|
not really matchfixing, but still trying to beat the system so it's a little sketchy. Can't say I wouldn't do it myself though. :XXX
|
On December 22 2010 16:23 L_Master wrote:Seriosuly, do people read threads? Like, at all? From Sjow's explanation this doesn't sound like an issue whatsoever Show nested quote +They wanted to fix the finals because if they competed wholeheartedly in the finals then it's likely neither would have gotten the prize, which is only awarded for winning 11 of 18. Okay, they wanted to be able to have the grand prize. Not too big of a deal. They wanted to set the matches so that one would lose if the final. Again, this probably isn't allowed, but they have some legitimate reasons for wanting to see. Now, here is the important part. They then checked with officials to see if it would be okay to do so. They were told no, and of course agreed they wouldn't matchfix in any way and only one would participate. This is like going to a golf tournament with a new ball thats supposed to go thirty yards further. Your pretty sure however, that it is non conforming and thus illegal. You then ask the rules officials if this ball meets the conforming standards. You are told no, and this don't use the ball. This is in no way cheating, and I don't see how anyone can view it as such. I'm legitamately baffled.
Wanted to point out this post, mostly because it gets a bit closer to the heart of the matter.
It's seems, from what little information we do have, fairly straight forward what happened. Sjow & MorroW identified a real issue with the tournament structure: their mutual presence created a real Prisoner's Dilemma. Each possessed the ability to deny the other the grand prize. So the harder they played, the worse the mutual outcome was likely to end up being. From their mutual point of view, their interests were not aligned with the prize structure. As a result, they questioned what could be done and asked the tournament director(s) about the situation and if they could forfeit a finals if both of them ended up there. They said "no" and so one of them didn't play, thus maximizing their mutual benefit.
"Match fixing" is a pretty big issue again these days (truthfully, it's far, far less common than it used to be, there's just more media and the recent SC:BW issues raise the issue inside the community), but that's not what was going on. Match-fixing means parties were removing the doubt from what was thought to be an unbiased competition; what Sjow & MorroW asked about was forfeiting the finals if both played, so they wouldn't prevent each one of them from wining the grand prize. (You can't "fix" an openly requested forfeit)
Now, there are legitimate concerns about this type of stuff, and I don't think the thread is unfounded, but people do need to be careful in their terms. SjoW & MorroW simply realized a problem with tournament format, talked about it and brought it up to the directors. They decided to only have 1 of them play the tournament, to ensure, as best they can, a shot at the grand prize. They made the proper decisions given their circumstances, dealt with it directly with the parties in charge and made decisions based on those discussions.
If they'd just thrown the finals anyway, then, yes, what they'd have done was unethical (though not illegal, more than likely). But they didn't. They did what they should have. They just made the mistake of talking about a sensitive issue on a Livestream. Behold the dangers of only catching part of conversations, it always goes badly.
I don't think there's any Fire here to all the smoke, for this incident, but this kind of thing does happen all the time. It was good on Sjow & Morrow to be upfront with the tournament and for one of them to bow out of it. Which, also, removed any appearance of impropriety on their parts as well. So, in sum, they did the right thing for everyone involved. Hopefully, the tournament is better for it, as well.
(As a little side example to the problem they uncovered: GomTV has what seems like a really complex system for their Round-Robin section of the 2011 GSLs because they don't want to let players end up in the situation where losing to a team-mate ensures that team-mate advances; or conversely, a 0-2 player throwing the 3rd match to ensure someone they don't like is denied going onto the next stage. It's human nature to notice the things that benefit your group, small or large, and to act in those interests. [Actually, it's pretty much the basis of all society, but I'll let you read John Locke et al for that 2000+ years of discussion!] So, it's not unexpected when someone will notice those types of benefits. That Sjow & Morrow acted in the proper manner when those interests converged from the tournament's is a good thing.)
|
If they were actually trying to fix matches, they would be very stupid to talk so openly about it. These guys are friends, so it's really easy for them to split the prizes if they so want to (and actually get to that point in the tournament where they can do so). It's so damn easy to do these gimmicks when the only interaction between players, organizers and sponsors is the internet.
The true problem lies with attitude: if this is true, then these guys can hardly call themselves professional players. A pro trains hard to win and he would beat his own brother in order to win a tournament. Day9 had to beat Tasteless in tournaments and he did so, even though he felt like crap for his brother afterward. But that's the difference between someone who respects the game and has a professional attitude towards it (even though Day9 was hardly a "progamer" - his respect towards Starcraft and the spirit of competition was worthy of every pro out there), and these people who play just to get a small paycheck or hardware or whatever. Too bad these two players are so talented and yet they would resort to crap like this. If Morrow wants the computer and Sjow wants him to have it, he should just help him practice all day long so he actually *earns* it.
|
Russian Federation89 Posts
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.
Morals and ethics are not the same. Both are also very relative to your social, cultural, and political upbringings.
|
On December 22 2010 18:03 Shockk wrote:
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.
Whasts so esport about inviting ppl they know will win the whole shit. Also they spoke their mind openly about them alrdy being confident of winning, they were just suggesting which one of them would win.
|
This is pretty bad.. I can't believe people are actually condoning what they are doing. These are players who are paid to compete at their highest level and they have an obligation to do so. They're intentionally fixing the match outcome for the sole purpose of manipulating the prize pool. Where is the competition in that? It shouldn't be allowed.
This is my attitude towards match fixing but I can't say that I'm 100% clear on what they're intending to do.
|
This has clearly been blown out of proportion, but at the same time, come on now, spirit of competition should come first. Honor your own play, and that of those you face by always playing to your highest potential.
