|
I am not bothered by this decision because there is no other way around it. I am bothered by the consistency in the enforcement of the rules.
What will happen the next time someone pick another colour (purple) which can be used intentionally (or not) to camouflage drops.
Or if people chat to use mindgames. The Huk mothership was obviously just a friendly banter but people might argue that he used it to play mindgames with his opponent which is not allowed as chats are only allowed for gamesmanship and surrendering ( GL HF GG)
What if the opponent actually invoked these rules and asked for the opponent to be forfeited. The precedent was set before that MLG felt these violations did not deserve punishments because nothing was done to players who did them. Yet , MLG Lee stated that they are going to follow the rules very strictly by the word to ensure integrity. This seems contradictory to me and can be a potential banana skin in the future.
|
game was already too far in, shouldnt have restarted. tlyer had a huge lead and after you forced them to restart, painuser won it 2-0 when tyler should have had a 1-0 lead which is a huge advantage
|
On November 07 2010 13:31 dtz wrote:
I am not bothered by this decision because there is no other way around it. I am bothered by the consistency in the enforcement of the rules.
What will happen the next time someone pick another colour (purple) which can be used intentionally (or not) to camouflage drops.
Or if people chat to use mindgames. The Huk mothership was obviously just a friendly banter but people might argue that he used it to play mindgames with his opponent which is not allowed as chats are only allowed for gamesmanship and surrendering ( GL HF GG)
What if the opponent actually invoked these rules and asked for the opponent to be forfeited. The precedent was set before that MLG felt these violations did not deserve punishments because nothing was done to players who did them. Yet , MLG Lee stated that they are going to follow the rules very strictly by the word to ensure integrity. This seems contradictory to me and can be a potential banana skin in the future.
This is very true, one minute the rules are been enforced and the result is screwing someone out of a win which is fair enough IF it applys to ANY breaking of the rules, however previously qxc used the purple colour for(or not, but i cant see another reason) camoflauge on creep and no rules were enforced on this, perhaps because his opponent won but either way its a breakage of the rules. I just feel bad for tyler to be screwed out of a almost certain win in game one + Show Spoiler +and result in a loss of the series(whether or not the restart played a role in the other games is only to be speculated)
|
Really appreciate the post, Lee. I know you're taking a lot of flak for this, but rules are rules, and they're meant to protect the players and the integrity of the game. For instance, what would have happened if Pain.User had lost the game, lost the match, and then went back and noticed the error. MLG would lose a lot of face in the community. Unless there is an extremely compelling reason to overrule something (eg, Tyler was just about to kill the last building when it was noticed and paused), procedure should be followed.
I don't know if it was mentioned in this thread yet, but in the LB finals of the Tekken tournament, one of the players actually unplugged his opponents controller during a little ragefit. I don't know exactly what the rule is, but the announcers made it seem like there wasn't actually a rule to cover this scenario, or maybe that they would let it slide. It looked really bad and unprofessional to not have a completely clear guide about what to do in that situation, as both players whined to the ref on stage in front of hundreds.
So I'm really just glad that there was in fact a rule in place to cover this odd scenario, and that it was enforced.
|
On November 07 2010 13:30 nedamise wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 13:24 I_Love_Bacon wrote: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?
Proving my point exactly. There can't be some set standard rule as to "how far ahead" somebody has to be to suddenly give them the win. It can't be established outside of "lol he has 1 building left and no army" type situations. So you make a blanket rule that covers them all to make sure you're consistent in rulings.
It's a shitty situation so you can't expect a happy outcome, but you can make sure consistency is followed by drawing the line in the sand.
|
I didn't see a post about this on the mlgpro forum, so
Everyone from the players to those watching the stream could have/should have been aware of what the actual map should have been. If the map that was mistakenly chosen was horribly advantageous for one side, the player at a disadvantage would well be within his rights to call before play started to point that out and fix the error.
However, this brings to light a huge flaw in the rule as it stands: as there is no clearly defined onus for the players to be responsible for the status of the game, had Tyler or PainUser realized what was going on they could have done a super aggressive all in/cheese play at absolutely no risk to themselves. If it failed, instead of typing out they could have casually called over an admin and pointed out that the map selection was wrong.
Even if the results were voided after a completed match when the mistake was discovered, the psychological damage would be done.
