|
279 Posts
All,
A quick post from the event. MLG definitely recognizes that this was an error on our part--most especially catching it so late. And we definitely apologize to Pain.User and Tyler both for the error.
The blunt truth of the matter is that we're running a very large live event and we're all working 20 hours a day while we're here. Mistakes happen and we work as fast as possible to correct them when they do. So, we also apologize to you guys as their fans (and hopefully ours).
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. We don't make up rules on the fly at the tournament. On the rare occasions where we don't have a rule for a given situation, the tournament admin and the league commissioner consult to make a call. But AFTER the event, we revisit the situation and then codify the rules.
Any questions, please ask. I'll be monitoring this thread.
Thanks,
Lee
|
genuine post thank you sir
|
May I suggest you guy change the rule to asking the players if it's allright continuing on the wrong map...?
Edit: And honestly if Painuser wins it's gonna harm your credibility more than you not blindly following the rules.
|
if tyler loses this, i shall be pissed man.
User was warned for this post
|
I understand.
It's just really shitty for the person who has to suffer before you "codify the rule".
PainUser knew he lost. He told Tyler after the game he had like 15 scvs. That's as crappy as it gets for Tyler, and probably puts him on tilt more than losing the first game.
|
Why be so strict? Why not just ask the players if they're ok with playing the wrong map? Nobody cares about leagues following rules. They care about leagues being fair. Usually that means following the rules, but I don't think that was the case here. Why not be fair as opposed to technically right?
|
Thanks for taking the time to explain what happened, it really does make a difference.
And thanks for putting togehter this awesome event!
|
As Potatoto said, why could you not continue playing on that map. You had not noticed the error for about 10 minutes, so why not let it go on? What if this happened on one of these long games we've had today such as SEN vs QXC or Socke vs Liquid`Jinro?
|
Thank you for the post. MLG's involvement in the community is one of the reasons I buy the HD pass for every SC2 event.
Shit happens in live events, I guess, but if Liquid`Tyler loses I think everyone will be bummed out as he was way, way ahead in that game on Lost Temple. Anyway, keep on chuggin', MLG. Dallas has been awesome so far.
`Duke
|
so painuser just won game 1.
so if a disc happens in the midgame with someone having a clear advantage is it always going to be restart? its basically the same problem just caused by mlg.
even though i do appreciate mlgs work and understand that something like that can happen in the heat of the tourny
tyler should definitly be awarded with the win :/
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
I understand you had to adhere to the rules but there should be some room for flexibility. The fact that it was 13 minutes into the game and one player had a clearly advantage should've factored into the decision making. Maybe you should have a look at the rules again so that a little more common sense can be applied in future occurances.
|
279 Posts
On November 07 2010 10:40 -_- wrote:
Why be so strict? Why not just ask the players if they're ok with playing the wrong map? Nobody cares about leagues following rules. They care about leagues being fair. Usually that means following the rules, but I don't think that was the case here. Why not be fair as opposed to technically right?
Several questions like this and that's the "nice" thing to do, but it's not the RIGHT thing to do. If we do this EVERYTIME there's an issue, we mind as well just make rules up on the fly. The time to _SET_ rules is BEFORE the tournament. The time to _REVISE_ rules is AFTER the tournament. The rules that we set for the tournament is what players buy passes for and expect to have in place when they show up. That's a level competitive playing field.
And mistakes happen, we're human and we're here for 16-20 hours a day for 7 days straight getting the event ready and running it. Most for time you never even see them because when they do, we have rules in place that everyone can look at and say "this is how it's supposed to be."
If we adjusted them on the fly, and especially in a situation like this, there's no point to the rules.
And if the rule was to ask the players whether they should reset, in this instance Pain.User had a clear advantage. Wouldn't he say yes of course? And wouldn't Tyler say no, reset? Even if they're both perfect gentlemen about it (which, given who they are, I think they would be), how can that be a fair level playing field?
The SITUATION is what sucks here, not the rules. And we (MLG) errored, so we apologize for creating the situation.
EDIT: misphrased a bit about playing out.
|
Rules are meant to be followed...but you could have just asked both players if it was okay to continue with the map that was chosen or something also it was 13 min. into the game and Tyler clearly had an advantage, and this could also mentally mess with the players.
|
Understand it from MLG's point of view, but it doesn't stop it sucking for Tyler 
Overall a brilliant tournament, so a single mistake is understood I guess. Just a shame that they couldn't have carried on with LT - its not like the players knew otherwise?
|
Neither player had a problem playing on LT, or they would've voiced it. It doesn't affect ANY other player in the tournament. Enforcing the rule this strictly while there was a player clearly in a huge advantage, 13 minutes into a game, is incredibly disheartening.
Abiding by a rule without any sort of flexibility or discussion doesn't increase anyone's credibility.
Tyler is clearly affected by this and it's showing in his attitude and play
|
On November 07 2010 10:42 leo23 wrote:
As Potatoto said, why could you not continue playing on that map. You had not noticed the error for about 10 minutes, so why not let it go on? What if this happened on one of these long games we've had today such as SEN vs QXC or Socke vs Liquid`Jinro?
The opening map is fixed for each round of the tournament. If they had continued, it would have been the only match with an opening game NOT played on Xel'Naga Caverns. I think for fairness and consistency's sake, they had to replay the match. An unfortunate event, to be sure, but it was handled properly by the MLG staff.
|
will MLG be willing to modify the rule about wrong maps?
|
The problem isn't that you followed the rule like you should have but that the rule is STUPID. What should have been in the rules was for the players to be allowed to continue on that map. It has ALWAYS been up to the referee to determine if someone was in a position, where under the circumstances, the player is given the win. Liquid`Tyler was in that position and you took the win away from him.
I applaud you for recognizing your mistake but the fact remains because of MLG's serious blunder it could cost Tyler the series.
Why is it that most of MLG's rules tend to make very little sense? Using extremely imbalanced and outdated maps that absolutely no one practices on is just one of the many I have seen come up.
|
I'm just going to thank you for acknowledging the situation and explaining what your thinking behind simply restarting the game was. That said I am not sure I agree with your decision. I believe that if you bent the rules and allowed the players to decide nobody would have looked into it and it wouldn't have knocked the credibility of MLG.
EDIT: If you don't mind answering an unrelated question has MLG thought about modifying the map pool? Kulas in particular seems like it is too imbalanced of a map to even be an option.
|
just wanted to say that this was a great tournament and thank you for the statement.
|
Excellent! Shows that MLG is here for the long term. Not just to satisfy floozy forumers in an LR thread. Am sure the better player will still win.
However please change stupid rules in the future.
|
Mistakes happen, as long as something as simple and stupid like that doesn't happen again its all good. Everyone needs to stop ragging about the past and just move on.
At least MLG knows it messed up and apologized not like some other organizations that screw up and then try to cover it up or justify it...
|
Great clearify statement. A million thanks for an awesome tournament. Minor mistakes happen but this tournament has been the best as of yet IMO, Sc2-wise. Great work!
|
That mistakes happen is perfectly understandable.
What I don't understand is how your credibility stays more intact by stopping a game 15 minutes in when one player is almost winning, and has revealed his strategy and tactics, than it is to deal with whether the game counted or not.
It's of course a lose/lose situation either way, but perhaps a better course of action would have been letting the game get played out and then make it a Bo5, or let the players agree or disagree with counting the LT game or not.
|
I understand that accidents happen. You are doing a great job running this tourney !
|
The only problem with this is that you are punishing players for your mistake. This is the real issue here. The rule is understandable but the way you went about it is ludicrous. If the players had made the mistake then sure it's their fault. This however was MLGs fault and really the situation was resolved poorly.
Admitting mistake is a positive step but it does nothing to solve the issue. Ideally both players should be compensated regardless of the outcome of the match.
EDIT:On November 07 2010 10:36 MLG_Lee 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.
While this is true it isn't the whole truth. The credibility of an event is both on how it adheres to it's rules and how well it adapts to foreign situations. You seem to be good at the former but horrible at the latter judging by this one event(Which is harsh). I don't really like the fact you brought this up since it seems rather shady to defend ones actions.
|
Thanks for the quick explanation.
|
Meh mistakes happen, though it (decision as well as rule) should probably be something to evaluate later. Appreciate the communication though and besides that the tournament has been pretty awesome, so well done to everyone there.
|
I'm not really sure how to feel about this situation. I was glad TLO pausing a game because he chose the wrong race turned out alright. I hear QXC played as the wrong color, but no action was taken. I just hate that a player with a clear advantage had a win taken that late in the game. Letting a game start, let alone run, on the wrong map is just insane. If an admin missed that and no player objected within the first minute of the game, the game should be considered valid. Tyler is clearly tilting and the credibility of this outcome is seriously suspect now. I am not impressed, I hope this doesn't happen again.
|
Austin10831 Posts
Thanks for posting your rationale, Lee. It's a really ugly situation to have to deal with and say, "we made a mistake" but we appreciate all the hard work you and the MLG staff as a whole put into these events. I don't know if I necessarily agree with the idea that rules can't be flexible during a tournament, but that's an entirely different discussion, and one beyond the scope of this thread. I think the emotional reaction in the LR thread of extreme indignation doesn't really represent most people's respect for the job you do.
|
I think you guys made the right call. I mean it sucks for Tyler but if the rules aren't followed it sets a bad precedent. But I do suggest you change the rule, say if X amount of time passes in a game without noticing its the wrong map the game must continue. Or at least something along those lines. The players I assume know the first map before the game so they can point out its the wrong map so it is fair.
|
I hope everyone appreciates the honesty of MLG. Thanks for it
|
can someone explain exactly what happened? I missed it.
|
279 Posts
RE: Bending the rules and more on asking the players--bending the rules is a slippery slope. And under the pressure of a tournament compounding a mistake with a bad judgement would be how much worse? ALOT. The admin's job is to be impartial. The players are partial by definition, even when they're as nice as these two guys are. I've hung out with both of them and plan to apologize personally to them when the match is over.
On a slightly related note, I think it's much better that you guys disagree with the rules and that we take that into consideration and have a healthy debate about them. It would be much worse for you guys to disagree with a ref or an admin who made a judgement call.
We have, in the past, where a rule wasn't in place consulted the players on what they would prefer. It's rare, but it happens. But the final decision is the Tournament Admin's. And he is required to follow the rules where they exist.
RE: Map pools, same deal as the rules. We published a map list when we announced the Dallas finals. Everyone bought passes based on that. If we changed the map list right before the event, that's kind of uncool to people who bought the passes. In order to do that, we would have to get EVERYONE who bought a pass to agree to it. And, no offense to the players, but I didn't get the required gear and driver emails from more than 10 players. So, we didn't adjust them for Dallas.
That said, we will absolutely adjust the maps before the next event.
|
|
|
question, if the game had ended (as it was going to in the next couple of minutes) before the error was noticed, would the win have been taken back?
|
On November 07 2010 11:03 BroOd wrote:
Thanks for posting your rationale, Lee. It's a really ugly situation to have to deal with and say, "we made a mistake" but we appreciate all the hard work you and the MLG staff as a whole put into these events. I don't know if I necessarily agree with the idea that rules can't be flexible during a tournament, but that's an entirely different discussion, and one beyond the scope of this thread. I think the emotional reaction in the LR thread of extreme indignation doesn't really represent most people's respect for the job you do.
amen.
|
You've won my heart, MLG_Lee.
|
Perhaps modifying the rule so that it states "wrong maps will be restarted unless game has been going on for X minutes"?
After a certain amount of time, I feel like the players are deeply invested enough that continuing would be better?
But then again I suppose that doesn't account for if someone 6pools and wins in less time than the "X minutes" predetermined?
|
It felt like a no-win situation, the important part being apologizing to the players. As far as the rule goes, I think if the game goes on "long enough" and a clear advantage is seen (as decided by a ref), it shouldn't be taken away. The psychological effect of feeling "robbed" of a win looks pretty devastating.
|
If tyler won that game, and neither player tilted, painuser might have repeated the last two games and went 2-1.
|
I was watching this live, and i do think it was the wrong call, i believe with how decided the game was, and prolly only a minute left before a GG, i think it should have stayed, if you guys found it out before something so deciding i would agree with what you did, but that late into the game which so much already happened and a clear adv, i will always say that was a horrible call on MLG's part, the rules should be changed. Maybe have some type of player agreement or have MLG decide on if one of the players had a blatant adv or not.
|
I agree with MLG that they need to follow their rules but the rule needs to be examined after this tournament and probably changed. I'm not sure how much responsibility that the players have in ensuring that the map is correct but the fact is that the game had been playing out for awhile and Tyler had a considerable advantage. It's clearly very unfair to him as a win is basically taken away for something that three parties (both players and the ref) are at fault for. Just a very unfortunate situation.
|
I think the term mistake is the wrong word. If it was 1-4 minutes into the game and obviously no clear advantage, then mistake seems like a good word. 13 F'ing minutes and someone about to win to me seems like a different more harsh word should be used. Rules should be followed, but in this case you guys are so far off base its insane to call this just a mistake. Maybe next time make a checklist for your refs and somewhere in there have them check the map in the first 1-4 minutes a game is started to make sure its right. This is all my .02 Other then that sick games and tourney.
|
On November 07 2010 11:06 MLG_Lee wrote:
RE: Bending the rules and more on asking the players--bending the rules is a slippery slope. And under the pressure of a tournament compounding a mistake with a bad judgement would be how much worse? ALOT. The admin's job is to be impartial. The players are partial by definition, even when they're as nice as these two guys are. I've hung out with both of them and plan to apologize personally to them when the match is over.
That's the issue. There's 2 schools of thoughts if you are impartial.
1) Follow the rules regardless of situation
or
2) Break the rule in this situation owing to the fact that following it could be more damaging than breaking it.
Apologizing is really just something to clear the guilty parties conscious. I see no point in it. The whole match has basically been invalidated because it's a lose-lose situation. Now PainUser will never be credited for his win and Tyler was potentially robbed. Surely as an admin you have to weigh the two evils(Breaking/Following) and conclude which is the lesser one. I really don't see how blindly sticking to the rules is logical or smart.
|
On November 07 2010 11:11 Darkstar_X wrote:
It felt like a no-win situation, the important part being apologizing to the players. As far as the rule goes, I think if the game goes on "long enough" and a clear advantage is seen (as decided by a ref), it shouldn't be taken away. The psychological effect of feeling "robbed" of a win looks pretty devastating.
I agree with this. Also, revealing strategies/build orders is a pretty huge issue.
|
simply put, it should have been up to the players.
|
Community involvement and communication has been one of the most important things to all of us since we announced SC2 
Lee will always give it to you straight.
|
Really nice to have this statement. Shows that MLG knows that it was really not ideal that this happened.
|
mistakes are made so that we can learn from it, we all understand that you need to be concise with your decisions, I fully appreciate you guys for making MLG a possibility not only for the fans in the US but fans around the world.
|
was a pretty dumb decision by MLG, I think its obvious to most players that this was a little ridiculous. You contradict yourself by saying MLG tries to adhere to premade rules yet also insist that a ref has to make the call. Which is it? Obviously you cant have a rule for everything, so you need to be fair in situations like this. Letting the game be played out in this circumstance makes sense.. Considering he probably would win the game it makes even more sense, if this had been caught in the first 5minutes there wouldn't be an issue.
|
MLG failed imo.
The game was too far in to be played (I can accept the map blunder) and a CLEAR advantage had been set in place. Nony should have gotten the win because the game was played too long and a clear advantage had been set.
I'm still shocked at how they restarted it, you know how devastating that can be to someones psych?
Damn MLG, sourly disappointing.
|
Thanks for making this post and listening to the community.
Change this ill-conceived rule after this tourney ends, for MLG 2011.
|
In the future, make a rule so that a player has 30 seconds after the game has started to pause the game because of some mistake made, be it having picked the wrong race or noticing that the they are playing on the wrong map.
