|
On January 31 2012 07:18 Djin)ftw( wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 06:09 era909 wrote:On January 31 2012 05:45 holydevil wrote:On January 31 2012 04:12 rotegirte wrote:On January 31 2012 03:47 BloodThirsty wrote:On January 31 2012 03:43 Champloo wrote:
I don't even know what this discussion is about. If you forfeit the finals you are second place. Simple as that. How so? Its their tournament, they don't HAVE to pay you, unless there was a contract that was signed and what I have heard there was none. The tournament has to consider their own integrity for providing entertainment. VIEWERS are what pays for entertainment not a french player who is "le tired" and cant nap during 3rd place match drink energy drinks and try to play the finals. God forbid anyone stays up for a whole night in their life for 1500 dollars. IF YA DONT WANT TO STAY UP LATE FOR A NA TOURNAMENT DONT PLAY IN IT. Simple as that GG What the fucking hell. If you meet the requirements of placement, of course you have a right to receive the advertised prize. The difference is, every organizer reserves its right of extraordinary disqualification at their own disclosure. That's what exception clauses are for, to prepare for rare situations. It is then the duty of the organizer to state the reason of exception handling. In this case, the reasons were: [...]
If One Nation of Gamers is going to work out and do our part to grow eSports, we have to be an organization that puts the fans first. Given that principle, I came to the decision to penalize Stephano and move him to 4th place, have Catz and Illusion play for 2nd/3rd, and have the victor play against Kas.
Everyone involved with One Nation of Gamers has worked incredibly hard -for months- to raise the $3,000 that we've put up for grabs. It's not a lot to everyone, but it's a lot to us and represents month of volunteer work. We decided to run this tournament to give back to eSports, we wanted to help the pros earn a little more and we wanted to provide some great content to the fans. We believe everyone deserves to see an appropriate final series for $1,500.
[...] Which consists of two reasons: 1) Stephano did not put the fans first 2) Stephano did not provide a final series worth 1,500$ No need to interpret, these were the reasons given by the head organizer. The implications for any future player of ONOG would be: 1) You play for entertainment value first and second for the spirit of competition 2) If we deem your performance not worth a specific, but undefined measure of entertainment value, you can be stripped of your earnings at any given time. The disrupt occurs in the perceived purpose of a player. Organizers, players and fans are inter-dependent. As much as players rely on events as funding source and public promotion platform, tournaments rely on the players as audience provider. As much as we support them do what they do by our customer dollars, we are dependent on them to exist and willing to provide the entertainment we want. To say that entertainment value should be prioritized over everything else is debatable. I wouldn't say that was the take away. I think a big problem here is that is appears that my restructure was arbitrary. It wasn't. I will try my best to explain. Look, Stephano started his series pretty late. I think Stephano v. vileIllusion started their semi-finals series at like 7 EST (1 AM France time?). Before the start of this series, Stephano was aware that we would be playing for 3rd before the finals. I feel like, as a player at this point in the tournament, he was on notice that semi-finals -> finals would probably extend to 4 am. Immediately after finishing his series with vileIllusion, Stephano said he was tired and did not want to continue playing. This felt pretty abrupt because he was pretty chatty with vileIllusion throughout the series. He told us he either wanted to play the final tomorrow or he would quit. We made two offers which, I believe, was gracious: We offered to switch and let Stephano and Kas to play their finals match first and we offered to have them play at the same time of the third and cast the final from replays. Stephano declined both options and logged off. At this point I was pretty much in a bind and needed to make a choice. My thought process was that I should give the audience a final match (esp barcrafts in NA). My other thought process was that Stephano, because of his experience and intelligence, had to know that this would go until like 4 am in France before he started his semi-final round at 7 EST. Accordingly, because he should have known the general end time of the tournament, I felt he should have made a decision to forfeit before starting the semi-final match against vileIllusion. So, I decided to place Stephano back to a point in the tournament where I felt -based on the forfeit reason provided i.e., fatigue- he would have been reasonably aware of the likely end time of the tournament and should have made a decision. I then adjusted the positions of Catz and Illusion accordingly. Lastly, tournaments do not have full control of scheduling - Stephano was participating in SCAN and Bitter had a prior commitment and also could not start earlier. Given who was involved, that was the earliest we could start the event. Originally, we wanted to start at 1 EST. I think it's arguable whether I am right or wrong, but my decision definitely wasn't arbitrary. I had reasoning and I guess you can now go ahead and decide if it's 'stupid' or not. I'm sorry this has become such a huge issue and I am also sorry that Stephano is being dragged in the mud so much. He has since apologized for his actions and I do not harbor any ill will. Both sides made mistakes it happens. I think some valuable lessons for organizers and players is to make sure your tournament rules are comprehensive so that situations like this aren't 'winged.' As a player, you should be aware of time zones that online tournaments are based out of when you decide to accept invitations. So if he'd had to forfeit due to injury would you have decided that it was probably just before the semi finals that he started to feel pain and thus it was at that point he should have quit? Just curious. Exactly. What if he had said "ouch. just hurt my hand badly, sorry cant play like this." this is all so arbitrary.
