|
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
i found the 'people aren't punished for breaking other rules ex: chat despite the follow the letter of the law mlg stance' stuff mildly amusing before, to see it actually come up in this series is completely hilarious.
|
279 Posts
We were wrapping for the day so this thread got ahead of me a litte. Hardly dodging anything.
The chat rule has been under review for a while now and is one of many we're considering changing.
|
Things like this highlight how some people fail to use their common sense. You followed the rules, but you made the wrong decision. The fact that the game made it that far and neither player had any issue should have been your first sign that you should just let it ride. The game was over when you guys pulled the plug. Really unfortunate.
|
On November 07 2010 14:51 MLG_Lee wrote:
We were wrapping for the day so this thread got ahead of me a litte. Hardly dodging anything.
The chat rule has been under review for a while now and is one of many we're considering changing.
you review rules after tournaments, not during, right? 
|
On November 07 2010 14:51 MLG_Lee wrote:
We were wrapping for the day so this thread got ahead of me a litte. Hardly dodging anything.
The chat rule has been under review for a while now and is one of many we're considering changing.
just because a rule is under review does not mean it should not be enforced. if the US government is considering changing the legal drinking age it does not give all ages the ability to buy alcohol. the current rule/law must still be enforced.
|
On November 07 2010 14:55 starcraft911 wrote:
Things like this highlight how some people fail to use their common sense. You followed the rules, but you made the wrong decision. The fact that the game made it that far and neither player had any issue should have been your first sign that you should just let it ride. The game was over when you guys pulled the plug. Really unfortunate.
you're kidding...im 100% sure that if they made the other decision people would still QQ. look at any other sport or professional organization. Lee is right, you have to adhere to the rules or it's pointless. He admitted that the rules were not right, but that happens ALL the time. ESPECIALLY in young leagues (and young games o.o) Even though it is kinda ridiculous, you can't just ignore everything based on the general consensus. If you follow sports at all there had been times where in retrospect it was the right thing to do because of the precedent it sets. The rules are garbage, agreed. Now they just change it. Especially in an event with this big of a prize pool. You kind of have to do these things.
|
On November 07 2010 15:07 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 14:51 MLG_Lee wrote:
We were wrapping for the day so this thread got ahead of me a litte. Hardly dodging anything.
The chat rule has been under review for a while now and is one of many we're considering changing. just because a rule is under review does not mean it should not be enforced. if the US government is considering changing the legal drinking age it does not give all ages the ability to buy alcohol. the current rule/law must still be enforced.
do we really need to give them shit 
personally i think it's better for them to not enforce rules in spots where clearly it doesnt actually help the tournament at all, which would include both pain user's chat, and the forced regame between tyler and painuser
|
I remember seeing a video from AskJoshy when he interviewed nony, as he asked how the rules were, and like, you could just tell the rules were garbage. Askjoshy interviewed like 5 players and you could just tell they felt undervalued as player (Limited practice time etc) during MLG events.
|
HuK is pretty chatty when it comes to some of his games, so changing that certain rule for MLG would do wonders for him. Canadians love to talk smack 
|
I agree with the stance taken right now - that the rules were clear, so you needed to follow them. From what I understand every round has a set first map, so this may alter the entire tournament (even if it is only slight).
After the tournament is over, you might want to consider giving the admins/refs more power to make judgement calls, however? I think everyone agrees that the situation it put the players in was less than ideal. If the mistake had been spotted within a minute and the game restarted, nobody would make a fuss, but the game had really passed the point where a stop could be fair.
I also want to say that the show of serious balls from MLG is impressive to me - you don't have to post here, but the fact that you do about an obviously sensitive topic is outstanding to me.
|
Controversy happen a lot.
TSL (BW and SC2), OSL, proleague, to name a few
They all stuck to their rules and made no exceptions. It would be almost unprecidented for MLG, a major lan event, to not do anything about it
Although I'm pissed that Tyler lost, this is a fundamental fact of tournaments. Whether it is Starcraft or Soccer, this is what you have to deal with.
|
the only thing that bothers me, is that not ALL the written rules are being enforced.