After these 30 seconds they have forfeited their right to complain. With a timer of 30 seconds everyone will be able to split drones etc. and actually think a bit but not long enough for anything important to have happened (as someone mentioned, setting the mark to 3 minutes means that 6pools and such could already be in effect).
|
Its a real shame for tyler.. he was in a real good situation to take that game. And going up 1-0 in a series is very important, momentum and the safety of knowing you have an extra game to play after the 2nd one vs the player whos up against the wall is huge.
|
On November 07 2010 10:47 MLG_Lee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 10:40 -_- wrote:
Why be so strict? Why not just ask the players if they're ok with playing the wrong map? Nobody cares about leagues following rules. They care about leagues being fair. Usually that means following the rules, but I don't think that was the case here. Why not be fair as opposed to technically right? Several questions like this and that's the "nice" thing to do, but it's not the RIGHT thing to do. If we do this EVERYTIME there's an issue, we mind as well just make rules up on the fly. The time to _SET_ rules is BEFORE the tournament. The time to _REVISE_ rules is AFTER the tournament. The rules that we set for the tournament is what players buy passes for and expect to have in place when they show up. That's a level competitive playing field. And mistakes happen, we're human and we're here for 16-20 hours a day for 7 days straight getting the event ready and running it. Most for time you never even see them because when they do, we have rules in place that everyone can look at and say "this is how it's supposed to be." If we adjusted them on the fly, and especially in a situation like this, there's no point to the rules. And if the rule was to ask the players whether they should reset, in this instance Pain.User had a clear advantage. Wouldn't he say yes of course? And wouldn't Tyler say no, reset? Even if they're both perfect gentlemen about it (which, given who they are, I think they would be), how can that be a fair level playing field? The SITUATION is what sucks here, not the rules. And we (MLG) errored, so we apologize for creating the situation. EDIT: misphrased a bit about playing out.
Correct view of handling the rules of the tournament.
Something that was brought up during MLG DC was the rule regarding no chat during game. The only thing players are able to say in game is "gl hf gg". But during several matches players are chatting during game, should not the rules be followed then?
Are you not using all the rules in the book?
|
So what would happen if you guys realized this happened after Tyler had already won the first game? Would you have taken the victory from him and made them replay the game again?
13 minutes seems like a hell of a long to time to not notice this considering how many games are a lot shorter than that.
|
I'd like to hear what MLG does about this after the fact.
You have to understand this is unfair, and I really hope you change the rule.
It sucks that we are overly critical on what you guys do, but thems the brakes if you want to be a big dog in the gaming scene :D.
Even GSL waited on one of their players over when they should have been DQ'd if I remember correctly.
It was clear who won that game, and Tyler definitely went on tilt after it, losing the series 2-0 to PainUser floating 3k minerals....
Edit: What about TLO picking the wrong race, what are the rules on that?
|
Neither player noticed, nor had a problem. Horrible, horrible rules.
13 minute game with a clear lead to one player. There are so many psychological aspects that go into a Bo3... that first game going on with Painuser getting hammered.. I can't even bother going into it. If anything a wrong map affects both players at least.
I was so angry myself after that that I couldn't even enjoy the games. I wish they would have just ended the series and replayed tomorrow.
I finally know why football fans get so fucking upset after a bad call.
+ Show Spoiler +
User was temp banned for this post.
|
The rule is fine. How is it fair to let a game playout on the wrong map when we know maps can have huge impacts on the game?
Whoever made it on the wrong map screwed up (day/wheat? They seem to have been making most of the games) but the decision was as fair as one can make it.
It was a shitty thing to happen but resetting the score to 0-0 was fair
|
How about describing the situation in the opening post so I don't have to go look for it elsewhere?
|
On November 07 2010 10:36 MLG_Lee wrote:
The blunt truth of the matter is that we're running a very large live event and we're all working 20 hours a day while we're here.
If you had left this sentence out, the apology would have carried more weight. When you make a mistake, suck it up, say it won't happen again, and move on. Talking about how overworked you are does nothing.
Hint for the kids 20 and under in this thread, this goes for the real world as well.
|
I'm surprised there was already a rule in the book for the rare situation in which the game is ACCIDENTALLY started on the wrong map. I think it was handled okay considering an existing rule, but I'm sure it wasn't as explicit as it's made out to be. What would have happened if it wasn't discovered until the game was finished? Or even the series? Blind adherence to a clearly unfavorable rule when perfectly acceptable alternatives are clearly available doesn't say credibility to me, it says KeSPA. Something as simple as asking if both players would be willing to finish out the game as the first map followed by a quick change in the rules to reflect this would have solved everything and risked nothing.
In any case, it really is too bad. I do have to give MLG the benefit of the doubt here. I would hate to see the organization make the same shift that KeSPA did, favoring their own legitimacy and credibility over the experience of both their players and fans. Thankfully, I don't think MLG is walking that road quite yet, and its good to see such quick and responsive feedback right after the incident happened, taking suggestions and criticisms alike. Looking forward to day3!
|
On November 07 2010 11:19 Stenstyren wrote:
In the future, make a rule so that a player has 30 seconds after the game has started to pause the game because of some mistake made, be it having picked the wrong race or noticing that the they are playing on the wrong map.
After these 30 seconds they have forfeited their right to complain. With a timer of 30 seconds everyone will be able to split drones etc. and actually think a bit but not long enough for anything important to have happened (as someone mentioned, setting the mark to 3 minutes means that 6pools and such could already be in effect).
the players didn't complain about anything, how is this relevant to the issue that happened?
one of the refs caught the mistake, not the players
|
The GSL, an event arguably far more professional and far more watched than the MLG, is willing to bend the rules. Although the GSL rules state that if a player is over 15 minutes late he will be automatically disqualified, the GSL officials displayed common sense in extending it by ten minutes to accomodate KyrixZenith and allowed him to play when it was clear he was not going to be in serious violation and when the penalty was clearly going to be quite high otherwise.
The MLG's unwillingness to make common sense accomodations despite errors on their part demonstrates the clear difference between being accepted as a legitimate e-sport and not. If your organization is going to make mistakes, it is unacceptable to disproportionately punish a player because of said mistake, just as it would have been unacceptable for the GSL to disqualify KyrixZenith.
|
go painuser! fighting! epic game 2
|
Tyler got robbed :[
TT
Oh well, PainUser showing that lategame TvP is playable with an unique army composition.
|
On November 07 2010 11:22 DiamondTear wrote:
How about describing the situation in the opening post so I don't have to go look for it elsewhere?
basically tyler had a pretty substantial lead 13 minutes into the game
then a ref realized they were playing on the wrong map
the game was paused and then restarted on the correct map
|
First off, thanks for posting this so quickly. That's a very respectable thing to do.
However, like others here, I am also of the opinion that a tourney will gain more credibility from fair rulings than strictly adhering to a set of rules. I think this is where we disagree:
On November 07 2010 11:06 MLG_Lee wrote:
We have, in the past, where a rule wasn't in place consulted the players on what they would prefer. It's rare, but it happens. But the final decision is the Tournament Admin's. And he is required to follow the rules where they exist.
A referee shouldn't be tied by the rules, in my opinion. If players and referee agree to something, there should be nothing stopping them from making a ruling on the go. This is an important principle every place rules are enforced - a police officer must also chose how to apply the law to the given situation. Rules alone doesn't allow any flexibility, and this can't be good as unforeseen events will occur.
And for the record - I believe Tyler and PainUser would have agreed to play it out.
|
Rules should be followed no matter what? That means that if someone types "pp" "ㅎㅎ" or "a" they should be disqualified?
|
It is pretty obvious that most of the rage in this thread will be coming out from protoss players. It is clear that Paiuser was a better player judging on all of those games. Painuser wasn't even dead in the first one which was cancelled, and he won the game 2 and 3. Even if we assume that Tyler won that first game he would still lose.
Other than that: mistakes happen. I still think that this tournament is pure awesomness.GJ MLG team.
|
On November 07 2010 11:06 MLG_Lee wrote:
RE: Map pools, same deal as the rules. We published a map list when we announced the Dallas finals. Everyone bought passes based on that. If we changed the map list right before the event, that's kind of uncool to people who bought the passes. In order to do that, we would have to get EVERYONE who bought a pass to agree to it. And, no offense to the players, but I didn't get the required gear and driver emails from more than 10 players. So, we didn't adjust them for Dallas.
That said, we will absolutely adjust the maps before the next event.
I hardly think anyone bought their passes based on the first match map pool. I totally disagree with MLG's decision. Rules are supposed to be set as a guideline and sometimes you have to deviate.
|
On November 07 2010 11:13 Kraz.Del wrote:
If tyler won that game, and neither player tilted, painuser might have repeated the last two games and went 2-1.
That's a wrong assumption to make. No one has any ideas how much the decision has affected Nony except he himself.
That being said, it could affect Painuser as much which is none other than a boost of momentum. Imagine the difference having to start a "second game" with the mindset of "Damn I lost first game, I'll have to win this one or I'm fucked" and "Pheew, I lost the first game and I will get to replay the series, I'll have to be extra careful with Nony's play now"
|
Poll: More hated decisionMLG 13-minute Mapfail (60) 57% Kespa Flash-Jaedong Power Outage (23) 22% I love both calls (22) 21% 105 total votes Your vote: More hated decision (Vote): Kespa Flash-Jaedong Power Outage
(Vote): MLG 13-minute Mapfail
(Vote): I love both calls
|
I agree that a restart was in order, but the fact that Tyler was in such a commanding position game one and had painuser on the ropes right before the restart had to give painuser a huge boost of confidence and an insight into tylers strat.
|
On November 07 2010 11:25 liaf wrote:
Rules should be followed no matter what? That means that if someone types "pp" "ㅎㅎ" or "a" they should be disqualified?
No, because there are no rules against typing in game at MLG if I am correct. You're thinking of kespa..
|
I agree that they should stick to the rules in terms of the correct map choice, but I definitely agree that the fact it took them 13~ minutes to realize it is a little disappointing.
HOWEVER, this is pretty much the only "big" issue I can recall thus far in regards to the SC2 portion of any MLG event, and that overall is pretty good. Issues happen, and I'd take this 13-minute map mistake mid-way through the tournament over a power outage or the likes in the MSL finals.. 
|
On November 07 2010 11:27 Zealotdriver wrote:Poll: More hated decisionMLG 13-minute Mapfail (60) 57% Kespa Flash-Jaedong Power Outage (23) 22% I love both calls (22) 21% 105 total votes Your vote: More hated decision (Vote): Kespa Flash-Jaedong Power Outage
(Vote): MLG 13-minute Mapfail
(Vote): I love both calls
sorry, but Jaedong Flash situation was FAR more awful than this
|
On November 07 2010 11:29 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 11:25 liaf wrote:
Rules should be followed no matter what? That means that if someone types "pp" "ㅎㅎ" or "a" they should be disqualified? No, because there are no rules against typing in game at MLG if I am correct. You're thinking of kespa..
there are rules against typing
he was referring to the fact that MLG wants to stick to the rules but aren't actually following all of them
personally, i think it's great that they allow people to type and what not
KeSPA is waaaaay to strict with their rules
it's just contradicting to say they need to stick to the rules when they don't actually do it
|
On November 07 2010 11:27 Zealotdriver wrote:Poll: More hated decisionMLG 13-minute Mapfail (60) 57% Kespa Flash-Jaedong Power Outage (23) 22% I love both calls (22) 21% 105 total votes Your vote: More hated decision (Vote): Kespa Flash-Jaedong Power Outage
(Vote): MLG 13-minute Mapfail
(Vote): I love both calls
The Power outage call was made due to the circumstances. It was a a bad situation and the refs had to make a decision. This time they brought it upon themselves.
|
I like following the rules for sure. But you missed the one where TLO paused the game during his match. The rules say he can't do this. As such, did he get a warning?
Secondly, there was a game (again I think it was the TLO one) where the colors were reversed (lower seeded player was blue), and one where a player was purple instead of blue. Why were these games not restarted?
Also, lets not forget "that's halo" from last MLG.
If you're going to enforce the rules, be consistent.
|
On November 07 2010 11:25 liaf wrote:
Rules should be followed no matter what? That means that if someone types "pp" "ㅎㅎ" or "a" they should be disqualified?
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).
Players may not look at an opposing Player’s Monitor or projected screen.
Players may not chat in-game unless they are engaging in pre-game sportsmanship or surrendering the Game.
Players must disable Toast Notifications in the Battle.net options.
Players must set their status to Busy.
Breaking any of Gameplay Rules #2-5 will result in a Forfeit of the Game.
This means Huk should have forfeit some games, and TLO should at least have a warning after todays pause beacuse of wrong choice of race.
|
On November 07 2010 11:29 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 11:25 liaf wrote:
Rules should be followed no matter what? That means that if someone types "pp" "ㅎㅎ" or "a" they should be disqualified? No, because there are no rules against typing in game at MLG if I am correct. You're thinking of kespa..
I am comparing this situation to Kespa because everyone got mad at them for "following the rules"
|
I think you should have given tyler the chance to end the match but only if he picks the default map if he loses, that way it would be more or less the same...
Anyway, if rules says so it is the best choice to follow them even if it seems unfair.
|
On November 07 2010 11:29 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 11:25 liaf wrote:
Rules should be followed no matter what? That means that if someone types "pp" "ㅎㅎ" or "a" they should be disqualified? No, because there are no rules against typing in game at MLG if I am correct. You're thinking of kespa..
You are incorrect.
MLG Rules:
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).
Players may not look at an opposing Player’s Monitor or projected screen.
Players may not chat in-game unless they are engaging in pre-game sportsmanship or surrendering the Game.
Players must disable Toast Notifications in the Battle.net options.
Players must set their status to Busy.
Breaking any of Gameplay Rules #2-5 will result in a Forfeit of the Game.
|
This wasn't really even that big of a deal. I'm sure anyone with any common sense can see where the MLG staff are coming from. Its an ugly situation, but things are bound to go wrong when you have the sheer number of epic matches occuring like we have at MLG Dallas.
As long as the mindset that 'mistakes need to be corrected in the future' is present, there shouldnt be very much rabble about this, imo.
|
Thanks for the clarification, good PR skillz
But frankly people just complain too much, can't really blame you guys
|
On November 07 2010 10:47 MLG_Lee wrote:
Several questions like this and that's the "nice" thing to do, but it's not the RIGHT thing to do. If we do this EVERYTIME there's an issue, we mind as well just make rules up on the fly. The time to _SET_ rules is BEFORE the tournament.
The SITUATION is what sucks here, not the rules.
On November 07 2010 10:36 MLG_Lee 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. We don't make up rules on the fly at the tournament.
I agree that you had a hard decision to make, but I feel the one you made was clearly the wrong decision. Your goal is to make a great and solid tournament environment, but this decision actually worked in the opposite direction. It's not just the nice thing to do, it IS the right thing to do. One player was nearly about to win on a map in which NEITHER player seemed to care or even notice was the wrong map. If the audience and players have no problem continuing to play on the map, who else do you have to please?
Besides, you should bend rules in very special cases where mistakes arise, not in EVERY case as you imply would be the consequence. You've let it slip before. Some examples:
Gameplay Rule 20: "The higher seeded Player must play as the Red team and the lower seeded Player must play as the Blue team."
-QXC played as purple in a game vs. a zerg opponent, and nothing was done.
Gameplay Rule 3: "Players may not chat in-game unless they are engaging in pre-game sportsmanship or surrendering the Game."
-Players have chatted numerous times throughout the tournament with no punishment.
I'm not trying to be rude or annoying here, but pedantic, since that's what you are pushing so hard. I still think the tournament is doing great.
|
By following the rules here though they don't put pain.user in a bad position.
To be honest, with that much money on the line if they said, "hey FLuE, we picked the wrong map is it ok to just continue?" and lets say I'm losing. Well, if I say "No I want the right map," I look like a jerk and everyone is just like, "he was fine with the map and just did that so he didn't lose." If I just suck it up and say fine continue the game, but know I'm about to lose it is a poor decision on my part because I'm there to win.