He could also just unplugged the internet cable.
Being honest doesn't pay those days :D
|
On January 31 2012 05:45 holydevil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 04:12 rotegirte wrote:On January 31 2012 03:47 BloodThirsty wrote:On January 31 2012 03:43 Champloo wrote:
I don't even know what this discussion is about. If you forfeit the finals you are second place. Simple as that. How so? Its their tournament, they don't HAVE to pay you, unless there was a contract that was signed and what I have heard there was none. The tournament has to consider their own integrity for providing entertainment. VIEWERS are what pays for entertainment not a french player who is "le tired" and cant nap during 3rd place match drink energy drinks and try to play the finals. God forbid anyone stays up for a whole night in their life for 1500 dollars. IF YA DONT WANT TO STAY UP LATE FOR A NA TOURNAMENT DONT PLAY IN IT. Simple as that GG What the fucking hell. If you meet the requirements of placement, of course you have a right to receive the advertised prize. The difference is, every organizer reserves its right of extraordinary disqualification at their own disclosure. That's what exception clauses are for, to prepare for rare situations. It is then the duty of the organizer to state the reason of exception handling. In this case, the reasons were: [...]
If One Nation of Gamers is going to work out and do our part to grow eSports, we have to be an organization that puts the fans first. Given that principle, I came to the decision to penalize Stephano and move him to 4th place, have Catz and Illusion play for 2nd/3rd, and have the victor play against Kas.
Everyone involved with One Nation of Gamers has worked incredibly hard -for months- to raise the $3,000 that we've put up for grabs. It's not a lot to everyone, but it's a lot to us and represents month of volunteer work. We decided to run this tournament to give back to eSports, we wanted to help the pros earn a little more and we wanted to provide some great content to the fans. We believe everyone deserves to see an appropriate final series for $1,500.
[...] Which consists of two reasons: 1) Stephano did not put the fans first 2) Stephano did not provide a final series worth 1,500$ No need to interpret, these were the reasons given by the head organizer. The implications for any future player of ONOG would be: 1) You play for entertainment value first and second for the spirit of competition 2) If we deem your performance not worth a specific, but undefined measure of entertainment value, you can be stripped of your earnings at any given time. The disrupt occurs in the perceived purpose of a player. Organizers, players and fans are inter-dependent. As much as players rely on events as funding source and public promotion platform, tournaments rely on the players as audience provider. As much as we support them do what they do by our customer dollars, we are dependent on them to exist and willing to provide the entertainment we want. To say that entertainment value should be prioritized over everything else is debatable. I wouldn't say that was the take away. I think a big problem here is that is appears that my restructure was arbitrary. It wasn't. I will try my best to explain. Look, Stephano started his series pretty late. I think Stephano v. vileIllusion started their semi-finals series at like 7 EST (1 AM France time?). Before the start of this series, Stephano was aware that we would be playing for 3rd before the finals. I feel like, as a player at this point in the tournament, he was on notice that semi-finals -> finals would probably extend to 4 am. Immediately after finishing his series with vileIllusion, Stephano said he was tired and did not want to continue playing. This felt pretty abrupt because he was pretty chatty with vileIllusion throughout the series. He told us he either wanted to play the final tomorrow or he would quit. We made two offers which, I believe, was gracious: We offered to switch and let Stephano and Kas to play their finals match first and we offered to have them play at the same time of the third and cast the final from replays. Stephano declined both options and logged off. At this point I was pretty much in a bind and needed to make a choice. My thought process was that I should give the audience a final match (esp barcrafts in NA). My other thought process was that Stephano, because of his experience and intelligence, had