My initial reaction was that the rule should be amended that after the (30 second/60 second/3 minute/5 minute) mark that you could not void the results of a game based on a map selection error, and then I realized that would also allow for exploitation as players could abort for anything, down to not liking their spawn position. Policing the map should only be done before the game has actually begun.
|
The rules ban chatting in-game too, but I've yet to see anyone punished for it.
|
You guys all assume that if it was up to the players' choice to count the LT match, that pain.user would have agreed to continue. What if pain.user didn't want the match to count?? Better to follow the rules, imo.
(pain.user seems like a good sport and probably would have counted the match if given the option. just a hypothetical situation to argue my point.)
|
The rules ban chatting in-game too, but I've yet to see anyone punished for it.
Good call, nobody has brought that up yet.
|
If rules are being revised after tournaments, then why does this extended series rule still exist for the losers bracket? It's a pretty retarded rule to put it bluntly and it definitely ensures someone an unfair advantage.
What happened here is that MLG screwed up and that a player was denied his win because of it. That's called unfair. I find it funny you'd defend the application of this rule by saying it ensures a fair competetive environment while it does exactly the opposite.
We all know that it was a mere technicality they weren't playing on the proper starting map. No-one cares what map they play on, and no-one cares (or even knew) what maps MLG had assigned for each round. The only thing MLG could've done to mess this up and discredit their organisation is to stop a practically won game 13 minutes in on account of a technicality that had no influence on the match being played at all.
That MLG personnel works too many hours is also a lame excuse. It's like a surgeon cutting through someone's aorta and saying "sorry brah, working a double shift". Or a champions league game that's being cancelled half-way through because it's the wrong grass (herp derp).
It's not a volunteer run amateur organisation. If there's too little personnel to perform the jobs they're paid for adequately then they need too hire more people, or rather better suited workers. These kind of mistakes will quickly lead to conspiracy theories like the referee being bought off by pain.user, conspiracies that will hurt MLG a lot more than a referee that doesn't notice people are playing on a different map than says on his dummy chart and then rightly continues to not notice untill the match is over.
Bottom line is that you can't cover every possible situation in a set of rules. It's the reason that new laws are being added and adjusted every day, it's also the reason that judges can make calls on their own judgement if the situation calls for it. Being unable to bend the rules when the situation is right for it just shows that MLG is an unflexable paper organisation. Sticking to what it says on a piece of paper is taking the easy road, that rules are there to ensure fair play doesn't mean you don't have to question their validity and purpose in specific situations. Please hammer it into your heads how stupid it sounds:
MLG: "Even though applying this rule is unfair towards the participating players and totally our fault, we're going to do it anyways because following the rules ensures a fair and competetive playing field."
I hate it when people seem to forget why certain rules exist and continue to apply them even when they're not serving their original purpose. Being a good referee is more than mindlessly following what's written down.
|
On November 07 2010 13:57 FLuE wrote:Show nested quote +The rules ban chatting in-game too, but I've yet to see anyone punished for it. Good call, nobody has brought that up yet.
Not to be a dick, but there have been a few good points brought up in this thread and Lee is dodging them quite well. Wanted to bring attention to this one, since it very relevant to this discussion and how future MLG tournaments will be decided.
|
On November 07 2010 14:03 Saechiis wrote:
It's not a volunteer run amateur organisation. If there's too little personnel to perform the jobs they're paid for adequately then they need too hire more people, or rather better suited workers. These kind of mistakes will quickly lead to conspiracy theories like the referee being bought off by pain.user, conspiracies that will hurt MLG a lot more than a referee that doesn't notice people are playing on a different map than says on his dummy chart and then rightly continues to not notice untill the match is over.
Wait, it will lead to suspecting conspiracy theories because they followed the rules? No, a conspiracy theory would come if they didn't follow the rules.
Unless the rules are a conspiracy too...
Oh shit, the plot just thickened and I just blew my mind.
|
On November 07 2010 13:24 Trang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 13:16 upinthis wrote: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.
rules are made by somebody. MLG makes the rules and referees the games, no? And it did criticize the ref - the ref did not tell Johnson that he was in a bunker.
I don't even know what your point is. Are you saying that your point is "the rule is against the spirit of the game, but don't criticize MLG"?