So in the end, I think the decision made by them to follow the rules and not "bend" the rules saves both players. This is a completely different story if say the game is 3 minutes in and nobody has an advantage but at that point the admins need to make a call, and if they feel rules are written a certain way to make that call it shouldn't be put on a player to make a choice between trying to do the best for him to win personally, and his own popularity/reputation.
|
Vancouver14381 Posts
On November 07 2010 11:25 puppy pizza wrote:
The GSL, an event arguably far more professional and far more watched than the MLG, is willing to bend the rules. Although the GSL rules state that if a player is over 15 minutes late he will be automatically disqualified, the GSL officials displayed common sense in extending it by ten minutes to accomodate KyrixZenith and allowed him to play when it was clear he was not going to be in serious violation and when the penalty was clearly going to be quite high otherwise.
The MLG's unwillingness to make common sense accomodations despite errors on their part demonstrates the clear difference between being accepted as a legitimate e-sport and not. If your organization is going to make mistakes, it is unacceptable to disproportionately punish a player because of said mistake, just as it would have been unacceptable for the GSL to disqualify KyrixZenith.
you have a point about bending the rules, but you need to consider the situation of these two cases. If GSL DQ'ed Kyrix, there would only be one match that day and a big waste of the audience/sponsor's time. In the MLG's case, no such risks are apparent other than the community backlash as seen here.
|
While it is commendable to stick to your rules a tournament is also judged by how good the rules are in the first place. I can see that playing on the wrong map can give an advantage but then so can seeing what build order an opponent is going in the all important first match. The winner of the first gets the all important map choice in the ace match so it is very key.
It seemed to me that it effected Tyler more so than Painuser. I do agree though that asking players can put necessary pressure onto the player, would Painuser have conceded I would like to think so but that isnt always the case with all players.
Also I believe that no rule should be that rigid that it cant be changed mid tournament or after one of the stages of that tournament. Even soccer leagues change their rules mid season sometimes and they have a lot more invested in it than people signing up to a lan. You are judged as much by the quality of the rules as much as you are by how well you stick to them.
|
Huk should have been DQ'd for tahts halo.
Bet MLG wouldn't even attempt to go there, have a damn riot in that place.
What ever happened to the customer is always right, no way you thought the fans would just be okay with this decision, that's why you came and made this post.
If you aren't pleasing the people who pay for this shit, who are you holding this tournament for?
|
United States22883 Posts
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.
|
You can certainly make the argument both PU wins were legit so the series goes to him no question. Anyone's confidence would take a hit having a sure win stolen from them, but still Tyler did lose 2 games. MLG better pray these two don't play again in the loser bracket, or even worse, the finals. Then we'll have Tyler in a 2-0 hole when at worst it should be 2-1. That would put a pretty huge taint on the finals imo.
|
On November 07 2010 11:36 JBright wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 11:25 puppy pizza wrote:
The GSL, an event arguably far more professional and far more watched than the MLG, is willing to bend the rules. Although the GSL rules state that if a player is over 15 minutes late he will be automatically disqualified, the GSL officials displayed common sense in extending it by ten minutes to accomodate KyrixZenith and allowed him to play when it was clear he was not going to be in serious violation and when the penalty was clearly going to be quite high otherwise.
The MLG's unwillingness to make common sense accomodations despite errors on their part demonstrates the clear difference between being accepted as a legitimate e-sport and not. If your organization is going to make mistakes, it is unacceptable to disproportionately punish a player because of said mistake, just as it would have been unacceptable for the GSL to disqualify KyrixZenith. you have a point about bending the rules, but you need to consider the situation of these two cases. If GSL DQ'ed Kyrix, there would only be one match that day and a big waste of the audience/sponsor's time. In the MLG's case, no such risks are apparent other than the community backlash as seen here.
So tourney decisions shouldn't be made according to fairness, but according to profit?
|
If you are going to use following the rules as your reason, then you must follow the rules in every situation. Is there a penalty for players not being the right color? I remember when qxc chose purple even though he knew he was supposed to be either blue or red. If you allow this to happen, then why not let a match that has already started and was most likely almost finished continue.
|
Players may not chat in-game unless they are engaging in pre-game sportsmanship or surrendering the Game.
Is this considered Huk surrendering the game? : |
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YgWJS.jpg)
As previously stated, many players have been breaking these "critical rules" and nothing was done. I understand mistakes happen, but the Tyler vs PainUser game 1 call was a massive double standard.
edit: I'll admit I'm upset with the call, but nevertheless, MLG Dallas has been an amazing tournament so far.
|
On November 07 2010 11:37 liaf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 11:36 JBright wrote:On November 07 2010 11:25 puppy pizza wrote:
The GSL, an event arguably far more professional and far more watched than the MLG, is willing to bend the rules. Although the GSL rules state that if a player is over 15 minutes late he will be automatically disqualified, the GSL officials displayed common sense in extending it by ten minutes to accomodate KyrixZenith and allowed him to play when it was clear he was not going to be in serious violation and when the penalty was clearly going to be quite high otherwise.
The MLG's unwillingness to make common sense accomodations despite errors on their part demonstrates the clear difference between being accepted as a legitimate e-sport and not. If your organization is going to make mistakes, it is unacceptable to disproportionately punish a player because of said mistake, just as it would have been unacceptable for the GSL to disqualify KyrixZenith. you have a point about bending the rules, but you need to consider the situation of these two cases. If GSL DQ'ed Kyrix, there would only be one match that day and a big waste of the audience/sponsor's time. In the MLG's case, no such risks are apparent other than the community backlash as seen here. So tourney decisions shouldn't be made according to fairness, but according to profit?
We all soon forget this is all a business. This isn't just some game you're playing in your parents basement anymore. People can rage all they want but sponsor's pay the bills, not you.
|
On November 07 2010 11:37 liaf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 11:36 JBright wrote:On November 07 2010 11:25 puppy pizza wrote:
The GSL, an event arguably far more professional and far more watched than the MLG, is willing to bend the rules. Although the GSL rules state that if a player is over 15 minutes late he will be automatically disqualified, the GSL officials displayed common sense in extending it by ten minutes to accomodate KyrixZenith and allowed him to play when it was clear he was not going to be in serious violation and when the penalty was clearly going to be quite high otherwise.
The MLG's unwillingness to make common sense accomodations despite errors on their part demonstrates the clear difference between being accepted as a legitimate e-sport and not. If your organization is going to make mistakes, it is unacceptable to disproportionately punish a player because of said mistake, just as it would have been unacceptable for the GSL to disqualify KyrixZenith. you have a point about bending the rules, but you need to consider the situation of these two cases. If GSL DQ'ed Kyrix, there would only be one match that day and a big waste of the audience/sponsor's time. In the MLG's case, no such risks are apparent other than the community backlash as seen here. So tourney decisions shouldn't be made according to fairness, but according to profit?
uhh...yes?
If you're a profit making organization running a tournament, who cares how fair it is? Most sporting events aren't fair. Trying to crown the "best team" in almost any professional sport with a championship is statistically laughable. A series of bo3s hardly proves who the best player in the tourney is. It's an entertainment spectacle, it makes sense for an organization to run it to maximize short term and long term profit
|
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
|
A crude mistake...
But, with humble recognition of your error, understanding that the integrity of any tournament rests on keeping its rule set absolute. I, as representative of SC2 community, both parts involved, their families, pets and (if any) spouses/significant others/gay lovers, the humanity as a whole and every other sentient being in the known universe, forgive you.
|
Completely the wrong decision they made.
People saying that yea Tyler wins the first game then Pain wins the second and third?
How can you make that assumption?
Tyler gets to pick the third map and because Tyler is such a non standard playing Toss he's BOUND to have a good strat on the third map, and it's up to Pain to pull something out of the bag.
That and they also affected (debatable but realistic) Tylers psych. By restarting the first game you've basically ELIMINATED that strategy from being used again, giving Pain a leg-up somewhat. Also not to mention the rage and disappointment Tyler could've been experiencing where on the flipside Pain will be feeling relieved and have been given a confidence booster.
Basically it seems as though the restart affects Tyler and rewards Pain which imo is very stupid.
Neither player had a problem with the map and was played too far in to be restarted. Not to mention the advantage Nony had set in place.
Silly, silly decision my MLG
Disgusted with the decision.
|
On November 07 2010 11:36 BlitZl0l wrote:
Huk should have been DQ'd for tahts halo.
Bet MLG wouldn't even attempt to go there, have a damn riot in that place.
What ever happened to the customer is always right, no way you thought the fans would just be okay with this decision, that's why you came and made this post.
If you aren't pleasing the people who pay for this shit, who are you holding this tournament for?
wow what?
customer is always right is bullshit
the tournament is held for the players
the fans are there because they are interested in watching players compete
|
Well I hope in the future rules will be revised to allow some latitude for referee arbitrated compromise. In many sports with more complicated rules and possible rulings (Starcraft 2 is actually lucky in the lack of metagame ambiguity) referees are given far more responsibility in judgment and settlement than simply enforcing a black and white rule.
When revision time comes I hope an MLG community representative will make a Rules Feedback thread here on TL in order to review suggestions.
|
First thought when i first heard them mentioned it on stream i thought "WTF the games basicly over, cant call it at such late period in the game".
I think if you are going to do it u should of made it a BO5 if its an MLG/Admins fault.
BO3's feel like person who wins first map has large advantage, that advantage feels slightly less in BO5 and meta game would have less of an effect and better player will come out of top which is what everyone wants.
|
On November 07 2010 11:32 liaf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 11:29 hefty wrote:On November 07 2010 11:25 liaf wrote:
Rules should be followed no matter what? That means that if someone types "pp" "ㅎㅎ" or "a" they should be disqualified? No, because there are no rules against typing in game at MLG if I am correct. You're thinking of kespa.. I am comparing this situation to Kespa because everyone got mad at them for "following the rules"
You should always follow the rules. what you are discussing is if the rule is a good one or not. But as has been stated that is something that should be handled before or after the tournament.
The players should have been aware of the rules and as such knew the conditions they were playing under. While it is a sucky situation MLG made the right call by following the rules.
I think there are some good arguments about changing the rule but saying the people saying they shouldn't follow them are wrong as the rules were set before hand. I really don't like the idea of asking players to decide anything. It is an awful situation made worse. The player now has to decide if he should choose his personal interest or try and look like he is manner. I watched a show match where this occurred and the player in the lead deffered to a rematch instead of taking the win on the final game, he eventually lost (there was a prize pool). Huk was given a hard time about the MS rush because people said he wasn't playing to win but doesn't that mean they should also argue every call to be in their favor? That is why we need ref/admins to make these calls.
The biggest issues is that it was the casted game. If we hadn't been watching and just were notified of this occurrence then pain won 2-0 most people wouldn't have pushed the issue.
The fact that there was a rule in place for this I think is great, and thanks Lee for sharing with us the reasoning for the choice as well as keeping an ear to the community.
|
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.
|
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.
|
It sucks, but MLG is handling it about as professionally as possible. Gives me good hope for MLG pushing forward esports
|
On November 07 2010 11:42 rastaban wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 11:32 liaf wrote:On November 07 2010 11:29 hefty wrote:On November 07 2010 11:25 liaf wrote:
Rules should be followed no matter what? That means that if someone types "pp" "ㅎㅎ" or "a" they should be disqualified? No, because there are no rules against typing in game at MLG if I am correct. You're thinking of kespa.. I am comparing this situation to Kespa because everyone got mad at them for "following the rules" You should always follow the rules. what you are discussing is if the rule is a good one or not. But as has been stated that is something that should be handled before or after the tournament.
No, you shouldn't. Strict rule enforcement is good in certain situations (dealing with extremely large populations, for example), but dealing with them on a case by case basis with general guidelines is usually preferable on a variety of issues.
|
On November 07 2010 11:34 hiyo_bye wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, good PR skillz
But frankly people just complain too much, can't really blame you guys
Just try to put yourself in Tyler's situation, you can't, I can't, but try to understand that instead of going up 1-0 you get the game ripped from your hands by the admins who fucked up...
I would love to see the OP respond to the rules violations pointed out above about pausing and in game chat, it's obvious that rules were broken there but nothing happened, they know they screwed up, don't expect anything other than "we work hard" and "we'll do better in the future"...
|
On November 07 2010 11:39 449 wrote:
edit: I'll admit I'm upset with the call, but nevertheless, MLG Dallas has been an amazing tournament so far amazing.
We can all agree on that some great games so far and some i really want to see that havent been casted but heard how good they were
|
On November 07 2010 11:44 absalom86 wrote:
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.
Did you really just use the Nazis as an analogy for what just happened?
Really?
|
On November 07 2010 11:37 liaf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 11:36 JBright wrote:On November 07 2010 11:25 puppy pizza wrote:
The GSL, an event arguably far more professional and far more watched than the MLG, is willing to bend the rules. Although the GSL rules state that if a player is over 15 minutes late he will be automatically disqualified, the GSL officials displayed common sense in extending it by ten minutes to accomodate KyrixZenith and allowed him to play when it was clear he was not going to be in serious violation and when the penalty was clearly going to be quite high otherwise.
The MLG's unwillingness to make common sense accomodations despite errors on their part demonstrates the clear difference between being accepted as a legitimate e-sport and not. If your organization is going to make mistakes, it is unacceptable to disproportionately punish a player because of said mistake, just as it would have been unacceptable for the GSL to disqualify KyrixZenith. you have a point about bending the rules, but you need to consider the situation of these two cases. If GSL DQ'ed Kyrix, there would only be one match that day and a big waste of the audience/sponsor's time. In the MLG's case, no such risks are apparent other than the community backlash as seen here. So tourney decisions shouldn't be made according to fairness, but according to profit?
You're looking at it in black and white terms. It's a matter of severity. Severity of the infraction or mistake, and severity of the action taken. Disqualifying one of the quarter final players for being 10 minutes late is severe, whereas starting a game 10 minutes late is not.
Restarting a match 15 minutes into it is severe, but so is accepting the results of a game played on an incorrect map. Since the choice is lose/lose, they erred on the side of "follow the written rules, even though they weren't intended to deal with this situation".
|
On November 07 2010 11:41 awu25 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 11:36 BlitZl0l wrote:
Huk should have been DQ'd for tahts halo.
Bet MLG wouldn't even attempt to go there, have a damn riot in that place.
What ever happened to the customer is always right, no way you thought the fans would just be okay with this decision, that's why you came and made this post.
If you aren't pleasing the people who pay for this shit, who are you holding this tournament for? wow what? customer is always right is bullshit the tournament is held for the players the fans are there because they are interested in watching players compete
No, the tournament is held for the spectators. Sponsors don't provide prize money because they like people who play video games really well, they provide prize money because players draw spectators.
|
I agree with your decision. The difference between XC and LT is significant, and the games should be played on the previously agreed upon maps.
It is also understandable that such a mistake was made (although this should be rare). In the future, I recommend that you put in a mechanical checklist process that each ref goes through at the beginning of each game:
1. What round it it?
2. What map should it be?
3. Who is the higher seed?
4. Are the colors correct?
This way such errors will be caught in the first minute of the game. I feel like you should add a rule that if a game is stopped for any reason after more than 6 minutes have passed, then there will a forced 10 minute break for the players to collect themselves before the series resumes.
|
On November 07 2010 11:41 awu25 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 11:36 BlitZl0l wrote:
Huk should have been DQ'd for tahts halo.
Bet MLG wouldn't even attempt to go there, have a damn riot in wow what? customer is always right is bullshit the tournament is held for the players the fans are there because they are interested in watching players compete
The no ingame chat rule is only for GSL. Lame and wrong a bad comboi..
|
On November 07 2010 11:43 Pills wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Actually, you can press a button so that all your colour does is change your units colour, and it makes all of your units green on the Minimap, and all your opponents red.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 07 2010 11:43 Pills wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 07 2010 11:50 Firereaver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 11:41 awu25 wrote:On November 07 2010 11:36 BlitZl0l wrote:
Huk should have been DQ'd for tahts halo.
Bet MLG wouldn't even attempt to go there, have a damn riot in wow what? customer is always right is bullshit the tournament is held for the players the fans are there because they are interested in watching players compete The no ingame chat rule is only for GSL. Lame and wrong a bad comboi..