That being said, I think that MLG has done an amazing job with this event. much more reliable stream, and some great commenting.
lets cut them a bit of slack, even if we're sorry for Tyler.
|
MLG should just say it was their call to re-game and apologized. They would have been better off without such an extreme statement about 'strict adherence' to the rules. Taking this position has backfired because of the inconsistencies pointed out throughout this thread. Ultimately the rules seem to need a dash or two of common sense.
Rules are guidelines to enable fair play, however, the enforcement and interpretation should be done as needed while considering what is best for the players, sponsors and overall tournament integrity.
Also, can someone please get the players POV on this and share with use nerds? Maybe they are both fine with the regame and have moved on. Finally, why didn't PainUser just refuse the regame? I would have found that very honorable and would be a PainUser fan for it.
|
wow guys cut them some slack. Its done and over they can't change it now. Whats done is done move on sucks for nony no doubt it sucks alot but nothing can be done about it now...
|
harsh but correct decision, imo, was made.
You can't seriously believe none of the players knew they were playing on the wrong map after knowing there is a set first map.
-Terrain, pain-user might of knew and didnt say anything cause that map favours terrain
-tyler might of thought he was better then pain at LT.
you just never know if a player knew and just wanted to take advantage of it.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 07 2010 13:50 Quesa wrote:
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.
Quesa makes a very good point here. The map is set in stone and the players are expected to play on the listed map. It is each player's equal responsibility to ensure that the map is correct. Each player should be penalised if such an error occurs.
If you think this is both an unfair responsibility on the players and an unfair outcome, I suggest you think again. Competitions in other disciplines require similar responsibilities from participants. In bridge, for instance, it is not physically possible for each director (the equivalent of MLG's admin or referee) to personally ensure that the players are in the correct seats (which can stand as an equivalent for playing the correct map). Should this mistake occur, all players involved will be penalised. However, if the result is at all sensible, the result will stand. (This is a simplistic overview, but it should suffice.)
I think MLG should adopt a similar rule. Say, if neither player remembers the first map, each player should lose their right to veto a map in the next round. Another example: if a player forgets the map they vetoed after a game has been started on that map, that player loses their veto rights for the current round. The exact punishment is not important to this argument; what is important is that some punishment (obviously not too excessive, but enough to place the onus on the players) must be in effect. Of course, if a referee, admin or observer had the opportunity to check the match before it began, they should also be punished; but still the players must take some responsibility. In all cases bar the exceptional, the game will be played out from the very beginning, provided that the game was being played on a map from the legitimate map pool.
(Common sense should prevail over the draconian enforcement of rules, however; should an observer or referee insist that the map is to be X when it is instead supposed to be Y, the players should not be punished and a rematch on the correct map may be allowed.)
Even without explicit knowledge of such a way of ruling on this situation, I think it is unfathomable for the admin to have enforced a rematch. Lost Temple is a legitimate map from the competition's map pool. It appears that neither player had vetoed the map. More importantly, the decision to play on the map was made by both players, even if it was not done so consciously. The match should have been played out and the players punished. (I think an appropriate punishment, given the uncommon circumstances, would have been to give each player a warning. A further infraction worthy of receiving a warning would result in that player's forfeiture of the match, as is normal in MLG's set of rules.)
The reasoning is simple. Hypothetically, what would have happened if either player had won the match on Lost Temple and also the following match on the loser's choice of map, before the admin was aware of the problem? Would both matches be rendered void, since the first match would need to be replayed on the right map and the result of the second may have stemmed from this first illegitimate match (such as cheesing to overcome a 0:1 deficit)? Of course not, because the result would have been legitimate: the map played was one from the map pool, and the loser would have received a fair pick.
The fact that the admin was aware of the infraction before the match was completed is of no value. The players' chosen strategies and mindsets were tainted, in as much the same way (although by no means as drastic) as if a rematch was forced in the hypothetical scenario. Assuming a start on Xel'naga Caverns, had either player been intending to pick Lost Temple, that option would have to be seriously reconsidered. The conclusion is that an admin held more sway over a match than an admin should.
