|
On November 07 2010 11:53 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
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.
|
As much as I dislike the decision to restart the series, he's right. Rules are in place to be enforced and adhered.
You should consider adding a two minute limit to this rule.
|
i totally understand mlgs reasoning and appreciate that they come here to clear things up.
but i totally disagree with how they handled this situation. you dont go into a 13 minute match where one has a significant advantage and say "lolsorry worng map.our mistake badluck ^_^v". its just not an option. yeah having and enforcing rules is good and needed but you have to take common sense into it.
also dont forget that in a professional tournament like you are trying to run there is quite something on the line for the players. so a "whoops our mistake. restart plx!" should be handled more carefully.
so ya mistakes happen and its nice that communication happens but i think that situation was handled very very poorly. when you do such big mistakes and dont notice it for 13 minutes then dont punish the players.
|
On November 07 2010 11:53 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +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.
What, you stated something wrong, and I corrected it. If your argument is based on fallacies, then you should either shut up or find a new argument.
I'm disappointed but I hope that MLG can use this as a learning experience and actually act with some more common sense in the future. Otherwise, they can stick with their rules and start banning everybody left and right if they really think their rules are that sacred, especially since it was MLG's fault for it happening in the first place.
|
the chatting problem could be trivial. However, the colour is not.
Choosing purple against zerg means that you can camoflauge your drops. And you can't force someone to change his allied colour settings if he is not used to it.
Potentially game changing if you fail to stop drops because it cannot be seen in the minimap.
|
On November 07 2010 12:15 Vimsey wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
What if you were playing ZvT on LT and you got cliff dropped or some other map dependent cheesy tactic. Everyone else gets to play on Xel Naga, and you get royally screwed because the map was wrong. This is why the rule is in place, it evens the playing field for everyone.
|
Bad decision on MLGs part.
They should have bumped the series to a Bo7 or something. It kinda sucks as a player to win the game using a strategy you practiced and then have the game not count because the organizers fucked up. It messes with the player and it just makes for an unfair outcome.
|
On November 07 2010 11:44 absalom86 wrote:Show nested quote +
That said, the reason that it was a full reset was because that's what in the rules. A league is based on its credibility and its credibility comes from how closely it adheres to its rules. This rule left no room for discretion.
I think you are taking rules in a wrong way. It was a rule to report all jews to the Nazis in World War II, I for one am glad people didn't follow it. Really sad for Tyler to get such an unfair treatment, it clearly threw him off as he had won that match. User was temp banned for this post.
LOL..... LOOOL WORST ANALOGY EVER. Oh man... so random I can't breathe.
Anyway....Thanks MLG Lee for the clarification and support, I'm more than confident to say over 90% of fans love you guys and are satisfied with the outstanding job you guys are doing, as this has been one of the best SC2 Tournaments I've had the pleasure of watching. (I am confused why it's such taboo to talk about other tournaments though).
Human error is always a factor, always. To be fair it was everyone's mistake not just MLG Admins ,therefore its forgivable. I DO feel there should be a gentlemanly rule available for the players to decide in such extreme situations. I personally would have forfeited game 1 on Xel'Naga (As PainUser) because I rightfully lost the first one. That's just me though.
Edit - Someone else pointed out there should be a time limit to this rule which I fully agree on. If the game has gone on for more than 2 - 5 minutes without anyone noticing should just be considered human error on everyone's part and continue on as usual.
|
Playing maps in the wrong order is clearly less harm than restarting a 13 minute match.
Rules should never be treated as law when they violate reason and logic.
It is dogmatic and foolish do otherwise. And all too common.
|
On November 07 2010 12:14 FLuE wrote:Show nested quote +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. Common, use some common sense here. The intent of the chatting rule is so someone doesn't type nonstop the entire match being annoying or intentionally creating a disruptive atmosphere. The point of the rule isn't so that if an occasional comment is made here and there a player is DQ'ed or penalized. It is like the speed limit. Even though it is 55, we all go a few miles an hour over and get away with it that is just understood. We have pages of comments in the MLG threads talking about how important map selection has been and now all the sudden we are going to act like playing an opening game match on the wrong map isn't a big deal? It is a shame that it happened, no doubt. Now they can go back though and clean up the rule going forward. I personally think not restarting and allowing the game to continue could be a much worse, slippery slope situation and would have shown less integrity to allow the game then to restart it.
Isn't that the point here? Why not use common sense in this situation just like they did in the Huk/TLO situations instead of just reading off a sheet of paper on what to do? (cause they surely did not do that or else huk/tlo would have forfeited one game each) Yes, "common sense" in this situation is not as clean cut, but they still should have considered other options (such as letting the players decide whether to continue or not, the tournament is for them after all) rather than read the rule and say "well there's no room for discretion here, we'll think on this later".
|
On November 07 2010 12:21 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 07 2010 11:41 Boblion wrote:I'm not a fan of Nony but i felt really bad for him after the LT game =/ Just wanted to say that he had a great behaviour, no whine and super classy. I understand the issue about the rules though. To be honest the MLG is my favourite tournament. Great production, good casters, lot of known foreigners, lot of games casted ( Boooooooooooo Blizzcon -.- ), replays are released, quick update of the brackets etc ... So i have to say great joob guys  edit: and please let the players chat, it makes things way more enjoyable :p
Yeah MLG has the best atmosphere and it just a completely different event than tournaments that go day by day.