3.Players may not chat in-game unless they are engaging in pre-game sportsmanship or surrendering the Game.
|
On November 07 2010 11:50 photomuse wrote:
I agree with your decision. The difference between XC and LT is significant, and the games should be played on the previously agreed upon maps.
It is also understandable that such a mistake was made (although this should be rare). In the future, I recommend that you put in a mechanical checklist process that each ref goes through at the beginning of each game:
1. What round it it?
2. What map should it be?
3. Who is the higher seed?
4. Are the colors correct?
This way such errors will be caught in the first minute of the game. I feel like you should add a rule that if a game is stopped for any reason after more than 6 minutes have passed, then there will a forced 10 minute break for the players to collect themselves before the series resumes.
LOL, kinda seems obvious doesn't it? Like how did this happen? These little mistakes were made all day, and then he's "all about the rules" in the OP...
|
Mistakes happen. Thanks for taking the time to tell us your reasoning behind the decision. I completely understand and agree with the call.
|
On November 07 2010 11:49 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 11:41 awu25 wrote:On November 07 2010 11:36 BlitZl0l wrote:
Huk should have been DQ'd for tahts halo.
Bet MLG wouldn't even attempt to go there, have a damn riot in that place.
What ever happened to the customer is always right, no way you thought the fans would just be okay with this decision, that's why you came and made this post.
If you aren't pleasing the people who pay for this shit, who are you holding this tournament for? wow what? customer is always right is bullshit the tournament is held for the players the fans are there because they are interested in watching players compete No, the tournament is held for the spectators. Sponsors don't provide prize money because they like people who play video games really well, they provide prize money because players draw spectators.
The sponsors are MLG's clients, not the spectators. MLG's job is to get as many spectators as possible so their clients (sponsors) give them more money. Every decision MLG (or GOMtv for that matter) make goes back to this.
|
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's not, what the fuck are you talking about? if they're going to follow blatantly bullshit rules like the map restart by the letter then there's no reason not to follow the rest as well
|
Good call, by MLG you do have to stick to your guns and enforce the rules. People cry about this shit in every sport since I can remember, as if asking the players is a good idea. What if the losing player goes, "actually no I want to restart". Now what? Lots of drama, lots of bad PR ugly situation. It's not always fair and its not always pretty but without the rule book the competition wouldn't even exist and you can't just hope that everyone involved is going to do the "right thing" every time, that leaves a lot to chance.
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.
|
On November 07 2010 10:36 MLG_Lee wrote:
All,
A quick post from the event. MLG definitely recognizes that this was an error on our part--most especially catching it so late. And we definitely apologize to Pain.User and Tyler both for the error.
The blunt truth of the matter is that we're running a very large live event and we're all working 20 hours a day while we're here. Mistakes happen and we work as fast as possible to correct them when they do. So, we also apologize to you guys as their fans (and hopefully ours).
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. We don't make up rules on the fly at the tournament. On the rare occasions where we don't have a rule for a given situation, the tournament admin and the league commissioner consult to make a call. But AFTER the event, we revisit the situation and then codify the rules.
Any questions, please ask. I'll be monitoring this thread.
Thanks,
Lee
Makes sense to me...
As long as it was in the rules in a written document that was available to all players before everything happened, the only fault was catching it so late.
It happens.
|
On November 07 2010 11:55 cup of joe 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's not, what the fuck are you talking about? if they're going to follow blatantly bullshit rules like the map restart by the letter then there's no reason not to follow the rest as well
The facetiousness is calling "map restart" a blatantly bullshit rule and equating it with minor issues like wrong colors or chatting.
|
United States12607 Posts
Please don't post with anger or hate in this thread. MLG came here because it believed TL capable of a civil discussion; don't betray that respect.
|
Terrible decision imo, should have let that game play out and taken the result than restart the game on the right map. Maybe if it was 3 minutes in and both players are still making their gate/rax but not when the game is all but decided. Should've been handled on a case by case basis, not just make a blanket rule and read from it every time the situation arises.
A league is based on its credibility and its credibility comes from how closely it adheres to its rules.
could not disagree more, should be based on how well it treats its players and how gracefully it handles exceptional circumstances, and that restart failed terribly on both accounts. (all in my opinion of course)
|
Exactly, I said that on the previous page. Everyone assumes PainUser would have just said, "yeah lets keep playing." But what if he didn't? I could only imagine the type of fallout from that especially if he went on to win the series 2-0.
The admin made a decision, if he decided the game will continue that is fine as well. However, he made his decision with the rules at hand that he knew, it shouldn't be in the players hands to make that decision that far into the game because it is a lose/lose situation.
And for the people comparing chatting to choosing the wrong map you are missing the point. Allowing them to continue that game wouldn't be bending the rules, it would be making up new rules. Letting players chat is bending rules, saying players can choose to override existing rules if they both agree to compromise is making up a whole new process and set of rules.
|
On November 07 2010 12:03 FLuE wrote:
Exactly, I said that on the previous page. Everyone assumes PainUser would have just said, "yeah lets keep playing." But what if he didn't? I could only imagine the type of fallout from that especially if he went on to win the series 2-0.
The admin made a decision, if he decided the game will continue that is fine as well. However, he made his decision with the rules at hand that he knew, it shouldn't be in the players hands to make that decision that far into the game because it is a lose/lose situation.
And for the people comparing chatting to choosing the wrong map you are missing the point. Allowing them to continue that game wouldn't be bending the rules, it would be making up new rules. Letting players chat is bending rules, saying players can choose to override existing rules if they both agree to compromise is making up a whole new process and set of rules.
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.
|
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.
|
On November 07 2010 12:03 FLuE wrote:
Exactly, I said that on the previous page. Everyone assumes PainUser would have just said, "yeah lets keep playing." But what if he didn't?
Yeah I'm not sure why there's that assumption. If it were me I'd have wanted to start over. I'm not at a tourney to play nice I'm there to win and make money. Anything within the confines of the rules to let me do that, I'm doing.
|
If Tyler would have won the series, no one would have argued. So i think it was still the right call.
|
Honestly it seems a bit sketchy. For example, "wow this map is dark x.x" is surely not pre-game sportsmanship, yet no penalty was given to Painuser. Also, had Huk won the "taht's halo" map, do you guys really believe MLG would have stripped him of the game? Consistency upholding rules can't be used as an argument here.
|
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.
|
Integrity is what MLG should be aiming for. When you have a big community you tend to have cases were you want to "give an inch" to people who are apart of it, but this is a slippery slope, because somewhere down the line it will come back to bite you when you will inevitability have to enforce a double standard. There are places were leniency should be given, things like typing in chat or someone being late, those aren't what you call "huge deals", but something like playing on the wrong map, well, that is tricky line to tread.
As much as people hate to admit it, MLG did the right thing here.
|
On November 07 2010 12:03 FLuE wrote:
Letting players chat is bending rules, saying players can choose to override existing rules if they both agree to compromise is making up a whole new process and set of rules.
Except they did exactly that when Huk did his Halo comment. Instead of adhering to their rules they went through a whole new process, which some call common sense, and decided: "Oh that's harmless. He's just making a good joke and not trying to distract his opponent in the game so he doesn't have to forfeit the game." I realize it's not the same magnitude but when part of the justification depends on complete adherence to written rules, you can't have it both ways.
|
Excepted decision from MLG. No complaints. Shit happens.
|
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.
|
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.
|
I am curious what would have happened if pain.user had gg'd after he took the beating from the first break and the issue wasn't caught until the next game had started? Would they had forced them to redo the first and 2nd game?
|
Thank you for the great tournament and I hope you bring us more of those in the future. Very well done, very entertaining. That being said, your decision was technically the correct one but, and I'm sorry to say this, it lacked common sense.
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.
|
On November 07 2010 12:35 Vimsey wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 12:31 Slow Motion 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. 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. 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.
|
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.
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
I think the starting map for every round should be the same, a map that is as fair as possible to all 3 races. Game 1 is so crucial in a format where loser picks the next map, that it shouldn't be rotated, and you wouldn't have had this issue with the wrong map being picked.
|
Ty for this awesome tournament and casts
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
|
While its cool that MLG came on here and explained themselves, it doesn't change the fact that they completely blue falcon'd Tyler.
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
|
On November 07 2010 12:46 Trang 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. 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.
|
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.
|
On November 07 2010 12:46 Trang 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. 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.
|
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.
|
On November 07 2010 12:52 upinthis wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
So you did the wrong thing because you want to do the "right" thing..... that makes a lot of sence...... Lets alow all people who lose regames, ohh wait thats called loser brackets. Please send Idra to the LB..... ohhh wait that is what nazgul is for and he also happened to lose to select there.....
|
On November 07 2010 12:55 nedamise wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +
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.
|
On November 07 2010 12:55 Vimsey wrote:Show nested quote +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!'.
|
On November 07 2010 12:59 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
Lol at people telling refs to use common sense instead of blindly following rules. Refs are not hired for their subjective viewpoints but for enforcement of objective rules. They will only discuss things that do not have any rules already listed. This is true in ANY popular sport and if eSports ever wants to become official, they will have to follow ALL rules. Do NFL refs care about the teams' or audiences' opinions when they clearly have a rule to follow? No. Have none of you guys ever been in a corporate environment?
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.
|
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 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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
The situation sucks, MLG's excuse REALLY sucks, but c'mon.
THE PLAYERS SHOULD KNOW WHICH MAPS THEY ARE ALLOWED TO PLAY ON!
Allowing any result from a map which is not in the pre-determined pool cannot be allowed to stand, as this would set a horrible precedent for future tournaments. We could, for example, have players colluding to play on maps other than the allowed maps for whatever reason (balance, disagreement with tournament organizers on appropriate maps, etc.), even at the expense of a "warning," or whatever other punishment they face. Really, the players should have to replay the game AND receive a warning.
Did Painuser get a lucky break? Sort of. Its impossible to know if the same result would have happened had the game been played on a different map.
The only fair way to ensure that the rules are followed is to disallow any result achieved by breaking those rules.
|
First I'd like to say that I really appreciate all of the attention that MLG is paying to the community about all of the feedback (especially taking the time to come to TL about it). Of course, there are things that many of us have been upset about (lack of seating, for example), but that doesn't change that MLG is really helping to get SC2 out there as a major e-sport event, and we all appreciate that. However, as gracious as you're being, I have to agree with the people who have pointed out, Lee, that you have a really strange "double tone" going on where you apologize and then try to say that it's not your fault at all because of how much you've been working so much. We realize that and we're sympathetic. But then you have people like Day[9] who go through even harder schedules and give apologies anyways. And look at the absolutely rabid following he has: it's for a reason.
Here are my gripes:
1) Inconsistency. If you want to be so strict about the rules then you should apply them equally. Who's to say that qxc being purple wasn't a huge advantage since he could blend into creep on the minimap unless the colors were changed via the green/red option? And chatting is another deal, since it sets a distinct tone between the players (are we talking casually like friends? Trash talking? Quiet and professional?).
2) Inflexibility. This goes hand in hand with the inconsistent bit. You really have to decide what times require judging versus what times require strict following. This was obviously a judgment call, so you got that somewhat right, but a horrible call was made. It should be in the rules about if something goes to judgment and who gets to judge it.
3) Paying attention to other tournaments. A lot of tournaments have a 3 minute rule, usually paired with a no contact clause. Essentially, a restart can only occur if there is some massive failure (power, Battle.net 2.0 in all its glory) or neither player even had the chance to get ahead. Not realizing for 13 minutes is unacceptable and completely out of the bounds of most other tournament rules. When something is so beyond the norm you should start thinking about if it makes sense before keeping it.
Again, I don't want to sound like a typical flamer. MLG is a huge force in North American e-sports and is really helping the development of a community that we all love. I bought the spectator pass, and, even though I haven't been able to go that much, it was pretty fun ("was" because I'll be driving back to Austin instead of staying and arriving back late). If MLG keeps on listening and improving, things will be amazing. Imagine a future where MLG has the same official status of either KeSPA (but without the ridiculous amount of tyranny) or the leagues of the "traditional sports" (AKA MLB, etc.). Keep on keeping on! Here's to the next season of StarCrafty goodness!
|
Wow seriously, even though MLG messed up hard this time, how can anyone blame MLG for not following the chat rule... Stop being biased for 10 seconds and think about it, why on Earth would you want them to adhere to that rule? So Tyler can win? 2 wrongs don't make a right. Would you have wanted the game to be paused and Huk to be immediately DQed during MLG DC when he said "Looks like the crowd wants a mothership"? NO! Select would have also been DQed from the finals when he said that "I have no zerg practice partners". There would have been only one LB final game and one Grand final game. If they had kept to the rules in both those, the flames MLG would have received would have been much worse than this.
|
It sucks but we're all human and make mistakes, the good news is this mistake will bring up a potentially flawed rule and/or make sure that it doesnt happen again. Keep in mind sc2 is a new game, mlg just picked it up and these tournaments are improving every time. We as the community have to accept that this is all part of a learning process and be patient and while they continue to to work out the kinks. In the mean time we should focus on the positive things that have come out of the tournament which are some kickass games/matchups.
|
On November 07 2010 17:07 WeeKeong wrote:
Wow seriously, even though MLG messed up hard this time, how can anyone blame MLG for not following the chat rule... Stop being biased for 10 seconds and think about it, why on Earth would you want them to adhere to that rule? So Tyler can win? 2 wrongs don't make a right. Would you have wanted the game to be paused and Huk to be immediately DQed during MLG DC when he said "Looks like the crowd wants a mothership"? NO! Select would have also been DQed from the finals when he said that "I have no zerg practice partners". There would have been only one LB final game and one Grand final game. If they had kept to the rules in both those, the flames MLG would have received would have been much worse than this.
You are missing the point. As the organizer and/or administrator of an event, you can't follow some rules and ignore others, if you want to be taken seriously. That's hypocrisy, and it's good that they apologized and all, although they should first have done so to Tyler and Painuser, but beyond that nobody should try to sugar-coat the whole thing.
|
On November 07 2010 17:07 WeeKeong wrote:
Wow seriously, even though MLG messed up hard this time, how can anyone blame MLG for not following the chat rule... Stop being biased for 10 seconds and think about it, why on Earth would you want them to adhere to that rule? So Tyler can win? 2 wrongs don't make a right. Would you have wanted the game to be paused and Huk to be immediately DQed during MLG DC when he said "Looks like the crowd wants a mothership"? NO! Select would have also been DQed from the finals when he said that "I have no zerg practice partners". There would have been only one LB final game and one Grand final game. If they had kept to the rules in both those, the flames MLG would have received would have been much worse than this.
Rules are rules and should be followed, if they might get huge flames the rules can be ignored?
On November 07 2010 10:36 MLG_Lee 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. We don't make up rules on the fly at the tournament. On the rare occasions where we don't have a rule for a given situation, the tournament admin and the league commissioner consult to make a call. But AFTER the event, we revisit the situation and then codify the rules.
|
On November 07 2010 16:59 Char711 wrote:
Here are my gripes:
1) Inconsistency. If you want to be so strict about the rules then you should apply them equally. Who's to say that qxc being purple wasn't a huge advantage since he could blend into creep on the minimap unless the colors were changed via the green/red option? And chatting is another deal, since it sets a distinct tone between the players (are we talking casually like friends? Trash talking? Quiet and professional?).
I don't think the color issue is relevant at all to gameplay. As a high level player he should already have the color change to green/red on the minimap. So he wouldn't need to switch it. Also if he is the type of player who doesn't use it why would he have a problem now.
And the chatting issue from the games I saw none of the chatting had an role on the actual game. It was just friendly chatting between friends/teammates. It would be different if someone actually trashtalked though.
|
They have to follow the rule, however I believe it should be looked into after this tournament.
My question is, why can't it be similar to the disconnect rule, i.e. if someone were to disconnect, the tournament officials see if one person was going to win it, with a clear advantages. If this were the case, they would declare the winner. If it was basically even, then they reset.
|
Yeah ^^. I'm more curious how the two players and the two casters, etc did not realize what the map pool was. I'm almost certain no one is to blame here as its kind of up in the air. I am not sure how the pool works, but I would expect the players to want to know what map was coming up in their next round, etc.
