|
On December 22 2010 17:48 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote:
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic. This. It's not so much the "actual" attempt of match-fixing that worries me, but the huge pile of completely stupid posts that try to justify it. If a sponsor says "I give a grandprize only to the person who wins 11 out of 18 tournaments", then an agreement between two players that one should intentionally lose is nothing else but (attempted; in this case) fraud. Why the hell does everybody think the sponsor is "supposed" to give away the computer to match-fixers? That's certainly not how it was intended. Perfect way to drive away sponsors from e-sports, why the hell would anybody sponsor anything like that? The fact that apparently half of teamliquid thinks this is ok anyways because it is not streamed (WTF?) is disgusting.
This is what alot of people fail to realise. The point that not alot of people is watching and all that etc doesnt matter. If I were i sponsor, I would never give anything to a tourney that was fixed.
Also, the post I read from sjow where he said all that bs about it beeing just a small tourney, so one would watch, just happy amateurs etc. Thats just plain stupid, screwing over the 14 y olds who go to the nightgib with their friends, with some sort of hope in winning. And actually think that it doesnt matter and no one gives a damn.
|
On December 22 2010 17:32 decemberscalm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 17:28 Whiladan wrote:On December 22 2010 17:25 decemberscalm wrote:On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote:
Meanwhile in Korea,
Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game.
Luxury: Only if I get half share.
Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this,
SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it.
Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer.
SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic. Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this. Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness. And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous. The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition I love how RIGHT after your post is an example of a competition where it is deemed acceptable. It depends on the tournament. The tournament organizers could have just as easily sayed "Yeah, ok, you two DID win against your opponents, you can just click the surrender button, its your match." But in all seriousness, the tournament would most likely count on the higher tier prizes being advertisement and bait for bigger names while still minimizing the cost of the tournament by having lower actual prize money.
Except that post RIGHT after his is talking about an entirely different situation. Chopping a prize pool heads up = fine (in poker, or in SC). Colluding to get a "frequent-winner" prize = not fine (in poker, or in SC)
|
On December 22 2010 17:48 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote:
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic. This. It's not so much the "actual" attempt of match-fixing that worries me, but the huge pile of completely stupid posts that try to justify it. If a sponsor says "I give a grandprize only to the person who wins 11 out of 18 tournaments", then an agreement between two players that one should intentionally lose is nothing else but (attempted; in this case) fraud. Why the hell does everybody think the sponsor is "supposed" to give away the computer to match-fixers? That's certainly not how it was intended. In athletic sports there are often grand prizes for those who win many events in a season or in a row - obviously it could get the athletes banned from the scene if they were caught fixing this stuff. Perfect way to drive away sponsors from e-sports, why the hell would anybody sponsor anything like that? The fact that apparently half of teamliquid thinks this is ok anyways because it is not streamed (WTF?) is disgusting.
players going for it is a problem but the sponor itself is pretty much trying to offer matchfixing (perhaps inadvertently) and then dissing the players for going for it when it pretty much shares the blame. Just like how the bw matchfixers got their bit the match fixing organizers got theirs too.
|
On December 22 2010 17:40 wxwx wrote:
Some people are going to care because it shows the type of person the players are. From the look of things these two are in for the money rather than competition. It's like a slippery slope that could lead to match fixing. It all starts with greed overshadowing the spirit of competition.
Lets guillotine the heathens.
-.-
|
On December 22 2010 17:51 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 17:44 Impervious wrote:On December 22 2010 17:30 -Archangel- wrote:On December 22 2010 17:26 Impervious wrote:On December 22 2010 17:15 -Archangel- wrote:On December 22 2010 16:50 garbanzo wrote:On December 22 2010 16:34 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I wish people would read, and then in addition to reading try to understand what they read...
I'm very glad that Sjow came in here to clear up what actually ended up happening, and my opinion of neither player has been lowered.
If anything, I think this is a result of the cafe being greedy and putting on an event which discourages competition between the best players. If they were evenly matched, and they split the tournaments 9-9, then neither would get the large prize, but if one of them forfeited only 2 or the finals of the tournaments, then one could actually attain the large prize.
The cafe put up a very good prize with the expectation that no one would realistically be able to win it. I actually find that worse than what Morrow and Sjow were planning. They simply wanted to draw more people into their cafe, make more money, and then keep the prize.
