EPT[MLG] LiquidTyler vs Pain.User restart issue - Page 9
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
jtw1n
United States18 Posts
| ||
|
nedamise
169 Posts
A player was punished for a mistake the staff made. You can look at this from any angle you want but it boils down to that. That in itself doesn't really help with credibility, now does it? Being too stiff and rigid about the rules where common sense is needed doesn't help credibility either. KryxZenith was over 15 minute late (the limit for disqualification) for his RO8 match against Foxer in the GSL yet admins decided on something that was overall better for everyone involved: after contacting him they decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and didn't disqualify him and rob the viewers of one of the best series in the GSL's (short) history. I understand your position and I thank you for the apology, shows some real professionalism and care. But that decision does not. | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
On November 07 2010 12:35 Vimsey wrote: 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. 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. OK I see what you're trying to say. You don't agree with the OP and you think refs should be given more discretion to do the best thing according to the circumstances, based on a loosely written rule. I agree. If you're gonna have this regime though, you still need to write your rules in a way that's honest about what you're trying to do. Say in the rule that refs will have the discretion to punish for "inappropriate" comments (and of course the ref has the freedom to decide what is appropriate given the circumstances). The problem with MLG is that this kind of thing will force them to take too much responsibility for their decisions. Now people can criticize them directly for dumb mistakes. In a strict rules regime, they can point to the rules and say tough but this is what we already wrote down. Not really our fault. Rules are rule. We can change it in the future if you want. This is rather pathetic and lame but it's also understandable and common. | ||
|
Trang
Australia324 Posts
On November 07 2010 12:24 Vimsey wrote: 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. | ||
|
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
| ||
|
FLuE
United States1012 Posts
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". 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. 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. And once again, why are we all assuming PainUser would have been fine continuing the game? I mean I know nothing about him, or his personality, but we don't know what he would have wanted. But to be honest, again like I've already said, if you make up some rule on the spot where painuser gets to choose and he says restart well all the sudden he is the least popular SC player ever. Everyone is looking at this from Tylers point of view, but lets reverse it and say they go "ok we are going to count the game." Well that isn't very fair to painuser what if he wanted to play on the proper map? | ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
| ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
love it so far  The incident is unfortunate but that only proves mlg is human Am glad they followed the rules, there was no other option valid option imo because it also sets a precedent if they deviate, and people could then always make claims to bend the rules in future events and they would have some precedent to back it up, For the long term its best to stick with rules during a tournament i think All players know all the rules beforehand and they would also be upset if the rules changed during an event Verry unfortunate for 1 of the players but that will always be the case in such situations  Asking the players if they ok with playing on is definatly not an option imo since it will put pressure on 1 of the playing to be a "good sports" and if he stays with his "rights" (the rules) he will be seen as a jerk Hard to say how it all effected everyone, maybe the one who was close to loosing the first game, was distracted by a map he didnt expect or the map just happend to be a favourit of his opponent Seeing how people talk about maps beeing unbalanced or race favoured, starting with the wrong map seems quiet a big deal to me Think the cancell of the first game did have a negative impact on tyler in the other games since to me his play looked weird and "forced" but that maybe just my imagination the error is 100% mlg,s fault btw  (who else:s)though not something you can realy blame them for, these things happen and alot of things went right and verry smooth The players dont have the responsability to make others follow the rules or to know wich map has to be played, thats the responsability of the referee There definatly should not be a gentlemens rule in the rulebook lol since basicly the definition of a gentlemans rule is that its a rule wich is NOT in the rulebook would be weird to put it in since its a verry vague concept | ||
|
SweetNJoshSauce
United States468 Posts
I've never bought the idea that "Well it sucks but rules are rules." Give me a break with the bureaucratic bullshit. I could understand if they wanted to restart after maybe 1 min, but the game was well on its way to concluding and the players(especially Tyler) ended up paying the price of this absurd decision. Common sense MLG.... Other then that today was some of the best SC2 I've seen yet | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
On November 07 2010 12:46 Trang wrote: 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 where it would be unfair 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 on any basis 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. All the criticism is unwarranted and not founded on a proper understanding of how discretion fits in the relationship between drafting and applying rules. Agreed. This is exactly what I'm trying to say. However, in this case MLG messed up. They drafted a rule about in-game comments that left little flexibility, then refused to apply it. But now in this thread they talk about the need for strict adherence to the rules. The inconsistency makes many of us a little unhappy. | ||
|
upinthis
United States19 Posts
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. edit: I don't know if I'm clear, but what i mean is, at the end of the day progamers and athletes still get the same amount of money regardless of the officiating. | ||
|
Vimsey
United Kingdom2235 Posts
On November 07 2010 12:46 Trang wrote: 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. Edit to add citing it as the reason for why you made a decision is also common though sadly and is often the easy way out of a sticky situation. I can see why they did it this way but I dont agree with it. | ||
|
nedamise
169 Posts
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's 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. | ||
|
Trang
Australia324 Posts
On November 07 2010 12:52 upinthis wrote: 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. | ||
|
Almtom
Sweden132 Posts
| ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
On November 07 2010 12:55 nedamise wrote: 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. 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. | ||
|
Trang
Australia324 Posts
On November 07 2010 12:55 Vimsey wrote: 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!'. | ||
|
nedamise
169 Posts
On November 07 2010 12:59 I_Love_Bacon wrote: 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. The fact that this principle is not followed on some occasions does not of itself show that the principle is a bad one. No, it doesn't. But it does show hypocrisy. If you decided on absolutely rigid rules that need to be enforced regardless of the situation then that's the way it has to be. You either take one stance or the other. They are either flexible or they are rigid, alternating between the two is no good. | ||
|
Enervate
United States1769 Posts
Corporations are by nature impersonal and are so large that strict rules must be commonly enforced because it is impossible to analyze every situation individually. Maybe a small individually-owned company would be different. But MLG doesn't want to look like your neighborhood LAN party organizers, they want to be a professional league. And I think most of you want the same. And anyways, in this particular game situation, I know the game was clearly in Tyler's favor, but the outcome of a game is always affected in part by the map. Close positions played a pretty big deal in the game. Maps play a large role in every SC2 game. Maybe Tyler prepared better for LT and more specifically the map positions. If the game was not supposed to be on LT, then Tyler was not supposed to get a win. Obviously the mistake was entirely MLG's fault and hopefully it won't happen again. But remaking a different game was the right choice and the only choice. | ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
On November 07 2010 13:03 nedamise wrote: 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 realizing 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 situations, because that's what rules are about. They're about anticipation of future IF's. If you allow for discretion you allow for complaints about "closer", so you remove ref discretion except in extreeeeeeme cases, and this particular rule should have no discretion. edit: An example of discretion gone wrong look up the teamliquid tournament in the beta and the drama with Artosis and Slush(I think it was Slush). http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=124327 | ||
| ||