to know that this would go until like 4 am in France before he started his semi-final round at 7 EST. Accordingly, because he should have known the general end time of the tournament, I felt he should have made a decision to forfeit before starting the semi-final match against vileIllusion. So, I decided to place Stephano back to a point in the tournament where I felt -based on the forfeit reason provided i.e., fatigue- he would have been reasonably aware of the likely end time of the tournament and should have made a decision. I then adjusted the positions of Catz and Illusion accordingly. Lastly, tournaments do not have full control of scheduling - Stephano was participating in SCAN and Bitter had a prior commitment and also could not start earlier. Given who was involved, that was the earliest we could start the event. Originally, we wanted to start at 1 EST. I think it's arguable whether I am right or wrong, but my decision definitely wasn't arbitrary. I had reasoning and I guess you can now go ahead and decide if it's 'stupid' or not. I'm sorry this has become such a huge issue and I am also sorry that Stephano is being dragged in the mud so much. He has since apologized for his actions and I do not harbor any ill will. Both sides made mistakes it happens. I think some valuable lessons for organizers and players is to make sure your tournament rules are comprehensive so that situations like this aren't 'winged.' As a player, you should be aware of time zones that online tournaments are based out of when you decide to accept invitations.
HolyDevil, you work for ONOG right? If so, congrats on a great tournament. I watched it on stream and enjoyed it immensely. Mr Bitter was excellent as usual. I have no gripes with your decision regarding Stephano and promoting Illusion. As you say, you had a live audience and could not reschedule.
I am not sure after the events of the last week whether you wish to retain a dialogue with Stephano or not. Maybe you would choose not to do so. However a suggestion I would make is for perhaps Stephano and ONOG to come to some sort of arrangement as a form of reconciliation. Stephano is very popular, and helps bring in viewers/sponsors, which is what ONOG needs in order to grow. Perhaps you could ask Stephano, if he would consider maybe a gesture to help make up for any slight or inconvenience his withdrawal made to your tournament. Maybe he would be willing to give ONOG a free showmatch or maybe a replay of an exciting game or two that could be cast and pre-recorded prior to broadcast in the next ONOG Tournament. Thus Stephano would give back to the community in a visible way to demonstrate regret for his withdrawal and it's consequences. Also ONOG could use this showmatch or casted replay to use Stephano's popularity to help ONOG viewer's and popularity grow.
|
On January 31 2012 22:36 revel8 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 05:45 holydevil wrote:On January 31 2012 04:12 rotegirte wrote:On January 31 2012 03:47 BloodThirsty wrote:On January 31 2012 03:43 Champloo wrote:
I don't even know what this discussion is about. If you forfeit the finals you are second place. Simple as that. How so? Its their tournament, they don't HAVE to pay you, unless there was a contract that was signed and what I have heard there was none. The tournament has to consider their own integrity for providing entertainment. VIEWERS are what pays for entertainment not a french player who is "le tired" and cant nap during 3rd place match drink energy drinks and try to play the finals. God forbid anyone stays up for a whole night in their life for 1500 dollars. IF YA DONT WANT TO STAY UP LATE FOR A NA TOURNAMENT DONT PLAY IN IT. Simple as that GG What the fucking hell. If you meet the requirements of placement, of course you have a right to receive the advertised prize. The difference is, every organizer reserves its right of extraordinary disqualification at their own disclosure. That's what exception clauses are for, to prepare for rare situations. It is then the duty of the organizer to state the reason of exception handling. In this case, the reasons were: [...]
If One Nation of Gamers is going to work out and do our part to grow eSports, we have to be an organization that puts the fans first. Given that principle, I came to the decision to penalize Stephano and move him to 4th place, have Catz and Illusion play for 2nd/3rd, and have the victor play against Kas.