But, its certainly not the admins' fault for handling an awkward situation. Restarts happen all the time in esports when a player disconnects, etc. You can't get mad at their decision and compare it to something completely unrelated. It's not a matter of following rules, its this specific situation. They had to rectify it someone's mistake, and they did a fine job. Not to mention Tyler handled it like a pro, I really admire him for that and he will be going far in this tourney still!
|
On November 07 2010 17:20 JackDino wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 17:07 WeeKeong wrote:
Wow seriously, even though MLG messed up hard this time, how can anyone blame MLG for not following the chat rule... Stop being biased for 10 seconds and think about it, why on Earth would you want them to adhere to that rule? So Tyler can win? 2 wrongs don't make a right. Would you have wanted the game to be paused and Huk to be immediately DQed during MLG DC when he said "Looks like the crowd wants a mothership"? NO! Select would have also been DQed from the finals when he said that "I have no zerg practice partners". There would have been only one LB final game and one Grand final game. If they had kept to the rules in both those, the flames MLG would have received would have been much worse than this. Rules are rules and should be followed, if they might get huge flames the rules can be ignored? Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 10:36 MLG_Lee 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. We don't make up rules on the fly at the tournament. On the rare occasions where we don't have a rule for a given situation, the tournament admin and the league commissioner consult to make a call. But AFTER the event, we revisit the situation and then codify the rules.
So in DC, Huk and Select should have DQed their games after they chatted? There would have been an even greater shitstorm. Not all rules should be followed, in the NBA, for major playoff games, refs often let touch fouls go by because they want to make the game more exciting for the AUDIENCE. When players have 6 technical fouls in the playoffs, refs try their hardest not to give players their 7th which would make them unable to play for 2 games. Sometimes, rules should not be followed, including the rule making Tyler replay the game he was going to win.
|
MLG_Lee if i may suggest, can you please have someone work that bracket like the ESL page. It's impossible to get a replay and then scroll down ALL the way to get the next set of replays from a particular player. I can't even make sense of the brackets (Google Chrome esp), that would be really nice.
|
On November 07 2010 17:31 WeeKeong wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 17:20 JackDino wrote:On November 07 2010 17:07 WeeKeong wrote:
Wow seriously, even though MLG messed up hard this time, how can anyone blame MLG for not following the chat rule... Stop being biased for 10 seconds and think about it, why on Earth would you want them to adhere to that rule? So Tyler can win? 2 wrongs don't make a right. Would you have wanted the game to be paused and Huk to be immediately DQed during MLG DC when he said "Looks like the crowd wants a mothership"? NO! Select would have also been DQed from the finals when he said that "I have no zerg practice partners". There would have been only one LB final game and one Grand final game. If they had kept to the rules in both those, the flames MLG would have received would have been much worse than this. Rules are rules and should be followed, if they might get huge flames the rules can be ignored? On November 07 2010 10:36 MLG_Lee 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. We don't make up rules on the fly at the tournament. On the rare occasions where we don't have a rule for a given situation, the tournament admin and the league commissioner consult to make a call. But AFTER the event, we revisit the situation and then codify the rules.
So in DC, Huk and Select should have DQed their games after they chatted? There would have been an even greater shitstorm. Not all rules should be followed, in the NBA, for major playoff games, refs often let touch fouls go by because they want to make the game more exciting for the AUDIENCE. When players have 6 technical fouls in the playoffs, refs try their hardest not to give players their 7th which would make them unable to play for 2 games. Sometimes, rules should not be followed, including the rule making Tyler replay the game he was going to win.
Yes, Huk and Select should've been DQ'd as them breaking the rules and just playing has now obviously affected MLG's credibility. It's MLG's stand to enforce their own rule, every single one of them, not mine. Why they post something like the OP and then just ignore other rules is something that makes no sense @ all. If they can ignore 1 rule they can ignore others.
Mistakes do happen yes, but why ignore some rules and enforce others which aren't good for anyone at all.
|
On November 07 2010 17:36 JackDino wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 17:31 WeeKeong wrote:On November 07 2010 17:20 JackDino wrote:On November 07 2010 17:07 WeeKeong wrote:
Wow seriously, even though MLG messed up hard this time, how can anyone blame MLG for not following the chat rule... Stop being biased for 10 seconds and think about it, why on Earth would you want them to adhere to that rule? So Tyler can win? 2 wrongs don't make a right. Would you have wanted the game to be paused and Huk to be immediately DQed during MLG DC when he said "Looks like the crowd wants a mothership"? NO! Select would have also been DQed from the finals when he said that "I have no zerg practice partners". There would have been only one LB final game and one Grand final game. If they had kept to the rules in both those, the flames MLG would have received would have been much worse than this. Rules are rules and should be followed, if they might get huge flames the rules can be ignored? On November 07 2010 10:36 MLG_Lee 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. We don't make up rules on the fly at the tournament. On the rare occasions where we don't have a rule for a given situation, the tournament admin and the league commissioner consult to make a call. But AFTER the event, we revisit the situation and then codify the rules.
So in DC, Huk and Select should have DQed their games after they chatted? There would have been an even greater shitstorm. Not all rules should be followed, in the NBA, for major playoff games, refs often let touch fouls go by because they want to make the game more exciting for the AUDIENCE. When players have 6 technical fouls in the playoffs, refs try their hardest not to give players their 7th which would make them unable to play for 2 games. Sometimes, rules should not be followed, including the rule making Tyler replay the game he was going to win. Yes, Huk and Select should've been DQ'd as them breaking the rules and just playing has now obviously affected MLG's credibility. It's MLG's stand to enforce their own rule, every single one of them, not mine. Why they post something like the OP and then just ignore other rules is something that makes no sense @ all. If they can ignore 1 rule they can ignore others. Mistakes do happen yes, but why ignore some rules and enforce others which aren't good for anyone at all.
Because their OP was a mistake too, they should just say "Sorry, unlike chat, a different map actually affects the outcome of a game".
|
Huk's chat played a major role in determining the outcome of that game imo.
So could qxc's colour.
|
sucks for tyler, no doubt, but they did the correct thing. gotta keep it consistent.
|
On November 07 2010 17:39 WeeKeong wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 17:36 JackDino wrote:On November 07 2010 17:31 WeeKeong wrote:On November 07 2010 17:20 JackDino wrote:On November 07 2010 17:07 WeeKeong wrote:
Wow seriously, even though MLG messed up hard this time, how can anyone blame MLG for not following the chat rule... Stop being biased for 10 seconds and think about it, why on Earth would you want them to adhere to that rule? So Tyler can win? 2 wrongs don't make a right. Would you have wanted the game to be paused and Huk to be immediately DQed during MLG DC when he said "Looks like the crowd wants a mothership"? NO! Select would have also been DQed from the finals when he said that "I have no zerg practice partners". There would have been only one LB final game and one Grand final game. If they had kept to the rules in both those, the flames MLG would have received would have been much worse than this. Rules are rules and should be followed, if they might get huge flames the rules can be ignored? On November 07 2010 10:36 MLG_Lee 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. We don't make up rules on the fly at the tournament. On the rare occasions where we don't have a rule for a given situation, the tournament admin and the league commissioner consult to make a call. But AFTER the event, we revisit the situation and then codify the rules.
So in DC, Huk and Select should have DQed their games after they chatted? There would have been an even greater shitstorm. Not all rules should be followed, in the NBA, for major playoff games, refs often let touch fouls go by because they want to make the game more exciting for the AUDIENCE. When players have 6 technical fouls in the playoffs, refs try their hardest not to give players their 7th which would make them unable to play for 2 games. Sometimes, rules should not be followed, including the rule making Tyler replay the game he was going to win. Yes, Huk and Select should've been DQ'd as them breaking the rules and just playing has now obviously affected MLG's credibility. It's MLG's stand to enforce their own rule, every single one of them, not mine. Why they post something like the OP and then just ignore other rules is something that makes no sense @ all. If they can ignore 1 rule they can ignore others. Mistakes do happen yes, but why ignore some rules and enforce others which aren't good for anyone at all. Because their OP was a mistake too, they should just say "Sorry, unlike chat, a different map actually affects the outcome of a game".
Albit not big, chat can affect the outcome of a game aswell(distractions, trashtalk etc).
Enforcing that one rule like they did yesterday could've had a psychological effect which could've effected the outcome of the rest of the series aswell.
|
On November 07 2010 17:49 dtz wrote:
Huk's chat played a major role in determining the outcome of that game imo.
So could qxc's colour.
How? Don't just say something. Explain it. I didn't watch the game with huk and I don't know what he said.
But for qxc's color. In no way could it affect anything whatsoever with the game's result except if a player had some superstition or supposed bad luck/good luck with some color.
|
On November 07 2010 17:26 justinpal wrote:
Yeah ^^. I'm more curious how the two players and the two casters, etc did not realize what the map pool was. I'm almost certain no one is to blame here as its kind of up in the air. I am not sure how the pool works, but I would expect the players to want to know what map was coming up in their next round, etc.
Ok, here's my POV, I played (and lost) in the early stages. Working under the assumption the important matches function in the same way as mine did I see it playing out this way:
The way it worked for me was an official just told us what the first map was. It was fairly informal. On top of that, the main screen matches were played at the same time as matches of a DIFFERENT round (the mains screen match during my losers bracket was a winners match, for example) so its quite possible the officials just got confused. Its very possible they told the players the wrong map, and the players went with it.
They didn't have the overlay up for the first match, I think that someone realized the overlay should be up, realized it said Xelnaga, and then pointed it out.
|
On November 07 2010 17:49 dtz wrote:
So could qxc's colour.
His opponent could always just turn on the feature that makes your own color green and the opponent's red. Many pros do this because red shows up really well on the minimap. I don't think players should have to pick colors at all. I understand that it is for the fans to visually see who is favored, but I like having a certain color to associate with a player. Ex pink for Machine or purple for qxc. Qxc is the reason i have always used purple terran
On topic, I think that MLG did what they had to do in the situation, even though it is pretty terrible that it wasn't caught sooner by any party involved.
|
On November 07 2010 17:20 Ilikestarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 16:59 Char711 wrote:
Here are my gripes:
1) Inconsistency. If you want to be so strict about the rules then you should apply them equally. Who's to say that qxc being purple wasn't a huge advantage since he could blend into creep on the minimap unless the colors were changed via the green/red option? And chatting is another deal, since it sets a distinct tone between the players (are we talking casually like friends? Trash talking? Quiet and professional?).
I don't think the color issue is relevant at all to gameplay. As a high level player he should already have the color change to green/red on the minimap. So he wouldn't need to switch it. Also if he is the type of player who doesn't use it why would he have a problem now. And the chatting issue from the games I saw none of the chatting had an role on the actual game. It was just friendly chatting between friends/teammates. It would be different if someone actually trashtalked though.
You're missing my point. It's that color could have an effect. Not everyone changes the color. The map could have no effect, but maybe it completely changes things. It's not a question of if it did but if there's a possibility.
And you made my point for me on the chatting: it's something that definitely could have an effect, especially as SC2 and MLG grow.
To be clear, yes, I don't think those are really that big of a deal. It's just that, when you have Lee being very clear about following rules, you have to carry that over. It would be different if there wasn't such a hardline being presented. What I mentioned does have a possibility to give someone that small edge, but it ultimately comes down to policy decisions.
I hereby decree that we call this MAPGATE! Because every good blunder needs to be a "-gate."
|
On November 07 2010 17:53 Ilikestarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 17:49 dtz wrote:
Huk's chat played a major role in determining the outcome of that game imo.
So could qxc's colour. How? Don't just say something. Explain it. I didn't watch the game with huk and I don't know what he said. But for qxc's color. In no way could it affect anything whatsoever with the game's result except if a player had some superstition or supposed bad luck/good luck with some color.
Creep is purple. qxc was purple. Keeping player colors normal lets him blend in. There are other combinations that provide the same type of effect.
|
On November 07 2010 18:06 warmGun wrote:His opponent could always just turn on the feature that makes your own color green and the opponent's red. Many pros do this because red shows up really well on the minimap. I don't think players should have to pick colors at all. I understand that it is for the fans to visually see who is favored, but I like having a certain color to associate with a player. Ex pink for Machine or purple for qxc. Qxc is the reason i have always used purple terran On topic, I think that MLG did what they had to do in the situation, even though it is pretty terrible that it wasn't caught sooner by any party involved.
It's not about the colour, it's about not giving a rat's ass about half the rules(which are just BS anyways) then talking some shit about how they need to enforce rules and basically took a win away from someone(yes comebacks are possible but that's beside the point).
On a side note, proxying a stargate @ some mineral lines with the lightblue colour makes it really hard to spot unless red/green is on.
|
On November 07 2010 18:06 warmGun wrote:His opponent could always just turn on the feature that makes your own color green and the opponent's red. Many pros do this because red shows up really well on the minimap. I don't think players should have to pick colors at all. I understand that it is for the fans to visually see who is favored, but I like having a certain color to associate with a player. Ex pink for Machine or purple for qxc. Qxc is the reason i have always used purple terran On topic, I think that MLG did what they had to do in the situation, even though it is pretty terrible that it wasn't caught sooner by any party involved.
As I said in some of my other responses, it's the point that it could make a difference. It shouldn't be up to the players to correct something like that: it's the officials' jobs.
Edit: And basically what JackDino said, too.
|
I love how MLG communicates with the fans so quickly. Your decision might not be what I would do, but it is reasonable.
|
On November 07 2010 18:17 skurj wrote:
I love how MLG communicates with the fans so quickly. Your decision might not be what I would do, but it is reasonable.
They don't need to communicate with the fans @ all, what they need to do is think about the players first.
|
On November 07 2010 18:11 Char711 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 17:53 Ilikestarcraft wrote:On November 07 2010 17:49 dtz wrote:
Huk's chat played a major role in determining the outcome of that game imo.
So could qxc's colour. How? Don't just say something. Explain it. I didn't watch the game with huk and I don't know what he said. But for qxc's color. In no way could it affect anything whatsoever with the game's result except if a player had some superstition or supposed bad luck/good luck with some color. Creep is purple. qxc was purple. Keeping player colors normal lets him blend in. There are other combinations that provide the same type of effect.
I think people especially of the caliber that are playing in this tournament could notice a purple terran unit on creep. The minimap issue I already talked about. Every single player in this tourney probably already has the option on to change to red for opponents units. And the ones that don't its their fault for not using it.
|
On November 07 2010 18:11 Char711 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 17:53 Ilikestarcraft wrote:On November 07 2010 17:49 dtz wrote:
Huk's chat played a major role in determining the outcome of that game imo.
So could qxc's colour. How? Don't just say something. Explain it. I didn't watch the game with huk and I don't know what he said. But for qxc's color. In no way could it affect anything whatsoever with the game's result except if a player had some superstition or supposed bad luck/good luck with some color. Creep is purple. qxc was purple. Keeping player colors normal lets him blend in. There are other combinations that provide the same type of effect.
Player can choose to switch to green/red color scheme if they wish.
I always play in pink in tournaments, because I have positive associations with it. I don't see why that should be a problem.
|
On November 07 2010 18:52 Ilikestarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 18:11 Char711 wrote:On November 07 2010 17:53 Ilikestarcraft wrote:On November 07 2010 17:49 dtz wrote:
Huk's chat played a major role in determining the outcome of that game imo.
So could qxc's colour. How? Don't just say something. Explain it. I didn't watch the game with huk and I don't know what he said. But for qxc's color. In no way could it affect anything whatsoever with the game's result except if a player had some superstition or supposed bad luck/good luck with some color. Creep is purple. qxc was purple. Keeping player colors normal lets him blend in. There are other combinations that provide the same type of effect. I think people especially of the caliber that are playing in this tournament could notice a purple terran unit on creep... The minimap issue I already talked about. Every single player in this tourney probably already has the option on to change to red for opponents units. And the ones that don't its their fault for not using it.