I think if Koreans played us in these kind of tournaments it would be completely even with foreigners
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 07 2010 12:14 Etherone wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 07 2010 12:22 Slardarxt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 11:44 absalom86 wrote:
That said, the reason that it was a full reset was because that's what in the rules. A league is based on its credibility and its credibility comes from how closely it adheres to its rules. This rule left no room for discretion.
I think you are taking rules in a wrong way. It was a rule to report all jews to the Nazis in World War II, I for one am glad people didn't follow it. Really sad for Tyler to get such an unfair treatment, it clearly threw him off as he had won that match. User was temp banned for this post. LOL..... LOOOL WORST ANALOGY EVER. Oh man... so random I can't breathe. Anyway....Thanks MLG Lee for the clarification and support, I'm more than confident to say over 90% of fans love you guys and are satisfied with the outstanding job you guys are doing, as this has been one of the best SC2 Tournaments I've had the pleasure of watching. (I am confused why it's such taboo to talk about other tournaments though). Human error is always a factor, always. To be fair it was everyone's mistake not just MLG Admins ,therefore its forgivable. I DO feel there should be a gentlemanly rule available for the players to decide in such extreme situations. I personally would have forfeited game 1 on Xel'Naga (As PainUser) because I rightfully lost the first one. That's just me though.
Yes, this. People are acting like this mistake was 100% the fault of MLG. In the mean time, neither the casters, players, or host recognized the error and attempted to resolve the situation quickly. Sucks that it happened, but its hard to be upset with MLG for following their rules. I think if they had flexed for this situation, it would have created a bad precedent for future games/tourneys.
|
On November 07 2010 12:24 Vimsey wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You're still missing the point. MLG is the one that wants a strict rules regime, for the reasons I cited and the ones in his OP. If you want to give refs discretion, then the rule itself should be worded to do just that. BE HONEST. If you write a rule that says "Players may not chat in-game unless they are engaging in pre-game sportsmanship or surrendering the Game," then be prepared to enforce it. If you don't want to enforce this rule for some people, then you should word it so that it doesn't include them. This way your decisions don't seem arbitrary.
That's the whole point of the OP. He DOESN'T want the refs to do what they feel is best and has the most common sense in a certain situations (although I think is many circumstances this is the better way to do it). He wants them to be guided by specific rules. If so, then those rules must be enforced according to their scope, or else it's back to the situation where refs make their own decisions based on the specific circumstances. WHICH THE OP DOESN'T WANT.
|
it would be unfair to the other players of the round. If all the matches started on Xel Naga Caverns and this one started on LT then it would definitely favor some players/races over the other. IT really sucks for Tyler but MLG was correct to restart.
|
The rule is good. Keep the rule. Anytime you allow for players to decide it kinda' gets ugly because then expectations on their etiquette increase that they might allow a loss for fear of being looked down upon.
Emotions will fly high, especially around here, and people will complain about this ages. However, just imagine a different scenario where it's a ZvT on Lost Temple w/ close positions. Zerg is about to lose the game because, well, it's close positions on Lost Temple, and they realize it's the wrong map. The zerg shouldn't have to feel obligated to say he's "ok" with the game continuing and suffering a loss. Take the choice away from the players so they don't have to endure that type of thing.
Mistakes happen and tournaments don't always go smoothly. Stick to your guns, as you did, and it'll always be for the better.
|
On November 07 2010 12:31 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +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. You're still missing the point. MLG is the one that wants a strict rules regime, for the reasons I cited and the ones in his OP. If you want to give refs discretion, then the rule itself should be worded to do just that. BE HONEST. If you write a rule that says "Players may not chat in-game unless they are engaging in pre-game sportsmanship or surrendering the Game," then be prepared to enforce it. If you don't want to enforce this rule for some people, then you should word it so that it doesn't include them. This way your decisions don't seem arbitrary. That's the whole point of the OP. He DOESN'T want the refs to do what they feel is best and has the most common sense in a certain situations (although I think is many circumstances this is the better way to do it). He wants them to be guided by specific rules. If so, then those rules must be enforced according to their scope, or else it's back to the situation where refs make their own decisions based on the specific circumstances. WHICH THE OP DOESN'T WANT. I am not missing the point if you word it specifically it will run on for pages of legalese where its explained exactly what isnt acceptable or you leave loopholes that can and will be exploited. The Huk example I could object as his opponent saying that he was trying to play mind games and hide what he was doing.
I dont think rules should be enforced blindly, its not done in any other sport to my knowledge and thats why I dont agree with the decision made today because that was the reason they cited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