Everyone involved with One Nation of Gamers has worked incredibly hard -for months- to raise the $3,000 that we've put up for grabs. It's not a lot to everyone, but it's a lot to us and represents month of volunteer work. We decided to run this tournament to give back to eSports, we wanted to help the pros earn a little more and we wanted to provide some great content to the fans. We believe everyone deserves to see an appropriate final series for $1,500.
[...] Which consists of two reasons: 1) Stephano did not put the fans first 2) Stephano did not provide a final series worth 1,500$ No need to interpret, these were the reasons given by the head organizer. The implications for any future player of ONOG would be: 1) You play for entertainment value first and second for the spirit of competition 2) If we deem your performance not worth a specific, but undefined measure of entertainment value, you can be stripped of your earnings at any given time. The disrupt occurs in the perceived purpose of a player. Organizers, players and fans are inter-dependent. As much as players rely on events as funding source and public promotion platform, tournaments rely on the players as audience provider. As much as we support them do what they do by our customer dollars, we are dependent on them to exist and willing to provide the entertainment we want. To say that entertainment value should be prioritized over everything else is debatable. I wouldn't say that was the take away. I think a big problem here is that is appears that my restructure was arbitrary. It wasn't. I will try my best to explain. Look, Stephano started his series pretty late. I think Stephano v. vileIllusion started their semi-finals series at like 7 EST (1 AM France time?). Before the start of this series, Stephano was aware that we would be playing for 3rd before the finals. I feel like, as a player at this point in the tournament, he was on notice that semi-finals -> finals would probably extend to 4 am. Immediately after finishing his series with vileIllusion, Stephano said he was tired and did not want to continue playing. This felt pretty abrupt because he was pretty chatty with vileIllusion throughout the series. He told us he either wanted to play the final tomorrow or he would quit. We made two offers which, I believe, was gracious: We offered to switch and let Stephano and Kas to play their finals match first and we offered to have them play at the same time of the third and cast the final from replays. Stephano declined both options and logged off. At this point I was pretty much in a bind and needed to make a choice. My thought process was that I should give the audience a final match (esp barcrafts in NA). My other thought process was that Stephano, because of his experience and intelligence, had to know that this would go until like 4 am in France before he started his semi-final round at 7 EST. Accordingly, because he should have known the general end time of the tournament, I felt he should have made a decision to forfeit before starting the semi-final match against vileIllusion. So, I decided to place Stephano back to a point in the tournament where I felt -based on the forfeit reason provided i.e., fatigue- he would have been reasonably aware of the likely end time of the tournament and should have made a decision. I then adjusted the positions of Catz and Illusion accordingly. Lastly, tournaments do not have full control of scheduling - Stephano was participating in SCAN and Bitter had a prior commitment and also could not start earlier. Given who was involved, that was the earliest we could start the event. Originally, we wanted to start at 1 EST. I think it's arguable whether I am right or wrong, but my decision definitely wasn't arbitrary. I had reasoning and I guess you can now go ahead and decide if it's 'stupid' or not. I'm sorry this has become such a huge issue and I am also sorry that Stephano is being dragged in the mud so much. He has since apologized for his actions and I do not harbor any ill will. Both sides made mistakes it happens. I think some valuable lessons for organizers and players is to make sure your tournament rules are comprehensive so that situations like this aren't 'winged.' As a player, you should be aware of time zones that online tournaments are based out of when you decide to accept invitations. HolyDevil, you work for ONOG right? If so, congrats on a great tournament. I watched it on stream and enjoyed it immensely. Mr Bitter was excellent as usual. I have no gripes with your decision regarding Stephano and promoting Illusion. As you say, you had a live audience and could not reschedule. I am not sure after the events of the last week whether you wish to retain a dialogue with Stephano or not. Maybe you would choose not to do so. However a suggestion I would make is for perhaps Stephano and ONOG to come to some sort of arrangement as a form of reconciliation. Stephano is very popular, and helps bring in viewers/sponsors, which is what ONOG needs in order to grow. Perhaps you could ask Stephano, if he would consider maybe a gesture to help make up for any slight or inconvenience his withdrawal made to your tournament. Maybe he would be willing to give ONOG a free showmatch or maybe a replay of an exciting game or two that could be cast and pre-recorded prior to broadcast in the next ONOG Tournament. Thus Stephano would give back to the community in a visible way to demonstrate regret for his withdrawal and it's consequences. Also ONOG could use this showmatch or casted replay to use Stephano's popularity to help ONOG viewer's and popularity grow.