It's really a very stupid format. It's like if for the GSL you won 100,000$ if you 5-0ed your opponent in the finals, but it would be split 2,000$ and 1,000$ if you did anything else... I'm all for the competitiveness of eSports and the spirit of competition, but at the end of the day it's professional gaming. They need to make money, hence the word professional. If anything, I think this reflects a need for more tournaments, sponsors, and larger prize pools, so progamers can actually make money and not need to find ways to maximize profit from the small amount of tournaments available. Assuming that the following assumptions are true: 1) you have to win 11/18 tournaments to get the "grand prize", 2) players have to pay to play in the tournament, 3) there are no spectators, then what you're saying is exactly correct. What they were planning is cheating, but they are cheating the house. They're not cheating you, the community or other players. They're just trying to beat the house. It's exactly cheating in the same way that card counting in blackjack at a casino is cheating. The house just wanted their money. The tournament structure ensures that if two equally skilled players competed then neither will win the grand prize and the house becomes richer. This is not the type of environment to develop healthy competition. Sjow and MorroW just wanted to game the system that was biased to begin with. I think they made the right decision by only having one of them compete in the end. + Show Spoiler +Of course I'm hoping that they realize this is the case and know the difference between this and other competition. Key difference lies in the 3 assumptions above. Wtf? So you are saying it is OK to cheat the house? Any tournament has rules, if you do not like those rules do not join the tournament (of if those rules break some law report them). By this statement of yours I would guess you also do not want to pay taxes as that is ONLY cheating the "house"?! They have more to gain by working together than by playing against eachother. If they are playing for the reward at the end, and they would actually make more by working together, then it's a poorly setup system..... Tbh, I don't see anything wrong with it - it's kinda like how many types of auto-racing near the end of the season will often work..... One teammate purposely does worse than he could have done, so the other can maximize his points, as well as doing better in the constructors championships, and hopefully move up the standings/secure a better position; and as a whole, the team does better than they would have otherwise. It's just a poorly designed prize system. If it was "you have to win the most tournaments to get the "grand prize"" instead, then yes, there would be a problem with them working together, because there is no real benefit of it. All they seem to be doing is taking advantage of some clever marketing scheme designed to prevent the "grand prize" from being won. When part of your motivation to take part in the tournament is the money you'd make from it, they're definitely making the right choice. Your rationalization is all cool and well but it is still cheating. It is because of this way of thinking corruption is present in all parts of life. Get your head straight before you grow up and move to a real world or you might end up caught with your hand in a cookie jar and end up doing time. What the hell are they playing for then? What the fuck is the point of holding a competition, where it would actually be better for them to work together? Seriously. When you play a sport like Football, or Hockey, or whatever, the big fucking prize is that trophy you get for first. And the recognition for being first. Among other things. Most "sports" are about that final, deciding game. This tourney structure doesn't even have that. It's pretty fucking clever marketing, that's all. It's dangling a prize above the players, but they don't want to give it away. I can't even articulate how fucking dumb the tourney setup is. I'm glad they at least tried to get the best result possible. Seriously man. Just stop. Learn morals. Ask you parents or your teachers. It is not too late.
Then explain yourself, rather than talking down to me. Because it's not impressing me at all.
|
On December 22 2010 17:40 wxwx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 17:33 freeto wrote:
i just honestly dont see why we care.
one of them is basically guaranteed to win the prize anyway, because theyre the 2 best players, so its not ruining anyone elses chances of winning
and the final isnt streamed or even in front of an audience so theyre not cheating any viewers out of good games Some people are going to care because it shows the type of person the players are. From the look of things these two are in for the money rather than competition. It's like a slippery slope that could lead to match fixing. It all starts with greed overshadowing the spirit of competition.
This kind of stuff would happen all the time in real sports if the players weren't just rich as f*** already (which is basically the justification for them getting rich as f***).
You don't have to look far to see teams trying to lose or tie or whatever when it is actually more beneficial to them to do so...
Because if win means bad stuff and loss means good stuff isn't it the goal of the game to lose...? Which is why competitions need to actively try to not allow for those situations to rise.
This happened in Quake at last dreamhack where on the latter day getting second in the group was better (hardly arguable) and the most important games of said groups (deciding 1-2) were held that day and it caused a huge scene. The thing is that enabling this stuff can usually be avoided and therefore it should.
|
On December 22 2010 17:44 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 17:30 -Archangel- wrote:On December 22 2010 17:26 Impervious wrote:On December 22 2010 17:15 -Archangel- wrote:On December 22 2010 16:50 garbanzo wrote:On December 22 2010 16:34 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I wish people would read, and then in addition to reading try to understand what they read...
I'm very glad that Sjow came in here to clear up what actually ended up happening, and my opinion of neither player has been lowered.