When the rules state a colour to be used like red and blue, it's not the players fault for not using the option.
|
On November 07 2010 18:12 JackDino wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 18:06 warmGun wrote:On November 07 2010 17:49 dtz wrote:
So could qxc's colour. His opponent could always just turn on the feature that makes your own color green and the opponent's red. Many pros do this because red shows up really well on the minimap. I don't think players should have to pick colors at all. I understand that it is for the fans to visually see who is favored, but I like having a certain color to associate with a player. Ex pink for Machine or purple for qxc. Qxc is the reason i have always used purple terran On topic, I think that MLG did what they had to do in the situation, even though it is pretty terrible that it wasn't caught sooner by any party involved. It's not about the colour, it's about not giving a rat's ass about half the rules(which are just BS anyways) then talking some shit about how they need to enforce rules and basically took a win away from someone(yes comebacks are possible but that's beside the point). On a side note, proxying a stargate @ some mineral lines with the lightblue colour makes it really hard to spot unless red/green is on.
Once they got into the situation of the situation where they realized it was the wrong map in the middle of the game, they were screwed either way. If they let the game finish and count, PainUser would have been cheated; with the decision they made, Tyler was cheated. Hopefully this opens up MLG's eyes and makes them play closer attention to all of the games, as logistically difficult as that might be with so many games occurring at the same time.
And i agree, alot of their rules are really dumb.
|
On November 07 2010 18:55 JackDino wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 18:52 Ilikestarcraft wrote:On November 07 2010 18:11 Char711 wrote:On November 07 2010 17:53 Ilikestarcraft wrote:On November 07 2010 17:49 dtz wrote:
Huk's chat played a major role in determining the outcome of that game imo.
So could qxc's colour. How? Don't just say something. Explain it. I didn't watch the game with huk and I don't know what he said. But for qxc's color. In no way could it affect anything whatsoever with the game's result except if a player had some superstition or supposed bad luck/good luck with some color. Creep is purple. qxc was purple. Keeping player colors normal lets him blend in. There are other combinations that provide the same type of effect. I think people especially of the caliber that are playing in this tournament could notice a purple terran unit on creep... The minimap issue I already talked about. Every single player in this tourney probably already has the option on to change to red for opponents units. And the ones that don't its their fault for not using it. When the rules state a colour to be used like red and blue, it's not the players fault for not using the option.
Can you clarify what you're trying to say. I don't understand the relevance between the rule and how it isn't their fault.
|
Well some people have their own habit. Maybe they are used to using red and blue and train with it since the MLG rules said so. In anycase, I am not gonna argue whether colour and chat influences gameplay and the result or the game. That is out of point.
The point is that in this thread, an MLG representative has said that they are going to force rules very strictly without any discretion to maintain their integrity and thus inconsistencies that happened before can prove to be troublesome in the future. What happens if in the future,a player wants to claim a default win because Huk was being extra chatty and the player refer to this statement as his ground?
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.
It is better if this gets clarified once and for all to avoid potential embarassments.
That said, I understand fully and accept the decision regarding Tyler as no other solution was possible and appreciate MLG for trying to explain to the community. The coverage, stream, and the whole tournament has been awesome so far. Far better than the GSL and previous MLGs , and IEMs imo.
|
Uh, guys, I just noticed something huge.
LiquidRet vs LiquidJinro was playing at the same time as LiquidTyler vs PainUser.
Guess what map they played on (and the match wasn't cancelled):
http://media.mlgpro.com/brackets/10/procircuit/dallas/sc2/open/matches/6687.html
"LiquidJinro vs LiquidRet
Map: Lost Temple"
http://www.sc2replayed.com/replays/101220-1v1-terran-zerg-lost-temple
That means out of the 4 matches being played at the same time, half of them started on Xel'Naga Caverns (the right map), and half of them started on Lost Temple.
Out of that second half, only Tyler's game was canceled.
Additionally, do you know why the mixup occured?
The MLG bracket is off by 1 round - it has a 'blank round at the left side'. All of the casters and commentators are calling Round 5 "Round 4" because of MLG's bracket mixup.
I bet you this led to Day9/Djwheat misreading the sheet.
Edit: Bolded because the MLG staff needs to see this and FIX their brackets.
|
On November 07 2010 19:13 Ilikestarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 18:55 JackDino wrote:On November 07 2010 18:52 Ilikestarcraft wrote:On November 07 2010 18:11 Char711 wrote:On November 07 2010 17:53 Ilikestarcraft wrote:On November 07 2010 17:49 dtz wrote:
Huk's chat played a major role in determining the outcome of that game imo.
So could qxc's colour. How? Don't just say something. Explain it. I didn't watch the game with huk and I don't know what he said. But for qxc's color. In no way could it affect anything whatsoever with the game's result except if a player had some superstition or supposed bad luck/good luck with some color. Creep is purple. qxc was purple. Keeping player colors normal lets him blend in. There are other combinations that provide the same type of effect. I think people especially of the caliber that are playing in this tournament could notice a purple terran unit on creep... The minimap issue I already talked about. Every single player in this tourney probably already has the option on to change to red for opponents units. And the ones that don't its their fault for not using it. When the rules state a colour to be used like red and blue, it's not the players fault for not using the option. Can you clarify what you're trying to say. I don't understand the relevance between the rule and how it isn't their fault.
If a rule states something and it isn't followed by player 1, it's not player 2s fault for not using an OPTION(that means it's optional and not needed).
It's like saying that in a football match it's your own fault if someone purposely kicks you in the face, you could've avoided it aswell.
|
On November 07 2010 19:51 dcemuser wrote:Uh, guys, I just noticed something huge. LiquidRet vs LiquidJinro was playing at the same time as LiquidTyler vs PainUser. Guess what map they played on (and the match wasn't cancelled): http://media.mlgpro.com/brackets/10/procircuit/dallas/sc2/open/matches/6687.html" LiquidJinro vs LiquidRet
Map: Lost Temple" http://www.sc2replayed.com/replays/101220-1v1-terran-zerg-lost-templeThat means out of the 4 matches being played at the same time, half of them started on Xel'Naga Caverns (the right map), and half of them started on Lost Temple. Out of that second half, only Tyler's game was canceled. Additionally, do you know why the mixup occured?
The MLG bracket is off by 1 round - it has a 'blank round at the left side'. All of the casters and commentators are calling Round 5 "Round 4" because of MLG's bracket mixup.
I bet you this led to Day9/Djwheat misreading the sheet.Edit: Bolded because the MLG staff needs to see this and FIX their brackets.
Nice find! Nothing will come of it though, except hopefully MLG will be ALOT more cautious and vigilant about such things in the future.
They're done pretty well though, it's their 3rd SC2 tournament, the first with 128 players (correct me but Raleigh was 32 and DC 64?). There's bound to be hiccups when organised that many people. The way the stick to their ruleset is very professional. If we see a rule change or at least measures implemented to make sure this type of thing doesn't happen again, future tournaments will be better for it.
Keep at it MLG :D
|
The biggest question for me would be why several players started on the wrong map? For some reason they must have thought it was the right one.
|
If your excuse is simply "we work too much and therefore missed it till it was too late but still made a shitty decision" maybe you should look at how you are running the tournament and change it a bit. Possibly opening up referee spots to selected members of the public to lighten your workload during the weekend (kind of like how F1 has amateur marshalls at nearly every event). I seriously doubt that would cause any MAJOR problems other than creating an awesome experience for the person and lightening your workload.
On November 07 2010 19:51 dcemuser wrote:
Uh, guys, I just noticed something huge.
"LiquidJinro vs LiquidRet
Map: Lost Temple"
That means out of the 4 matches being played at the same time, half of them started on Xel'Naga Caverns (the right map), and half of them started on Lost Temple.
Out of that second half, only Tyler's game was canceled.
Oh wow, amazing.
|
Was hoping Tyler would win but definitely the right decision. Don't let any naysayers dissuade you, changing the rules during the tournament would be a terrible move.
|
impressiv how calm Tyler stayed in that situation despite being ahead by so much. too bad it did't get rewarded.
|
On November 07 2010 20:29 nam nam wrote:
The biggest question for me would be why several players started on the wrong map? For some reason they must have thought it was the right one.
Explanation to MLG Mixup here
Look at http://www.mlgpro.com/ci/brackets/procircuit/10/dallas/sc2/open/winners.
See how it says Winners Round 1, up until Winners Round 8 and the Championship? Also note how the first round is basically blank and does nothing.
Now, look at http://www.mlgpro.com/pro-circuit/2010/. Click on Starcraft 2, click on Game Types.
See how it says Winners Round 1 up through Winners Round 8 and Winners Round 8 IS the Championship.
I bet you a million dollars Day9/Wheat looked over at the brackets, said "OIh, it's Tyler vs PainUser... let me find them..."
http://www.mlgpro.com/ci/brackets/procircuit/10/dallas/sc2/open/winners
"Oh, there they are. Winners Bracket Round 6!"
"Let me see... Winners Bracket Round 6 map selection, there it is!"
"Round 6
Game 1 - Lost Temple" says right here: http://www.mlgpro.com/pro-circuit/2010/
In reality, MLG just screwed up the brackets online. Even though the brackets say Round 6, it was actually Round 5, so Day/Wheat should have made it on Xel'Naga Caverns.
|
why didnt you cancel the other match on lt?
|
On November 07 2010 19:51 dcemuser wrote:Uh, guys, I just noticed something huge. LiquidRet vs LiquidJinro was playing at the same time as LiquidTyler vs PainUser. Guess what map they played on (and the match wasn't cancelled): http://media.mlgpro.com/brackets/10/procircuit/dallas/sc2/open/matches/6687.html" LiquidJinro vs LiquidRet
Map: Lost Temple" http://www.sc2replayed.com/replays/101220-1v1-terran-zerg-lost-templeThat means out of the 4 matches being played at the same time, half of them started on Xel'Naga Caverns (the right map), and half of them started on Lost Temple. Out of that second half, only Tyler's game was canceled. Additionally, do you know why the mixup occured?
The MLG bracket is off by 1 round - it has a 'blank round at the left side'. All of the casters and commentators are calling Round 5 "Round 4" because of MLG's bracket mixup.
I bet you this led to Day9/Djwheat misreading the sheet.Edit: Bolded because the MLG staff needs to see this and FIX their brackets.
Great find if correct (I haven't checked).
This just proves that mistakes happen... Perhaps the easiest thing would be to demand that the players are aware what round they are in and what map they are supposed to play on. Then they do that; and if both make a mistake and they play the wrong map; then they will just have to play that map, rather than restarting.
To be honest, if they are so key on following the rules, it would be really interesting to see what the rules say about jinro vs ret then... Should it, technically, be replayed?
|
On November 07 2010 20:47 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 19:51 dcemuser wrote:Uh, guys, I just noticed something huge. LiquidRet vs LiquidJinro was playing at the same time as LiquidTyler vs PainUser. Guess what map they played on (and the match wasn't cancelled): http://media.mlgpro.com/brackets/10/procircuit/dallas/sc2/open/matches/6687.html" LiquidJinro vs LiquidRet
Map: Lost Temple" http://www.sc2replayed.com/replays/101220-1v1-terran-zerg-lost-templeThat means out of the 4 matches being played at the same time, half of them started on Xel'Naga Caverns (the right map), and half of them started on Lost Temple. Out of that second half, only Tyler's game was canceled. Additionally, do you know why the mixup occured?
The MLG bracket is off by 1 round - it has a 'blank round at the left side'. All of the casters and commentators are calling Round 5 "Round 4" because of MLG's bracket mixup.
I bet you this led to Day9/Djwheat misreading the sheet.Edit: Bolded because the MLG staff needs to see this and FIX their brackets. Great find if correct (I haven't checked). This just proves that mistakes happen... Perhaps the easiest thing would be to demand that the players are aware what round they are in and what map they are supposed to play on. Then they do that; and if both make a mistake and they play the wrong map; then they will just have to play that map, rather than restarting. To be honest, if they are so key on following the rules, it would be really interesting to see what the rules say about jinro vs ret then... Should it, technically, be replayed?
I just further elaborated on the bottom of the last page as to -exactly- how it happened.
The Round 6 map selection is Lost Temple.
The MLG brackets say that Tyler and PainUser played in Round 6, but they messed up the brackets. This caused mass confusion at the event in terms of the map order.
|
the rule that you need to ask an admin before you are allowed to pause is totally silly. I mean if you have a problem (keyboard or mouse malfunction etc.) you surely want to wait 10-20 seconds before an admin allows you to pause while you lose the game in that time...
|
What do you know? Here's some more.
EGColbi(Z) vs Jaeger(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
AlLaboUtyOu(T) vs FluX(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
binski(T) vs EGLzGaMeR(T) in Loser's Bracket Round 6 should have played on Lost Temple, but instead played on Blistering Sands (Actually, I have no idea how this one got screwed up. It doesn't even make sense)
|
On November 07 2010 18:11 Char711 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 17:53 Ilikestarcraft wrote:On November 07 2010 17:49 dtz wrote:
Huk's chat played a major role in determining the outcome of that game imo.
So could qxc's colour. How? Don't just say something. Explain it. I didn't watch the game with huk and I don't know what he said. But for qxc's color. In no way could it affect anything whatsoever with the game's result except if a player had some superstition or supposed bad luck/good luck with some color. Creep is purple. qxc was purple. Keeping player colors normal lets him blend in. There are other combinations that provide the same type of effect.
This is silly, enemy units on the minimap are red regardless of color, and if you're actually looking at the units you see their health bars (and the coloration is subtle anyway). The only people who might miss something are observers.
|
I think people are blowing this out of proportion. Hm, I want to rephrase that but it's early in the morning and can't quite find the right words, but MLG are taking a bit more shit than they should.
This Tyler 'scandal' was bad, I agree, really fucking bad. In a perfect world that wouldn't happen and it ultimately wouldn't affect the results.
However, mistakes do happen. The fact that they made a thread here at all says something about MLG; they're aware of the community. I highly doubt they're laughing it off, they know they fucked up. Tyler has a right to be pissed, but when you get down to it they were simply enforcing their rules (albeit late). Hell, if anything I doubt this will happen again in subsequent MLG tournaments, learning from mistakes and all that.
I could get ready to get to Dallas with a pitchfork in one hand and a torch in the other, but comparing this mistake to how much they've stepped up their game since Raleigh/DC.. Yeah, one major fuckup is bound to happen. They are aware, else they wouldn't have made this thread. I'd be surprised if they weren't discussing this issue already. It's the same MLG that fixed video problems 10 seconds after people started whining on this very forum, right?
Bottomline is that mistakes do happen, the posts with variations of "This is why I never fucking support MLG" are completely unnecessary. Whatever way they went about it someone would have been dissatisfied. If they played the maps and Painuser lost he could (maybe he wouldn't, that's not the point) argue that it's the map that decided it and demand a re-game. What then?
|
On November 07 2010 21:06 vyyye wrote:
I think people are blowing this out of proportion. Hm, I want to rephrase that but it's early in the morning and can't quite find the right words, but MLG are taking a bit more shit than they should.
This Tyler 'scandal' was bad, I agree, really fucking bad. In a perfect world that wouldn't happen and it ultimately wouldn't affect the results.
However, mistakes do happen. The fact that they made a thread here at all says something about MLG; they're aware of the community. I highly doubt they're laughing it off, they know they fucked up. Tyler has a right to be pissed, but when you get down to it they were simply enforcing their rules (albeit late). Hell, if anything I doubt this will happen again in subsequent MLG tournaments, learning from mistakes and all that.
I could get ready to get to Dallas with a pitchfork in one hand and a torch in the other, but comparing this mistake to how much they've stepped up their game since Raleigh/DC.. Yeah, one major fuckup is bound to happen. They are aware, else they wouldn't have made this thread. I'd be surprised if they weren't discussing this issue already. It's the same MLG that fixed video problems 10 seconds after people started whining on this very forum, right?
Bottomline is that mistakes do happen, the posts with variations of "This is why I never fucking support MLG" are completely unnecessary. Whatever way they went about it someone would have been dissatisfied. If they played the maps and Painuser lost he could (maybe he wouldn't, that's not the point) argue that it's the map that decided it and demand a re-game. What then?