Doing reconciliation puts a lot of pressure on the e-sports community. We cannot have players who thing they are bigger than the community themselves. We cannot reward for bad behavior, its childish. And the faster people move on the better e-sports will become. Unlike other tournaments. ONOG Invitational was organized by the community for the community. Lots of people spent their valuable time and effort to bring this together. In essence this tournament brought up what is the best in e-sports.
TL DR No Reconciliation, Stephano needs to grow up
|
On January 31 2012 22:53 maka.albarn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 22:36 revel8 wrote:On January 31 2012 05:45 holydevil wrote:On January 31 2012 04:12 rotegirte wrote:On January 31 2012 03:47 BloodThirsty wrote:On January 31 2012 03:43 Champloo wrote:
I don't even know what this discussion is about. If you forfeit the finals you are second place. Simple as that. How so? Its their tournament, they don't HAVE to pay you, unless there was a contract that was signed and what I have heard there was none. The tournament has to consider their own integrity for providing entertainment. VIEWERS are what pays for entertainment not a french player who is "le tired" and cant nap during 3rd place match drink energy drinks and try to play the finals. God forbid anyone stays up for a whole night in their life for 1500 dollars. IF YA DONT WANT TO STAY UP LATE FOR A NA TOURNAMENT DONT PLAY IN IT. Simple as that GG What the fucking hell. If you meet the requirements of placement, of course you have a right to receive the advertised prize. The difference is, every organizer reserves its right of extraordinary disqualification at their own disclosure. That's what exception clauses are for, to prepare for rare situations. It is then the duty of the organizer to state the reason of exception handling. In this case, the reasons were: [...]
If One Nation of Gamers is going to work out and do our part to grow eSports, we have to be an organization that puts the fans first. Given that principle, I came to the decision to penalize Stephano and move him to 4th place, have Catz and Illusion play for 2nd/3rd, and have the victor play against Kas.
Everyone involved with One Nation of Gamers has worked incredibly hard -for months- to raise the $3,000 that we've put up for grabs. It's not a lot to everyone, but it's a lot to us and represents month of volunteer work. We decided to run this tournament to give back to eSports, we wanted to help the pros earn a little more and we wanted to provide some great content to the fans. We believe everyone deserves to see an appropriate final series for $1,500.
[...] Which consists of two reasons: 1) Stephano did not put the fans first 2) Stephano did not provide a final series worth 1,500$ No need to interpret, these were the reasons given by the head organizer. The implications for any future player of ONOG would be: 1) You play for entertainment value first and second for the spirit of competition 2) If we deem your performance not worth a specific, but undefined measure of entertainment value, you can be stripped of your earnings at any given time. The disrupt occurs in the perceived purpose of a player. Organizers, players and fans are inter-dependent. As much as players rely on events as funding source and public promotion platform, tournaments rely on the players as audience provider. As much as we support them do what they do by our customer dollars, we are dependent on them to exist and willing to provide the entertainment we want. To say that entertainment value should be prioritized over everything else is debatable. I wouldn't say that was the take away. I think a big problem here is that is appears that my restructure was arbitrary. It wasn't. I will try my best to explain. Look, Stephano started his series pretty late. I think Stephano v. vileIllusion started their semi-finals series at like 7 EST (1 AM France time?). Before the start of this series, Stephano was aware that we would be playing for 3rd before the finals. I feel like, as a player at this point in the tournament, he was on notice that semi-finals -> finals would probably extend to 4 am. Immediately after finishing his series with vileIllusion, Stephano said he was tired and did not want to continue playing. This felt pretty abrupt because he was pretty chatty with vileIllusion throughout the series. He told us he either wanted to play the final tomorrow or he would quit. We made two offers which, I believe, was gracious: We offered to switch and let Stephano and Kas to play their finals match first and we offered to have them play at the same time of the third and cast the final from replays. Stephano declined both options and logged off. At this point I was pretty much in a bind and needed to make a choice. My thought process was that I should give the audience a final match (esp barcrafts in NA). My other thought process was that Stephano, because of his