That's all there is to it. If the game was (again with the bloody IF) was closer or if it was stopped much earlier then there would be nothing to discuss. It wasn't. I'm arguing this specific situation because to me it's an extreme case. A player won and then got punished for a mistake that wasn't even remotely his. And really? Think about what you just said carefully: The ref screws up and creates a very awkward situation for everyone involved as well as the viewers. But I have to think about him not getting fired over making a decision that involves more common sense? What? Nobody is bashing the MLG here, we are discussing a specific event and a specific decision. I don't agree it was a correct one even tho I realize the position they were in. It was unfair and no amount of debate will change that.
Not really. Was Tyler in a very, very good position to win? Yes. However, I could say the same thing at several points of the game on Kulas. This was not one of those rare 99% chance to win errors, despite being in a good position.
It's not even about this specific decision, it's about enforcing a rule for all future situations. No flexibility on this particular rule is the only way to go about it, and for most rules for that matter.
|
On November 07 2010 13:24 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 13:19 nedamise wrote:On November 07 2010 13:10 Trang wrote:On November 07 2010 13:03 nedamise wrote:On November 07 2010 12:59 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On November 07 2010 12:55 nedamise wrote:Once again that is the point, nobody here is actually agreeing on what the "fair" thing to do was. They made a judgment based on the rules they had. People are suggesting common sense, but what was common sense? I think common sense is restarting the match, wrong map, who cares at what point the game was at the game isn't real at that point... that is my opinion. You have one player in a clearly dominant position after a 13 minute game (which is fairly long by SC2 standards) Everyone saw there was no coming back from that and GG was imminent. Game is suddenly stopped and a guaranteed win is taken away from a player because of the mistake made by the staff. Is it common sense to punish the player for that? Have you ever played a live tournament or competed in anything? Psychologically it's a big deal and influences the player state of mind, not only his but his opponents as well. It's different playing when you are 0:1 in a BO3 and even more so when you actually won the first game but it gets reset to a 0:0. I hope you realize that.
But what is the right thing to do here? Let the players decide? Ok well how long do the players have to decide if they want to continue? Do they have to decide right then? Do they get 3 minutes to look over the map and decide? At that point you are making up new rules which is just as bad.
No, not let the players decide. But also not punishing the players. Making up new rules isn't the same as applying common sense to the existing ones. If the rules are written way too rigid and absolutely need to be enforced (leaving no room for the situational decisions) then they are poorly written. The problem, once again, is saying "common sense". What if the game was a tiny bit closer? Leaving discretion, especially in matters of regame, is a very, very touchy subject that will result in hurt feelings. Having a set in stone rule avoids problems for the future. When a mistake happens there is no good result, so people have to stop with this notion of an answer that is good for both players. How about the guy who is mentally wrecked because he just realized he lost a match on a map he wasn't supposed to play on? That wouldn't be discouraging? It'll end shitty no matter what, best you can do is make sure you're not biased in your enforcement of rules so you make them universal. Once again, well played MLG. Stick to your guns in this case. But it wasn't closer. We are not playing a game of IF's, the situation was pretty much clear. The game itself wasn't controversial, it was over. Nothing hypothetical in this. Just to prove how speculation is pointless: how about a guy who is mentally wrecked because he just got his win snatched from underneath him? I also guarantee you that the Terran was feeling more then relieved when he realized he didn't lose in the first place. Which gave him another edge over Tyler. It's a shitty situation no matter what but the only one who ended up in a shitty position is Tyler. We are playing a game of IF's. The people scrutinising this decision are very much the people who will scrutinise a future decision if they think it isn't a consistent outcome. And what will the refs do if presented with a more borderline situation? Consistency or correctness? Tournament organisers have to look at a bigger picture than one game. And if you're going to argue all this doesn't matter, then how about the ref doesn't want to lose his job? Yeah, think about that for a moment. The problem here lies in the strict wording of the rules, not the application. No, we are not. It wasn't a situation where one player had a certain advantage and "who knows how the game would have unfolded." Tyler won. That's all there is to it. If the game was (again with the bloody IF) was closer or if it was stopped much earlier then there would be nothing to discuss. It wasn't. I'm arguing this specific situation because to me it's an extreme case. A player won and then got punished for a mistake that wasn't even remotely his. And really? Think about what you just said carefully: The ref screws up and creates a very awkward situation for everyone involved as well as the viewers. But I have to think about him not getting fired over making a decision that involves more common sense? What? Nobody is bashing the MLG here, we are discussing a specific event and a specific decision. I don't agree it was a correct one even tho I realize the position they were in. It was unfair and no amount of debate will change that. Not really. Was Tyler in a very, very good position to win? Yes. However, I could say the same thing at several points of the game on Kulas. This was not one of those rare 99% chance to win errors, despite being in a good position. It's not even about this specific decision, it's about enforcing a rule for all future situations. No flexibility on this particular rule is the only way to go about it, and for most rules for that matter.
The game on Kulas isn't a good example because the Terran had a lot of bases and a great economy going. The game was swinging back and forth but it was never such a clear cut crippling advantage like the first game.
I do believe rules need to be enforced vigorously but I also believe that sometimes it's important to make correct decisions based on the situation.
DiMaga vs Tarson regame during IEM? Good decision.
Not DQ-ing Kryx RO8 GSL? Good decision.
Do you honestly believe that the integrity and credibility of those tournaments was endangered because of those decisions?
|
Just letting everyone know, a similar thing happened last year at MLG's championships with Halo 3. The favored team (Triggers Down) was playing against another team in a best of 5 series. In game 4 in which TD was up in the series 2-1, it was capture the flag (first to 5 wins). TD was literally a second away from capturing the 5th flag, which would win them the series, when the host's xbox disconnected. This made them have to restart the game due to the rules and TD ended up losing the series and getting a poor placement in the tournament.
People were really pissed about this for a while, but eventually people did come to the realization that MLG had to follow the rules. Even though TD essentially did win the game, it still was not over. In this situation, I think they were definitely right in restarting it (albeit they should have done it sooner). It is a shame for everyone involved when stuff like this happens, but MLG has to follow the rules on stuff like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