I agree, but the fact is they STILL haven't fixed the brackets that caused the issue in the first place.
If they fix them, I'll be perfectly happy.
|
On November 07 2010 20:50 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 20:47 ParasitJonte wrote:On November 07 2010 19:51 dcemuser wrote:Uh, guys, I just noticed something huge. LiquidRet vs LiquidJinro was playing at the same time as LiquidTyler vs PainUser. Guess what map they played on (and the match wasn't cancelled): http://media.mlgpro.com/brackets/10/procircuit/dallas/sc2/open/matches/6687.html" LiquidJinro vs LiquidRet
Map: Lost Temple" http://www.sc2replayed.com/replays/101220-1v1-terran-zerg-lost-templeThat means out of the 4 matches being played at the same time, half of them started on Xel'Naga Caverns (the right map), and half of them started on Lost Temple. Out of that second half, only Tyler's game was canceled. Additionally, do you know why the mixup occured?
The MLG bracket is off by 1 round - it has a 'blank round at the left side'. All of the casters and commentators are calling Round 5 "Round 4" because of MLG's bracket mixup.
I bet you this led to Day9/Djwheat misreading the sheet.Edit: Bolded because the MLG staff needs to see this and FIX their brackets. Great find if correct (I haven't checked). This just proves that mistakes happen... Perhaps the easiest thing would be to demand that the players are aware what round they are in and what map they are supposed to play on. Then they do that; and if both make a mistake and they play the wrong map; then they will just have to play that map, rather than restarting. To be honest, if they are so key on following the rules, it would be really interesting to see what the rules say about jinro vs ret then... Should it, technically, be replayed? I just further elaborated on the bottom of the last page as to -exactly- how it happened. The Round 6 map selection is Lost Temple. The MLG brackets say that Tyler and PainUser played in Round 6, but they messed up the brackets. This caused mass confusion at the event in terms of the map order.
Yeah you are right, the brackets were really off as some people were still in round 5 while others in 6 (or whichever it was).
This really makes what happened even sadder.
|
On November 07 2010 21:00 dcemuser wrote:
What do you know? Here's some more.
EGColbi(Z) vs Jaeger(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
AlLaboUtyOu(T) vs FluX(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
binski(T) vs EGLzGaMeR(T) in Loser's Bracket Round 6 should have played on Lost Temple, but instead played on Blistering Sands (Actually, I have no idea how this one got screwed up. It doesn't even make sense)
Holy shit - this is insane, beyond even Tyler getting completely screwed. Map choice really affects the outcome of matches due to how fragile the current balance is and how dependent it is on maps, which is why winning Game 1 is so important so that even dropping Game 2 will guarantee map choice for Game 3. This lack of attention to detail is stunning for such a huge money tournament and is just disgraceful considering how many players were affected.
|
On November 07 2010 21:55 Kraznaya wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 21:00 dcemuser wrote:
What do you know? Here's some more.
EGColbi(Z) vs Jaeger(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
AlLaboUtyOu(T) vs FluX(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
binski(T) vs EGLzGaMeR(T) in Loser's Bracket Round 6 should have played on Lost Temple, but instead played on Blistering Sands (Actually, I have no idea how this one got screwed up. It doesn't even make sense) Holy shit - this is insane, beyond even Tyler getting completely screwed. Map choice really affects the outcome of matches due to how fragile the current balance is and how dependent it is on maps, which is why winning Game 1 is so important so that even dropping Game 2 will guarantee map choice for Game 3. This lack of attention to detail is stunning for such a huge money tournament and is just disgraceful considering how many players were affected.
Especially when you consider how generally balanced Metalopolis is usually regarded and they had to play on Blistering Sands, which is very gimmicky.
|
Ah ok never mind just saw the recast.
|
On November 07 2010 21:56 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 21:55 Kraznaya wrote:On November 07 2010 21:00 dcemuser wrote:
What do you know? Here's some more.
EGColbi(Z) vs Jaeger(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
AlLaboUtyOu(T) vs FluX(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
binski(T) vs EGLzGaMeR(T) in Loser's Bracket Round 6 should have played on Lost Temple, but instead played on Blistering Sands (Actually, I have no idea how this one got screwed up. It doesn't even make sense) Holy shit - this is insane, beyond even Tyler getting completely screwed. Map choice really affects the outcome of matches due to how fragile the current balance is and how dependent it is on maps, which is why winning Game 1 is so important so that even dropping Game 2 will guarantee map choice for Game 3. This lack of attention to detail is stunning for such a huge money tournament and is just disgraceful considering how many players were affected. Especially when you consider how generally balanced Metalopolis is usually regarded and they had to play on Blistering Sands, which is very gimmicky.
Yeah - even if the player won on the changed map, they would still have to play a certain style more than other players because they got screwed by administration, which is unfair considering the purpose of changing a starting map each round is that each player will have to play a certain style the same amount of times over the course of the tournament if they were eyeing to advance through each round and win it.
MLG should at the very least refund the pass money of the affected players, and maybe even comp their travel expenses.
|
Wow MLG has really screwed up the brackets.. this is quite a large issue that somehow only affect tyler and no other player. Hmm
|
On November 07 2010 22:00 Kage wrote:
Can someone give a quick summary of what happened really?
LiquidTyler was dominating PainUser in the first game, and then it was canceled because it was revealed it was being played on the wrong map.
He then went on to lose 2-0.
|
On November 07 2010 21:06 vyyye wrote:
I think people are blowing this out of proportion. Hm, I want to rephrase that but it's early in the morning and can't quite find the right words, but MLG are taking a bit more shit than they should.
This Tyler 'scandal' was bad, I agree, really fucking bad. In a perfect world that wouldn't happen and it ultimately wouldn't affect the results.
However, mistakes do happen. The fact that they made a thread here at all says something about MLG; they're aware of the community. I highly doubt they're laughing it off, they know they fucked up. Tyler has a right to be pissed, but when you get down to it they were simply enforcing their rules (albeit late). Hell, if anything I doubt this will happen again in subsequent MLG tournaments, learning from mistakes and all that.
I could get ready to get to Dallas with a pitchfork in one hand and a torch in the other, but comparing this mistake to how much they've stepped up their game since Raleigh/DC.. Yeah, one major fuckup is bound to happen. They are aware, else they wouldn't have made this thread. I'd be surprised if they weren't discussing this issue already. It's the same MLG that fixed video problems 10 seconds after people started whining on this very forum, right?
Bottomline is that mistakes do happen, the posts with variations of "This is why I never fucking support MLG" are completely unnecessary. Whatever way they went about it someone would have been dissatisfied. If they played the maps and Painuser lost he could (maybe he wouldn't, that's not the point) argue that it's the map that decided it and demand a re-game. What then?
Good post. I'll rate this M for mature..
|
On November 07 2010 22:06 Senx wrote:
Wow MLG has really screwed up the brackets.. this is quite a large issue that somehow only affect tyler and no other player. Hmm
Actually, it affected five players.
On November 07 2010 21:00 dcemuser wrote:
What do you know? Here's some more.
EGColbi(Z) vs Jaeger(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
AlLaboUtyOu(T) vs FluX(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
binski(T) vs EGLzGaMeR(T) in Loser's Bracket Round 6 should have played on Lost Temple, but instead played on Blistering Sands (Actually, I have no idea how this one got screwed up. It doesn't even make sense)
|
On November 07 2010 22:06 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 22:00 Kage wrote:
Can someone give a quick summary of what happened really? LiquidTyler was dominating PainUser in the first game, and then it was canceled because it was revealed it was being played on the wrong map. He then went on to lose 2-0.
Thanks dcemuser. Much respect to Tyler for taking it so calmly. If this was incontrol I think the referee's head would be on the mousepad lol.
|
On November 07 2010 22:06 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 22:00 Kage wrote:
Can someone give a quick summary of what happened really? LiquidTyler was dominating PainUser in the first game, and then it was canceled because it was revealed it was being played on the wrong map. He then went on to lose 2-0.
Also, there were other multiple other matches played on the wrong map because of confusion on which round they were actually in due to MLG's fake "ro256 bye round" which weren't rescinded, despite MLG claiming a strict adherence to rules policy which forced them to restart the Tyler-Painuser game.
|
Luckily it didn't affect the outcome as painuser would have won 2-1 even if the fake game counted but it was still rough, I would have asked the players if they could play it out.
|
On November 07 2010 21:00 dcemuser wrote:
What do you know? Here's some more.
EGColbi(Z) vs Jaeger(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
AlLaboUtyOu(T) vs FluX(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
binski(T) vs EGLzGaMeR(T) in Loser's Bracket Round 6 should have played on Lost Temple, but instead played on Blistering Sands (Actually, I have no idea how this one got screwed up. It doesn't even make sense)
Can you tell me where i can see the maps that are played today? Would be very important!
Thank you!
|
On November 07 2010 22:22 TheDna wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 21:00 dcemuser wrote:
What do you know? Here's some more.
EGColbi(Z) vs Jaeger(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
AlLaboUtyOu(T) vs FluX(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
binski(T) vs EGLzGaMeR(T) in Loser's Bracket Round 6 should have played on Lost Temple, but instead played on Blistering Sands (Actually, I have no idea how this one got screwed up. It doesn't even make sense) Can you tell me where i can see the maps that are played today? Would be very important! Thank you!
Sure, go to http://www.mlgpro.com/pro-circuit/2010/.
Then click on Starcraft 2 on the side bar on the left, and then on Game Types.
It shows all the correct maps, but don't make the same mistake MLG did - the official brackets are numbered wrong.
|
On November 07 2010 22:21 Moragon wrote:
Luckily it didn't affect the outcome as painuser would have won 2-1 even if the fake game counted but it was still rough, I would have asked the players if they could play it out.
This isn't necessarily true of course. Winning the first map is very important in a Bo3, as even if you lose map 2, you get the map choice for round 3.
Added to the fact that Tyler was using a fairly uncommon strategy in round 1, which would likely not have worked a 2nd time.
|
Rules are Rules, but maybe they should not always be pressed at the players expenses :x
it's easy to say "yes i made a mistake" but it's hard to make that count by not punishing anyone but oneself
|
Oh how we all love to complain even when there is a good chance we would of made the same mistakes given the situation.
we're running a very large live event and we're all working 20 hours a day while we're here .
All excuses are good.
|
On November 07 2010 22:08 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 22:06 Senx wrote:
Wow MLG has really screwed up the brackets.. this is quite a large issue that somehow only affect tyler and no other player. Hmm Actually, it affected five players. Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 21:00 dcemuser wrote:
What do you know? Here's some more.
EGColbi(Z) vs Jaeger(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
AlLaboUtyOu(T) vs FluX(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
binski(T) vs EGLzGaMeR(T) in Loser's Bracket Round 6 should have played on Lost Temple, but instead played on Blistering Sands (Actually, I have no idea how this one got screwed up. It doesn't even make sense)
Well now that's fucked up. MLG, please fix the brackets/be more careful today. Large mistakes obviously happened and there was some hypocrisy in the whole situation as well (enforcing some rules and not enforcing others while claiming ALL rules need to be enforced) but that shouldn't ruin an otherwise really well done and very enjoyable tournament.
|
On November 07 2010 10:40 BlitZl0l wrote:
I understand.
It's just really shitty for the person who has to suffer before you "codify the rule".
PainUser knew he lost. He told Tyler after the game he had like 15 scvs. That's as crappy as it gets for Tyler, and probably puts him on tilt more than losing the first game.
PainUser was far from out of that game, had he lost his OC he would of been out.
Tyler just finished his robo and had nothing but gateway units, Pain had full tech available to him, and close spawns on his side with tanks+siege already on the field.
imo the game was about 50/50
|
Rules are rules but from minute one of "everyone gets a bye in air quotes "round 1" because our bracket is 256 instead of 128" was effing stupid. That should have been corrected Before the tournament started
|
instead of trying to save every pennies, you better employ more workers
working over 20 hrs is not an excuse, it simply shows that you are a really greedy employer
|
Terrible decision as covered fifty times over here.
That said, if an organization as amazing as TL could make a similar mistake (Artosis Slush regame for TSL) then it's unlikely that an event as large as MLG would be able to go off without a hitch. Hopefully MLG makes it up to Tyler somehow (showmatch regame with Painuser for bonus cash!)
|
On November 07 2010 22:50 ggkorea wrote:
instead of trying to save every pennies, you better employ more workers
working over 20 hrs is not an excuse, it simply shows that you are a really greedy employer
Oh shut up man, people can make mistakes whether they're tired or not. Who are you to tell them to hire additional workers ._. You're probably not even paying to watch their games.
|
|
|
I can forgive MLG as long as they make adjustments to the rules for the next tournament. Sucks for Tyler in any case. Hopefully he'll have a good run in the LB anyway.
|
I wonder how so many players played wrong maps and didn't notice.
|
On November 07 2010 22:08 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 22:06 Senx wrote:
Wow MLG has really screwed up the brackets.. this is quite a large issue that somehow only affect tyler and no other player. Hmm Actually, it affected five players. Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 21:00 dcemuser wrote:
What do you know? Here's some more.
EGColbi(Z) vs Jaeger(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
AlLaboUtyOu(T) vs FluX(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
binski(T) vs EGLzGaMeR(T) in Loser's Bracket Round 6 should have played on Lost Temple, but instead played on Blistering Sands (Actually, I have no idea how this one got screwed up. It doesn't even make sense)
They aren't even consistent in making this exact decision as long as it's not on camera, nevermind the chat/color comparison, guess they don't even have credibility according to their own terms as stated in OP, that really sucks that results depended in part on which match got televised -___-
|
I think it's great of them that they IMMEDIATELY acknowledge that they made a mistake and follow the rules. Sure it sucks for the players, but it was the right thing to do. I find it really cool of them that they don't make up lame excuses and immediately say they were at fault. Props to MLG for running this great event! (on a sidenote, I don't feel like painuser stole this series because of this. He played a fantastic game 1 reloaded and game 2.)
|
On November 07 2010 23:12 VoriuM wrote:
I think it's great of them that they IMMEDIATELY acknowledge that they made a mistake and follow the rules. Sure it sucks for the players, but it was the right thing to do. I find it really cool of them that they don't make up lame excuses and immediately say they were at fault. Props to MLG for running this great event! (on a sidenote, I don't feel like painuser stole this series because of this. He played a fantastic game 1 reloaded and game 2.)
I agree and could even ignore the other four games, but they NEED to fix the brackets so it doesn't happen again!
If you can't change the template to remove the first Round, at least re-number correctly!
|
On November 07 2010 22:24 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 22:22 TheDna wrote:On November 07 2010 21:00 dcemuser wrote:
What do you know? Here's some more.
EGColbi(Z) vs Jaeger(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
AlLaboUtyOu(T) vs FluX(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
binski(T) vs EGLzGaMeR(T) in Loser's Bracket Round 6 should have played on Lost Temple, but instead played on Blistering Sands (Actually, I have no idea how this one got screwed up. It doesn't even make sense) Can you tell me where i can see the maps that are played today? Would be very important! Thank you! Sure, go to http://www.mlgpro.com/pro-circuit/2010/. Then click on Starcraft 2 on the side bar on the left, and then on Game Types. It shows all the correct maps, but don't make the same mistake MLG did - the official brackets are numbered wrong.
Thanks a lot. But i don't get it how are they numbered wrong?
For example it says round 8 for Ret Vs Kiwi. Round 8 should be Metalopolis. Or is it a different mapbecause of the gridmistakes?
|
On November 07 2010 23:14 TheDna wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 22:24 dcemuser wrote:On November 07 2010 22:22 TheDna wrote:On November 07 2010 21:00 dcemuser wrote:
What do you know? Here's some more.