Stop arguing multiple arguments, you're getting mixed up.
|
I had forgotten how strict that rule was. From the MLG website:
Gameplay
1. No Pausing a Game without Referee’s permission. If an issue arises that requires a Pause, Players should contact their Referee immediately. Referees may approve or deny a Player’s request to Pause the Game. Pausing a Game without Referee’s permission will result in a Warning. If a Player receives a 2nd Warning they will Forfeit their current Game (See Gameplay Rule #17).
2. Players may not look at an opposing Player’s Monitor or projected screen.
3. Players may not chat in-game unless they are engaging in pre-game sportsmanship or surrendering the Game.
4. Players must disable Toast Notifications in the Battle.net options.
5. Players must set their status to Busy.
6. Breaking any of Gameplay Rules #2-5 will result in a Forfeit of the Game.
I think these are quite unnecessarily harsh (like the KeSPA rules which were eventually loosened), but it is worth pointing out that according to these rules, PainUser would have lost the game on Kulas Ravine when he commented about how the map was dark.
From the game:
00:00:07 - PainUser to ALL: this map so dark
00:00:07 - PainUser to ALL: x.x
00:23:27 - LiquidTyler to ALL: gg
|
Sorry to sound BM, but honestly, coming here to post an apology of the fact doesn't automagically get you off the line. I can respect the intent, but the decision was insulting to both the observers and the players, but for the player, you might have cost them a series - why punish them for the mistakes of your admins?
You talk about credibility, then would any of you at MLG care to comment on your rules of ingame chat that many have pointed out in this thread?
|
On November 07 2010 14:16 HunterX11 wrote:I had forgotten how strict that rule was. From the MLG website: Gameplay 1. No Pausing a Game without Referee’s permission. If an issue arises that requires a Pause, Players should contact their Referee immediately. Referees may approve or deny a Player’s request to Pause the Game. Pausing a Game without Referee’s permission will result in a Warning. If a Player receives a 2nd Warning they will Forfeit their current Game (See Gameplay Rule #17). 2. Players may not look at an opposing Player’s Monitor or projected screen. 3. Players may not chat in-game unless they are engaging in pre-game sportsmanship or surrendering the Game.4. Players must disable Toast Notifications in the Battle.net options. 5. Players must set their status to Busy. 6. Breaking any of Gameplay Rules #2-5 will result in a Forfeit of the Game.I think these are quite unnecessarily harsh (like the KeSPA rules which were eventually loosened), but it is worth pointing out that according to these rules, PainUser would have lost the game on Kulas Ravine when he commented about how the map was dark. From the game: 00:00:07 - PainUser to ALL: this map so dark 00:00:07 - PainUser to ALL: x.x 00:23:27 - LiquidTyler to ALL: gg
Good point.
|
My understanding of MLG events is that there are many starcraft 2 games played at the same time as well as other games, right? Since these events only take place over a few days, I don't know if MLG has enough referees/admins to spectate each game. It would explain why people would think that the rules not being applied inconsistently in some games. It's not like the GSL, where the Ro64 and up games are played one at a time over a period of a few weeks, which requires less referees to spectate.
|
Listen, we're all upset. The only thing we can pull from this incident is:
A. The rule needs a revision. Make it only eligible for a restart within 2 minutes of the game starting. If it isn't caught, tough luck. But hopefully this rule won't ever need to be used again if you guys...
B. ...get some admins to actually pay attention. Not only did it suck for Tyler, but when a widely broadcasted game goes 13 whole minutes before an admin realizes they are playing on the completely wrong map, it's bad news for everyone involved: the players, the fans, and especially the organizers. I could understand if it was a game not being casted, but it's almost inexcusable that it wasn't.
Just have better communication, MLG. That's all we can ask.
|
I am sure this has been said before, but i don't want to read through 11 pages.
Before you decide to "enforce the rules", I think you should ask both players if they are fine with continuing the current game. That could even be "part of the rules".
|
The MLG admins put themselves in a tough spot. They decided to follow the rules to the letter in this case while not following them in other cases. Many fans are mad, especially protoss fans. But is this any worse than that yellow paint on that kid's room in that Gamer House ad? If you're going to rage, go after that hideous yellow paint.
Mod edit - don't use colours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