experience and intelligence, had to know that this would go until like 4 am in France before he started his semi-final round at 7 EST. Accordingly, because he should have known the general end time of the tournament, I felt he should have made a decision to forfeit before starting the semi-final match against vileIllusion. So, I decided to place Stephano back to a point in the tournament where I felt -based on the forfeit reason provided i.e., fatigue- he would have been reasonably aware of the likely end time of the tournament and should have made a decision. I then adjusted the positions of Catz and Illusion accordingly. Lastly, tournaments do not have full control of scheduling - Stephano was participating in SCAN and Bitter had a prior commitment and also could not start earlier. Given who was involved, that was the earliest we could start the event. Originally, we wanted to start at 1 EST. I think it's arguable whether I am right or wrong, but my decision definitely wasn't arbitrary. I had reasoning and I guess you can now go ahead and decide if it's 'stupid' or not. I'm sorry this has become such a huge issue and I am also sorry that Stephano is being dragged in the mud so much. He has since apologized for his actions and I do not harbor any ill will. Both sides made mistakes it happens. I think some valuable lessons for organizers and players is to make sure your tournament rules are comprehensive so that situations like this aren't 'winged.' As a player, you should be aware of time zones that online tournaments are based out of when you decide to accept invitations. HolyDevil, you work for ONOG right? If so, congrats on a great tournament. I watched it on stream and enjoyed it immensely. Mr Bitter was excellent as usual. I have no gripes with your decision regarding Stephano and promoting Illusion. As you say, you had a live audience and could not reschedule. I am not sure after the events of the last week whether you wish to retain a dialogue with Stephano or not. Maybe you would choose not to do so. However a suggestion I would make is for perhaps Stephano and ONOG to come to some sort of arrangement as a form of reconciliation. Stephano is very popular, and helps bring in viewers/sponsors, which is what ONOG needs in order to grow. Perhaps you could ask Stephano, if he would consider maybe a gesture to help make up for any slight or inconvenience his withdrawal made to your tournament. Maybe he would be willing to give ONOG a free showmatch or maybe a replay of an exciting game or two that could be cast and pre-recorded prior to broadcast in the next ONOG Tournament. Thus Stephano would give back to the community in a visible way to demonstrate regret for his withdrawal and it's consequences. Also ONOG could use this showmatch or casted replay to use Stephano's popularity to help ONOG viewer's and popularity grow. Doing reconciliation puts a lot of pressure on the e-sports community. We cannot have players who thing they are bigger than the community themselves. We cannot reward for bad behavior, its childish. And the faster people move on the better e-sports will become. Unlike other tournaments. ONOG Invitational was organized by the community for the community. Lots of people spent their valuable time and effort to bring this together. In essence this tournament brought up what is the best in e-sports. TL DR No Reconciliation, Stephano needs to grow up
I am just seeking a mature solution to this issue. One that benefits ONOG, Stephano and the Community. It serves no-one to bear grudges. Both Stephano and ONOG are good for the growth of SC2. I support them both.
The challenge now is to move forward in a way that is most productive for the growth of SC2. My proposal would seem to serve that end, but both parties must agree with it of course. Maybe Stephano has already learnt from this situation and will not do it again. One incidence is hardly indicative of a trend.
|
On January 31 2012 06:47 onPHYRE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 03:09 1Eris1 wrote:
Haha wow. People defeinding Stephano really need to to stop and think.
The tournament length is posted. You sign up for that tournament, you are fully aware of said tournaments restrictions and thus you are expected to follow it.
Stephano didn't. Of course he deserves to be reprimanded.
No one forced him to sign up for the tournament. He, and only he, is responsible I think most people agree that Stephano was also in the wrong. What the problem was related to how the organizers handled the situation, retrospectivley adding rules that unfairly hurt a player. They were both wrong, no one was saying Stephano played it perfectly or acted mature, but does that mean the organizers can be like "Oh we are hurt, so we will make up rules to punish the player, beyond forfeit of the finals." This rule was not stated before hand, but made up on the spot based on circumstance and how they felt cheated themselves. Not a good precedent to set.