EGColbi(Z) vs Jaeger(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
AlLaboUtyOu(T) vs FluX(P) in Loser's Bracket Round 3 should have been played on Metalopolis, but instead played on Blistering Sands (the Round 5 map - Loser's Bracket is off by 2 rounds)
binski(T) vs EGLzGaMeR(T) in Loser's Bracket Round 6 should have played on Lost Temple, but instead played on Blistering Sands (Actually, I have no idea how this one got screwed up. It doesn't even make sense) Can you tell me where i can see the maps that are played today? Would be very important! Thank you! Sure, go to http://www.mlgpro.com/pro-circuit/2010/. Then click on Starcraft 2 on the side bar on the left, and then on Game Types. It shows all the correct maps, but don't make the same mistake MLG did - the official brackets are numbered wrong. Thanks a lot. But i don't get it how are they numbered wrong? For example it says round 8 for Ret Vs Kiwi. Round 8 should be Metalopolis. Or is it a different mapbecause of the gridmistakes?
If you look there, it says "Round 6 - Lost Temple"
Now, look where LiquidTyler vs PainUser is on their official brackets... Round 6.
That's the error. The numbering on the official brackets is wrong because there is a "fake" Round 1, pushing all the Rounds off by 1.
|
Winner-bracket is off by 1 round and the loser-bracket is off by 2.
|
I just want to give props to MLG for handling this so professionally and transparently. I actually think MORE highly of MLG after this.
|
On November 07 2010 23:24 Trebis wrote:
I just want to give props to MLG for handling this so professionally and transparently. I actually think MORE highly of MLG after this.
^ Serious? How can they "number" the rounds wrong in the bracket without noticing it? It's rather sad.
|
On November 07 2010 22:54 EmilA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 22:50 ggkorea wrote:
instead of trying to save every pennies, you better employ more workers
working over 20 hrs is not an excuse, it simply shows that you are a really greedy employer Oh shut up man, people can make mistakes whether they're tired or not. Who are you to tell them to hire additional workers ._. You're probably not even paying to watch their games.
abusing the workers to work over 20hrs, which obviously leads to a "man-made" mistake, and then now declaring that is it normal in TL forum is obviously an abnormal case
the OP is as misleading as you in making these claims, so i am just a little one trying to clear your messed up mind off
|
The content on the MLG stream has been so amazing that I don't really care about a small hiccup like this.
However, the mistake was compounded by them stopping the game.
The players themselves must carry some responsibility for what map to play on.
Since both Tyler and PU played the map without question they should have just carried on with the game.
|
On November 07 2010 23:12 VoriuM wrote:
I think it's great of them that they IMMEDIATELY acknowledge that they made a mistake and follow the rules. Sure it sucks for the players, but it was the right thing to do. I find it really cool of them that they don't make up lame excuses and immediately say they were at fault. Props to MLG for running this great event! (on a sidenote, I don't feel like painuser stole this series because of this. He played a fantastic game 1 reloaded and game 2.)
oh they just did, you missed them? that's so unfortunate
|
For next season's rules they should stipulate that the map pool for each tournament is based off of "current ladder/tournament standards" or something and subject to change.
|
On November 07 2010 22:50 ggkorea wrote:
instead of trying to save every pennies, you better employ more workers
working over 20 hrs is not an excuse, it simply shows that you are a really greedy employer
You're talking out of your ass. You have no idea how much profit MLG is making from these tournaments. Also, given the dedication of the gaming community, there is a good chance those employees are more than happy to work the 20hr shifts.
|
On November 07 2010 23:29 ggkorea wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 22:54 EmilA wrote:On November 07 2010 22:50 ggkorea wrote:
instead of trying to save every pennies, you better employ more workers
working over 20 hrs is not an excuse, it simply shows that you are a really greedy employer Oh shut up man, people can make mistakes whether they're tired or not. Who are you to tell them to hire additional workers ._. You're probably not even paying to watch their games. abusing the workers to work over 20hrs, which obviously leads to a "man-made" mistake, and then now declaring that is it normal in TL forum is obviously an abnormal case the OP is as misleading as you in making these claims, so i am just a little one trying to clear your messed up mind off
You obviously know nothing about how large event production works. Rock shows, sporting events, broadway shows, any kind of filming, even conferences and conventions of all sorts all operate with fairly small staffs working long hours. For a lot of production tasks you need a few people with specialized skills to be in complete control. In most cases adding people doesn't result in a better outcome, it just creates confusion and lowers the end quality. Production people are used to (and compensated for) alternating between long periods of down time and intense stretches of work.
Though there is clearly room for improvement in how MLG handled brackets/maps this time saying they are abusing their workers is an absurdly ignorant statement.
|
I absolutely hated this, really thought tyler was ahead.
+ Show Spoiler +Seeing him losing the next 2 games didn't help one bit. The fanboy in me cant help but blame this error for his loss.
That being said, MLG has been absolutely amazing. The stream has top notch casters, everything seems so well organized, and the stream is _SMOOTH_. I even dare say that MLG is handling tournaments better than GSL, which is supposed to be the top of the crop in regards to SC2 tournaments. And MLG even have multiple tournaments running simultanously.
This thread, showing willingness to admit mistakes and being transparant helps this impression of MLG even further.
|
On November 07 2010 23:24 Trebis wrote:
I just want to give props to MLG for handling this so professionally and transparently. I actually think MORE highly of MLG after this.
I've gotta disagree. I feel like they have made themselves look worse to be quite frank. After sifting through this thread i'm actually quite shocked from all the mistakes. How many people were potentially screwed? How many people traveled from around the country for this event?
Essentially MLG put Tyler on tilt for the rest of his match.
As for handling this professionally.....
What exactly are they going to do about these matches? Are they gonna sweep it under the rug and pretend nothing happened?
As for having people work 20 hours a day.....Thats a big no no. Apparently MLG likes to cut a lot of corners and break labor laws as well.
As for other rules not being enforced.... I can understand that they don't wanna "ruin" a bracket for DQing players for chatting in game but it really seems like MLG makes these rules up and then chooses which ones to follow. Credibility and integrity is important in any organization and it seems that MLG is losing it.
A message to the OP/MLG about the original post. No one cares that you guys are "slaving" 20 hours a day. The People attending this event(players/watchers/whatevers) are essentially "consumers" handing over money with an expectation in return. Expectations aren't being properly met. What now?
|
I don't think MLG deserve hate for this small mistake. But, if the problem is mistakes caused by people working long hours, then the solution is clear.
|
On November 07 2010 23:29 Klive5ive wrote:
The content on the MLG stream has been so amazing that I don't really care about a small hiccup like this.
|
On November 07 2010 23:29 ggkorea wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 22:54 EmilA wrote:On November 07 2010 22:50 ggkorea wrote:
instead of trying to save every pennies, you better employ more workers
working over 20 hrs is not an excuse, it simply shows that you are a really greedy employer Oh shut up man, people can make mistakes whether they're tired or not. Who are you to tell them to hire additional workers ._. You're probably not even paying to watch their games. abusing the workers to work over 20hrs, which obviously leads to a "man-made" mistake, and then now declaring that is it normal in TL forum is obviously an abnormal case the OP is as misleading as you in making these claims, so i am just a little one trying to clear your messed up mind off
This post proves that you've never run a tournament/concert/event of any kind before. It's easy to log that amount of time per day when you're running around trying to make sure everything is running as smoothly as possible. And sometimes, even with the best preparation and uber-talented people, things will go wrong. Hire more people? Greedy? Anyone here with actual, real-world event planning experience knows the kind of margins these guys are likely working with. MLG, while growing, is still a relatively small company trying to do a ton with not nearly as much as you think and most of the work that goes into this event (or others like it) will go unsung, like every other event out there. And while I think this map thing was crappy, I can see how it could have happened and am glad Lee came out and manned up for it.
|
So, MLG says they are sticklers for the rules, but then isn't a stickler for ALL rules? Ugh, if you're not going to be consistent, there's no point in being a stickler.
|
TBH, I feel that the map rotation method they use is kind of lame. I would rather see a random map (not that difficult to create a random generator) or have some sort of straw-picking method for the players to pick the map.
|
I just want to say that I've loved MLG so far and have thought it has been a great event thus far. I can understand tired employees making mistakes and that's understandable. I just think that MLG handled the situation in a bad way that makes them look bad and made it an even worse situation. If they would have just did nothing, there wouldn't be this shitstorm and nobody would have thought any less of MLG.
But I can even understand making a bad decision as long as you have a good reason. The problem is that by their reasoning of the situation, they have made themselves hypocrites. If you say that if the rules are there, you must follow them until they are changed, then you have just bound yourself to do that in all situations. The fact that they haven't followed the rules by the letter makes them look even worse than they did before. I probably wouldn't have been as irritated if they would have just come out and said that they made a mistake and did what they thought was best and left it at that. But they brought out an excuse that makes them look even less credible than they did before. And that is kind of funny considering they said that they did what they did because they wanted to look like a credible league. You can't have it both ways.
|
Guys.
Chill.
PainUser's been practicing with HD Starcraft okay.
He deserved the win over one of the most talented players in North America.
God.
|
tyler has no one but himself to blame for those losses, especially the last one.
|
On November 08 2010 00:36 BlitZl0l wrote:
Guys.
Chill.
PainUser's been practicing with HD Starcraft okay.
He deserved the win over one of the most talented players in North America.
God.
You realize that Agh_Antec is on Lazerus too, right, and that Agh beat Tyler at Raleigh 2-1?
Edit: I'm probably just being trolled right now. I hope you get banned. I'm a huge Tyler fan too, but berating his opponent only serves to berate Tyler too.
|
On November 08 2010 00:30 zemiron wrote:
If they would have just did nothing, there wouldn't be this shitstorm and nobody would have thought any less of MLG.
Unless there would of been and everybody still would of.
If we're going to live in the realm of possibilities, than we might as well fathom the possibility that if the game went on, someone might of still noticed post-hoc that many games were played on the wrong map and that some results might of ended differently because of it and then people would still be bitching and pointing fingers because that's what people like to do.
What happened, happened and it seems almost certain that MLG will have learned from it so lets move on.
|
No one even knew they were playing on the wrong map, as the rules clearly stated LT was the correct map for their round.
Of course the rules themselves were all messed up due to it being formatted for a 256 player tournament...
|
On November 08 2010 00:38 REM.ca wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 00:30 zemiron wrote:
If they would have just did nothing, there wouldn't be this shitstorm and nobody would have thought any less of MLG. If we're going to live in the realm of possibilities, than we might as well fathom the possibility that if the game went on, someone might of still noticed post-hoc that many games were played on the wrong map and that some results might of ended differently because of it and then people would still be bitching and pointing fingers because that's what people like to do
I'm sure I would have noticed, just because I separate these replays into folders and divide them by map (that's how I noticed the the other four messups).
I doubt I would have made a big deal about it though.
|
I find it hilarious that the majority of the people in this thread have never organized/run any type of event in their lives yet feel they have a clue as to what MLG staff is doing. You can't put in 9-5 hours during events, its hard work all day so that WE the spectators and the PLAYERS have a fun, enjoyable tournament. In events stuff goes wrong constantly. People make mistakes, people screw up, get over it.
Been a fantastic tournament so far, few hiccups. They tried to be open and share some of their decision making process and you vultures jumped all over them. It happened, it's over, move on.
Looking forward to an awesome Championship Sunday!
|
I think this was absolutely the right thing to do. You can't just change rules when you feel like it in large tournaments. There is enough chaos going on at all times without adding another element to it.
|
On November 07 2010 22:21 Moragon wrote:
Luckily it didn't affect the outcome as painuser would have won 2-1 even if the fake game counted but it was still rough, I would have asked the players if they could play it out.
Are you for real? You seriously think destroying someone with gateway units only in PvT and clearly winning(pain user even said he was low on scvs and nony had two exp with fair amount of probes) doesnt effect future games when the game is replayed?
Have you ever played an RTS game in your life? You ever heard of being aggravated by having a game stolen from you when the tournmanet is for MONEY. You ever heard of having to change your strats and play different because now you dont have a comfortable one game lead AND he knows one of your strats for free?
Please moragon use some of your brain. I am not trying to be rude but your comment is over the top lame and quite frankly disrespectful to Tyler.
|
On November 08 2010 00:08 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 23:24 Trebis wrote:
I just want to give props to MLG for handling this so professionally and transparently. I actually think MORE highly of MLG after this. As for handling this professionally..... What exactly are they going to do about these matches? Are they gonna sweep it under the rug and pretend nothing happened? As for having people work 20 hours a day.....Thats a big no no. Apparently MLG likes to cut a lot of corners and break labor laws as well. As for other rules not being enforced.... I can understand that they don't wanna "ruin" a bracket for DQing players for chatting in game but it really seems like MLG makes these rules up and then chooses which ones to follow. Credibility and integrity is important in any organization and it seems that MLG is losing it. A message to the OP/MLG about the original post. No one cares that you guys are "slaving" 20 hours a day. The People attending this event(players/watchers/whatevers) are essentially "consumers" handing over money with an expectation in return. Expectations aren't being properly met. What now?
How are 20 hour shifts a big no no? There's a reason why paramedics usually work 24 hour shifts. Some places opt for 48 hour shifts. If there's any profession in which you want to avoid mistakes, this is it. It's simply more efficient than constantly rotating employees, and indeed is breaking no labor laws.
As for sweeping the issue under the rug, they did the exact opposite; they immediately came here and made the issue more public by opening a discussion of it on TL.
|
|
|
279 Posts
Appreciate all the support and feedback. Thanks everyone and hope you are enjoying the tournament. Will be some great matches today.
re: Chat rule. Apologies for the lack of clarity there. We are evaluating that rule right now. The spirit of the rule (as someone else pointed out in the thread) is to not disrupt the gameplay or the streams (when applicable). While we are evaluating the rule, the refs and admins have been instructed to not enforce that rule unless it's the spirit of the rule has been violated.
re: brackets display: after speaking with the dev team this morning, there was an issue with the tournament admin tool and we had to use a 256team bracket and give everyone a bye in the first round. There was no impact on the bracket display otherwise, but it's obviously confusing. This will be resolved before next season starts.
re: map errors and the map reset rule in general: Someone has pointed out the Halo3 situation in last year's finals so this rule is applied globally. Before we go off on another "THIS ISNT HALO" discussion, my _ONLY_ point here that this is a situation we've dealt with before here, and there's set rules and policies in place for it at MLG that dates back years. To clarify the rule, the current policy is that once the round advances, we don't reset that map and replay. Players also have the right to challenge/protest before the next match starts if they notice it.
Last note, as I said in a previous post on TL, we'll be revisiting ALL of the rules in the off season. As well as some of our processes to make sure that we have better checks on catching errors like this one.
To folks who are torching me for the 20 hour comment. You're right, I probably could have gone without including that. It certainly wasn't an excuse. It was an explanation of why we were more likely to make an error. Which is exactly what we did.
|
On November 08 2010 00:49 Musketeer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 00:08 ReachTheSky wrote:On November 07 2010 23:24 Trebis wrote:
I just want to give props to MLG for handling this so professionally and transparently. I actually think MORE highly of MLG after this. As for handling this professionally..... What exactly are they going to do about these matches? Are they gonna sweep it under the rug and pretend nothing happened? As for having people work 20 hours a day.....Thats a big no no. Apparently MLG likes to cut a lot of corners and break labor laws as well. As for other rules not being enforced.... I can understand that they don't wanna "ruin" a bracket for DQing players for chatting in game but it really seems like MLG makes these rules up and then chooses which ones to follow. Credibility and integrity is important in any organization and it seems that MLG is losing it. A message to the OP/MLG about the original post. No one cares that you guys are "slaving" 20 hours a day. The People attending this event(players/watchers/whatevers) are essentially "consumers" handing over money with an expectation in return. Expectations aren't being properly met. What now? How are 20 hour shifts a big no no? There's a reason why paramedics usually work 24 hour shifts. Some places opt for 48 hour shifts. If there's any profession in which you want to avoid mistakes, this is it. It's simply more efficient than constantly rotating employees, and indeed is breaking no labor laws. As for sweeping the issue under the rug, they did the exact opposite; they immediately came here and made the issue more public by opening a discussion of it on TL.
They admitted there are mistakes......but are they fixing it? Outcomes for how ever many misplayed series could have been different. Why aren't the refs checking at the start of every match?
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
It is what it is. Thanks for posting this here Lee - i'm going to lock it now since everyone and his clinical psychologist mother has given their feedback
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