Having said that, the admin was under immense pressure and undoubtedly acted with best interests at heart. I'm glad Lee has reached out to the community; any grievances towards MLG (save from the players, and it sounds as though they themselves were very sporting about the decision) should be seriously reconsidered.
|
I honestly think they should have a RE of the entire series, as Painuser SHOULD have been DQed in the game where he chatted, but wasn't. I feel like the MLG staff could not have done a worse job enforcing their "Rules".
I was really upset over this matchup.
I initially typed just a bunch of obscenities against MLG, but reconsidered posting it. That's how damn mad I am right now over that call.
|
I was fine with the decision until I read above that chat is against the rules, but goes unpunished.
inconsistency and controversary look really bad together
|
There are many arguments which disagree with Mlg's decision which I'll try to give my point of view and why I think they made the right decision. (Sorry if I didn't get all points against their decision. I mostly skimmed the middle of the thread.)
The first argument is that the players should not be punished for Mlg's mistakes. Well if you look at it this way if Nony was given the win even if he was in a great position anything could have happened. Pain.User showed that game how one single moment could change the whole momentum of a game such as where Pain.User caught all of Tyler's colossuses out of position. Whatever decision you pick it would hurt both of them. Giving Tyler the win I feel hurts Pain.User more than it would hurt Tyler if the first game was replayed on the first map.
If they gave Tyler the win it actually effects the score. Tyler just needs to win one more game and he would win. It gives him momentum from the win also. How it hurts Pain.User is that as every competitive player should know if Pain.User felt he had a chance of coming back it would hurt his play so much if he was robbed or he felt that he was robbed of that chance by giving Tyler the win for the game. This could really effect his gameplay the next game. Its why Flash played so badly the game on fighting spirit during the Msl final power outage for the people who followed the bw pro scene. Also just the feeling of having your rhythm broken after a pause hurts your game. Also I don't know if its just me but my gameplay is really affected when a game I played is ended not because I lost or won but because of some outside circumstance like a disconnect.
Giving a regame hurts Tyler hurts his momentum because he was ahead in that game. It would also frustrate Tyler if he ends up losing the series. The key thing I thought with the regame is that it revealed one of his strategies that he had planned while Pain.user's build was revealed too but it was just a standard build that was revealed.
The other choice that Mlg had was to just finish the game on the map. The players were already 13 minutes into the game. Why I believe this is unfair is for the fact that there might have been other players who would have wanted to play on lt as the first map. The map can change the results of a series. See how the tournament would have been if you had a different starter map for each round. Every player should play on the same maps. Its unfair for the other players if Tyler could play on lost temple while others couldn't. This all depends on how the maps were chosen. I would think that the first map is prefixed for all players seeing how the first games so far were all the same maps for each round. This is why I believe that replaying the first game on the right map was the best decision.
Actually a few posts ahead of me I think Quesa gives a better reason for why just finishing the game isn't a good decision. Even though I think it would be pretty dick to give that as the reason for having a regame. "It was your responsiblity to play on the set map. Regame." Though you can say that the same to give a regame on the reason that they got to play on other maps while others couldn't. I guess its a difference between professionalism, keeping it equal for all players and what the fans/spectators wanted.
On Mlg's reasoning that they wanted to be strict on their rules because they don't want to make rules on the fly because there would be no point of having set rules if you were going to change them. And on the chance a situation occurs which is not listed in the rules, they already planned how to deal with it. But people say its contradicting because they aren't following their rules about chatting and they should enforce it and change it after. I think this is right actually because Mlg is going back on their word. I don't think its that major. Their reasoning for making their decision was wrong but the decision in itself was right. Having different colors or chatting can have a small to no role in a game the majority of the time but giving a win to an unfinished game the majority of the time always has a huge role on how the series would turn out The same could be said about players who got to play different maps than the other players. I think the decision they made was the decision that was the most fair overall in their current situation. I know its unfair for Tyler the most but situations like these happen. Would like to hear Tyler's and Pain.User's thoughts about the incident.
|
On November 07 2010 14:51 MLG_Lee wrote:
We were wrapping for the day so this thread got ahead of me a litte. Hardly dodging anything.
The chat rule has been under review for a while now and is one of many we're considering changing.
Don't deflect. The fact is that specific rule is not enforced. In many a game, people chatted (however briefly) and punishing them for it is indeed ridiculous, but MLG did not adhere to that rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