I don't know, maybe I'm spouting an anachronism here...
|
On December 22 2010 18:03 decemberscalm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 17:53 Askesis wrote: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?
Yeah, you misunderstand what you are quoting. Winnings gained by competitors through clever and/or unlawful usage of third parties taking bets. I.e. SaviOr scandal. NOT the mere act of betting through a third party.
EDIT:
Scenario: Hey, I bet on you just now. I'll throw the match and we'll split the winnings. NOT OKAY
Scenario: Hey, I bet this guy is gonna win! $100 on him. OKAY
|
On December 22 2010 18:06 Kimaker wrote:
This has clearly been blown out of proportion, but at the same time, come on now, spirit of competition should come first. Honor your own play, and that of those you face by always playing to your highest potential.
Honor tends to be a fool's tool nowadays in all aspects of life...
|
Rakaka always wants to make things seem like a huge deal and I can tell they have suceeded once again. Let's just hope this doesn't damage the two players images.
|
On December 22 2010 18:02 MyXoMoPBL wrote:
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?)
If 2 ogs members reach the finals, they will battle out to see who is the winner. None of them will be throwing the game. Really that hard to get??
Throwing game after game after game to reach a big prize is plain out cheating and should be punished accordingly.
|
So wait... the "We didn't know match fixing was bad" defense is actually working?? lol
|
The only thing more ridiculous/stupid than these guys streaming this conversation, is the people thinking this is somehow okay.
Since when is it okay to join a competition and not actually plan on competing. If these players did indeed make it to the finals every time, it just means it's worse, because then they lack respect for all the other players that tried their hardest just to win one of those freaking tournament days.
On another note, the soccer team I coach is making it to the finals, and I plan on setting up something with the other coach so that my team can advance to the regionals. It would really help me get recognized as a coach  . It's not like its televised so it should be okay.
|
But it should damage their images...there's nothing professional about this sort of behavior. What do they have sponsors for? Don't they get paid by them, or receive hardware from them? But that's another issue - the one that a sponsor should provide his players with decent gaming machines.
|
On December 22 2010 18:08 Whiladan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:03 decemberscalm wrote:On December 22 2010 17:53 Askesis wrote: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? Yeah, you misunderstand what you are quoting. Winnings gained by competitors through clever and/or unlawful usage of third parties taking bets. I.e. SaviOr scandal. NOT the mere act of betting through a third party. EDIT: Scenario: Hey, I bet on you just now. I'll throw the match and we'll split the winnings. NOT OKAY Scenario: Hey, I bet this guy is gonna win! $100 on him. OKAY Still, clearly sweeping generalizations. If I made the same format for this tournament and allowed team-mates to forfeit matches against their team mates, all of a sudden it becomes ethical!!! WOW! This is what happens when you apply objectivism to such a complex topic. Honorable competition is following the rules. As far as I am aware and anyone in this thread knows, Morrow and co have not broached the rules.
|
On December 22 2010 18:10 Boundz(DarKo) wrote:
Rakaka always wants to make things seem like a huge deal and I can tell they have suceeded once again. Let's just hope this doesn't damage the two players images.
Seriously, how can you consider this ok?
|
do i'm not gonna read all the pages, but what i understand is they wanted to rig the system, then they asked an admin, he said no, they backed out. is that correct? call me biased because morrow is my friend and sjow is pretty cool guy, but i don't see problem with that.
i bet naama and mana shared prizemoney from dreamhack. is that match fixing?
you guys just want to couse a sensation, wtf..
|
It seems like the people still coming down on Sjow and Morrow didn't really read the full story, they just saw the word 'matchfixing' and wanted this to be a scandal...
Seriously, if you're still arguing that they are horrible people destroying esports with their lack of morals blah blah blah, go back, read Sjow's explanation of the situation again a few times until you understand the situation better. They did nothing wrong, and it's really too bad that this situation is tainting their reputation -_-
Taf the ghost ^^ understands the situation. Read his post too.
What Saviour and Hwasin etc. did that was so bad was deliberately lose games that people had bet on to ensure the bets came out the right way. This is a totally different situation and calling what they considered doing matchfixing is really a stretch.
|
Oh wow I didn't want to log on to TL to see this :[
Sjows explanation makes it seem even worse. Fundamentally not understanding why this is a problem. Pretty much tarnishes both players in my eyes.
|
On December 22 2010 18:13 decemberscalm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:08 Whiladan wrote:On December 22 2010 18:03 decemberscalm wrote:On December 22 2010 17:53 Askesis wrote: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? Yeah, you misunderstand what you are quoting. Winnings gained by competitors through clever and/or unlawful usage of third parties taking bets. I.e. SaviOr scandal. NOT the mere act of betting through a third party. EDIT: Scenario: Hey, I bet on you just now. I'll throw the match and we'll split the winnings. NOT OKAY Scenario: Hey, I bet this guy is gonna win! $100 on him. OKAY Still, clearly sweeping generalizations. If I made the same format for this tournament and allowed team-mates to forfeit matches against their team mates, all of a sudden it becomes ethical!!! WOW! This is what happens when you apply objectivism to such a complex topic. Honorable competition is following the rules. As far as I am aware and anyone in this thread knows, Morrow and co have not broached the rules.
Sure, if it clearly states in the rules that team mates (Morrow=Mouz, Sjow=Dignitas fyi) may forfeit matches against one another, that is one thing. But that is an entirely different situation and can't be applied at all. Also, I would hardly call anything you have said in this thread objective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