I think they were both right. If stephano can't go on, he is right to go to bed ~~ and not throw games. and it was correct to switch things around to make sure there would be a final match in the tournament. The cards were dealt, and then played correctly. Why would you say that canceling a final would be a 'better precedent', for a tournament's first run, to set?
|
On January 30 2012 21:44 MrBitter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 21:32 djfoxmccloud wrote:
Mr Bitter, apart of the forfeit problem, will there be any official apology to explain that "joke" against French people ? I am personally very sorry if anyone was offended by anything said during the broadcast.
You know... https://www.google.com/search?q="I'm sorry you were offended"
I doubt you intended to go that route, but keep that in mind in the future.On January 31 2012 04:23 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 03:56 syllogism wrote:On January 31 2012 03:50 rotegirte wrote:On January 31 2012 03:01 syllogism wrote:shaberu: a hypothetical question: If a player legitimately reaches finals and then cheats to win said finals, would you be fine with depriving said player of his winnings even if there is no specific rule? You basically posted the same assertions as before and they aren't particularly more compelling on a repeated viewing despite your apparent confidence in your argument It's already difficult enough for people to trust one another with all the drama that unfolded over the past year (and so far this year). This in particular is complete nonsense. The question raised is exactly how such a rule regarding specifically forfeiting should be formulated. No one is blaming ONOG for handling an uncovered incident, since almost all major tournaments reserve their right to disqualify upon generic exception clauses and general sportsmanship codes. This is what allows them to disqualify players on a whim and handle exotic situations. The argument is that one side acknowledges the right to forfeit and the other doesn't. The argument is a competitor has no obligation to compete, but an entertainer has. As a competitor I am but only accountable by my personal ambition. As an entertainer providing production value I am accountable towards my team, organizers and fans. There are voices demanding both of the extremes, either full right to forfeit without reasons needed or full refusal of such a right no matter what. And there are other voices that realize that such extremes are not enforceable, damaging business and/or giving organizers disproportionate amounts of power. It is the question of how much you want one to be a competitor, which includes taking care of personal well-being, and how much of an entertainer providing public value he should be. And what ratio could be healthy to fairly represent both sides of a mutual relationship. This is a very reasonable position to hold and I do not have any issues with it. Well put Eh, no... It's not a good position to hold. He's effectively blaming us of being narrow-minded because we refuse to discount one aspect of the professionalism of progamer - the entertainment/organizational side. He wants us to forget that we need players to show up to games if we want to run tournaments and have fans at barcrafts. As a middle-ground he claims we need "the right to forfeit." Which isn't middle-ground at all, in fact it's a ridiculous extreme unknown in professional sports across the globe. A forfeit can happen in the status quo, but only because of reasons beyond their control. He advocates for a right to forfeit for the lolz.
As someone who advocated the "right to forfeit" earlier, I just see it as inevitable. If you disallow forfeiture, you'll just get naniwa probe rushes. If you disallow probe rushes, you'll get 6-pools. If you disallow 6-pools you're disallowing a core aspect of the game and fundamentally changing the dynamic of matches.
My point is, if you're going to make a rule against forfeiture, you'll either be getting skirted around ala naniwa, or you'll be having panels of judges deciding whether he "really" tried, "really!", which would be terrible. By the way, sorry if my argumentation is ass, I'm kind of drunk right now, but hopefully you get my point.
|
are there replays for Ro4 semifinals and Ro2 Finals? 
|
rofl, i know what stephano did wasn't good, but what do u think is the best, that he pulls a naniwa and 6pools or that he actually speaks the truth and say that he is too tired?
putting him at 4th place just describes what kind of joke tournament this is
|
Stephano is the joke. I came to watch the day 2 and the only thing i saw for over a hour was "waiting for stephano to finish edit: Scan cup" even though that tourney was allready over for a hour or something, and which made this tourney finale suck for europeans because it just started to late cause of that. And then when he starts playing he sais its to late, while it was him that make it last longer. It was great for EU times, but he made it last far past midnight himself, so screw him tbh.
Great decision to make him be 4th, and i hope this will make other tourneys not invite that guy anymore, since he is apparently just unreliable!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