If anything, I think this is a result of the cafe being greedy and putting on an event which discourages competition between the best players. If they were evenly matched, and they split the tournaments 9-9, then neither would get the large prize, but if one of them forfeited only 2 or the finals of the tournaments, then one could actually attain the large prize.
The cafe put up a very good prize with the expectation that no one would realistically be able to win it. I actually find that worse than what Morrow and Sjow were planning. They simply wanted to draw more people into their cafe, make more money, and then keep the prize.
It's really a very stupid format. It's like if for the GSL you won 100,000$ if you 5-0ed your opponent in the finals, but it would be split 2,000$ and 1,000$ if you did anything else... I'm all for the competitiveness of eSports and the spirit of competition, but at the end of the day it's professional gaming. They need to make money, hence the word professional. If anything, I think this reflects a need for more tournaments, sponsors, and larger prize pools, so progamers can actually make money and not need to find ways to maximize profit from the small amount of tournaments available. Assuming that the following assumptions are true: 1) you have to win 11/18 tournaments to get the "grand prize", 2) players have to pay to play in the tournament, 3) there are no spectators, then what you're saying is exactly correct. What they were planning is cheating, but they are cheating the house. They're not cheating you, the community or other players. They're just trying to beat the house. It's exactly cheating in the same way that card counting in blackjack at a casino is cheating. The house just wanted their money. The tournament structure ensures that if two equally skilled players competed then neither will win the grand prize and the house becomes richer. This is not the type of environment to develop healthy competition. Sjow and MorroW just wanted to game the system that was biased to begin with. I think they made the right decision by only having one of them compete in the end. + Show Spoiler +Of course I'm hoping that they realize this is the case and know the difference between this and other competition. Key difference lies in the 3 assumptions above. Wtf? So you are saying it is OK to cheat the house? Any tournament has rules, if you do not like those rules do not join the tournament (of if those rules break some law report them). By this statement of yours I would guess you also do not want to pay taxes as that is ONLY cheating the "house"?! They have more to gain by working together than by playing against eachother. If they are playing for the reward at the end, and they would actually make more by working together, then it's a poorly setup system..... Tbh, I don't see anything wrong with it - it's kinda like how many types of auto-racing near the end of the season will often work..... One teammate purposely does worse than he could have done, so the other can maximize his points, as well as doing better in the constructors championships, and hopefully move up the standings/secure a better position; and as a whole, the team does better than they would have otherwise. It's just a poorly designed prize system. If it was "you have to win the most tournaments to get the "grand prize"" instead, then yes, there would be a problem with them working together, because there is no real benefit of it. All they seem to be doing is taking advantage of some clever marketing scheme designed to prevent the "grand prize" from being won. When part of your motivation to take part in the tournament is the money you'd make from it, they're definitely making the right choice. Your rationalization is all cool and well but it is still cheating. It is because of this way of thinking corruption is present in all parts of life. Get your head straight before you grow up and move to a real world or you might end up caught with your hand in a cookie jar and end up doing time. What the hell are they playing for then? What the fuck is the point of holding a competition, where it would actually be better for them to work together? Seriously. When you play a sport like Football, or Hockey, or whatever, the big fucking prize is that trophy you get for first. And the recognition for being first. Among other things. Most "sports" are about that final, deciding game. This tourney structure doesn't even have that. It's pretty fucking clever marketing, that's all. It's dangling a prize above the players, but they don't want to give it away. I can't even articulate how fucking dumb the tourney setup is. I'm glad they at least tried to get the best result possible.
You cannot be serious!? In football leagues you constantly have situations where one team is still competing for a "prize", while winning or losing doesn't matter for the opponent. So you suggest it is okay to rig a match for money?
You guys seem to assume that the other players will not stand a chance anyway, and this might be true. But maybe just maybe we will see a guy who is able to once in a while beat either Morrow or Sjow. This guy will then need to win against both in order to have a chance at the prize, while his oppenents team up and make sure they never really play against each other.
Matchfixing is pathetic whatever the tournament size, importance or setup is since it alienates audience, players and sponsors, alike. The organizer of a tournament has the right to decide on the rules. If you don't like them don't participate!
|
I don't really understand the article.
So lemme get this straight, the tournament has not yet been played. Both Morrow and Sjow thinks they will both reach the finals. Regardless of who wins the finals, they will both share the prize money with each other. How the hell is that cheating or match fixing. Thats like saying when a korean wins a tournament and shares the money with his team thats match fixing?
|
On December 22 2010 17:37 isSoCool wrote:
Can someone pls post the rule that say youre NOT allowed to lose cuz im confused.
You are not allowed to lose on purpose, that's part of sportmanship and it is (one of) the referees' task to prevent this. No need for a written rule here.
|
If they were team-mates all of you from the "esports ethics police" wouldn't care.
|
So if 2 ogs members play eachother in the final, the team ogs won't benefit from either of their winnings? cool story teamliquid. close thread this is stupid
(not saying both are from the same team,but they're very close friends and maybe they provide food for eachother or something which you guys don't know about?)
|
What's with the "mountain out of a mole hill" comments ?
If you let that kind of slip-up go by, then that means that you don't care. You're seemingly showing enthusiasm for esports, but truth is you people actually don't give a shit and see it as nothing more but a mere recreation.
Well I guess the world is not ready for esports. Sorry Blizzard.
|
Russian Federation89 Posts
On December 22 2010 17:40 wxwx wrote:
Some people are going to care because it shows the type of person the players are. From the look of things these two are in for the money rather than competition. It's like a slippery slope that could lead to match fixing. It all starts with greed overshadowing the spirit of competition.
Just to pose a question. Without a tangible reward, why would you compete?
Sure, there is pride about proving your the best. But in the tournament in context, there isn't anything of that sort, it might as well be a best of 15 show-match between the two players. Money is the only reason these players were interested in this tournament. Of course that is what they'll care about.
|
morrow stream quality is rly bad he needs a new com 
|
Imagine IdrA fixing the final vs. qxc by saying: you get the laptop and i get your 1k. And next time you reach the finals we do the same but the other way around.
Bonus are nice and just because it "rewards" matchfixing should not be an invitation to do so...
I really don´t see how this can be defended by anyone.
|
What's funniest about this is that now they appear to be doing what they should have been doing all along.
If those two are clearly so much better than everybody else that both of them are pretty much a lock for the finals of every tournament, they should just have one of them play and clean up and have the other one not participate in the tournament at all. That way, they get their big prize, and in no way can be accused of match-fixing.
|
How can this even be considered okay? The tournament setup was king of the hill-style. Match fixing to make sure one player remains king in order to share prizes is obvioulsy cheating.
Dont like the tournament format? You dont have to, and nothing forces you to participate. But not liking the format is no excuse to cheat and match fix.
I am so extremely disappointed in both of them, and frankly wish they would both be kicked out of the tournament right away.
|
On December 22 2010 18:00 b_unnies wrote:
I don't really understand the article.
So lemme get this straight, the tournament has not yet been played. Both Morrow and Sjow thinks they will both reach the finals. Regardless of who wins the finals, they will both share the prize money with each other. How the hell is that cheating or match fixing. Thats like saying when a korean wins a tournament and shares the money with his team thats match fixing?
Instead of competing, Sjow would (allegedly) forfeit to Morrow in order to accrue bonuses from multiple season wins. The intent of the bonus is to award consistent play by one player, not teamwork.
|
On December 22 2010 17:53 Askesis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 17:32 decemberscalm wrote:On December 22 2010 17:28 Whiladan wrote:On December 22 2010 17:25 decemberscalm wrote:On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote:
Meanwhile in Korea,
Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game.
Luxury: Only if I get half share.
Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this,
SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it.
Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer.
SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic. Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this. Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness. And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous. The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition I love how RIGHT after your post is an example of a competition where it is deemed acceptable. It depends on the tournament. The tournament organizers could have just as easily sayed "Yeah, ok, you two DID win against your opponents, you can just click the surrender button, its your match." But in all seriousness, the tournament would most likely count on the higher tier prizes being advertisement and bait for bigger names while still minimizing the cost of the tournament by having lower actual prize money. Except that post RIGHT after his is talking about an entirely different situation. Chopping a prize pool heads up = fine (in poker, or in SC). Colluding to get a "frequent-winner" prize = not fine (in poker, or in SC)
I was commenting on the sweeping generalization that was made
"The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition"
This is simply wrong. I would defiantly call the horse races honorable competition, in which case third parties ARE taking bets. That is all. The spring of arguments about why it is isn't entirely unethical to set matches is there for a reason. It depends on the rules.
Consider the following: You realize you could make alot more money by forfeiting your matches against your buddy when they arise. Is it unethical to ask the tourney admins if this is allowed?
|
It really makes me sad how many people defend this out of principle. Things like this ruin the integrity and credibility of Esports. Anyone believing in serious and honest competition, from fans to sponsors, is duped by this. It doesn't even matter that noone may be "harmed"; what matters is that they manipulate games for their own benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
