|
It's their business what they do after the matches are played. But during those matches they should both try to win. Anyway it's ridiculously easy to throw a game in Stracraft. Just make a blunder here and there and no one would know you did that on purpose.
|
Ok so if i get it right.
1) There are 18 mini tournaments.
2) If you win 11 of them you get a nice PC rig
And now:
3) Sjow and Morrow looking at the brackets asumed that they will both make it to the finals.
4) Morrow proposed Sjow that if that happened they should make it that one of them will be winning in all the torunaments and after it they will split the prices.
So Morrow and Sjow wanted to break the torunament system by doing matchfixing to get better rewards for games. Remember that if Morrow would win 9 tournaments and Sjow the other 9 than none of them would win the kick ass PC.
Im not surprised that the tournament organisers didn't agree for them to matchfix the finals of each tourney in the series since it would increase their costs (keep in mind its kind of hard to win 11 out of 18 tourneys in which are players on the same level as you).
EG Masters tourney is using simmilar idea for their game for the laptop. You can win big priced laptop by wining Idra in a BO3 on maps decided by Idra.
In both the tourneys the high priced price (which is a nice way to get more viewers, players) is hard as hell to get thx to the setup that orgainizers decided.
Now Morrow and Sjow decided to to challenge this system.
Imagine what would happen if we didnt learn about it before and both of them would play and we would get 11 finals of Morrow winning strange games. People would rage at this.
|
On December 22 2010 18:13 Tokay wrote:Show nested quote +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?
First off, look at IOL's rules; winning 11 of 18 to claim the main prize. That is pretty silly when you have players/friends of the same level competing. Why not just leave some games and split the money with your buddy? They only hurt themselves and well yeah IOL too but they asked them if it was OK to do this first. I don't see the harm in figuring this out and then asking the host if it's OK to play it out this way. Either way it's not foolproof cheating or anything, it's just a way of using the pretty weird system to your advantage.
|
On December 22 2010 17:51 Blondinbengt wrote:
Personally, I'm not going to take this seriously until the tournament itself releases some kind of statement saying that matchfixing did indeed occur.
That will be quite hard seeing the tournament has not yet been played.
|
On December 22 2010 18:13 PredY wrote:
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..
Once again, sharing prizepool is OK, however, collusion to get a bigger prize is not !
At the end, they asked the admins and did not do it. I dont think they will be banned or anything. Yet, just because they thought it was OK to do this, I've lost a lot of respect for both of these players. hopefully they will never think of matchfixing ( because yes, thats what they were planning to do) again.
|
I was just saying that the games DON'T HAVE TO BE STRANGE. It's so easy to make game changing mistakes in SC 2, and it's so easy to make them seem unintentional.
|
On December 22 2010 18:16 Whiladan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:13 decemberscalm wrote: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.
Thats the point. People are putting objectivist views like fixing matches is always bad when there could be a tournament format that is ok with it. As far as we know they went to the admin and asked if they would be allowed to do it. The admin said no. The counter situation highlights that the admin could have just as easily said yes to promote people forming teams.
|
Guys, IdrA long ago noted that MorroW gamed the system in SCBW and, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Sjow have a history of cheating? This recent event isn't hurting their reputation, this IS their reputation.
An integral component to esports is competition. Competition spawns interest which spawns eyeballs which spawns various sponsorships. There aren't a throng of people out there watching SCII just so Morrow can get a new computer, they are watching it because they love the mix of analytical ability, practiced maneuvers, nerves, apm and luck that go into every match.
Morrow and Sjow conspired to do away with everything the public loves about SCII and, after they got caught, they "asked officials." Based on this incident alone, I'd give them a pass. When you couple it with their history, I'd be happy to never have to watch them in another tournament again.
|
On December 22 2010 17:59 MiraMax 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. 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?
If both work as hard as they can for the prize, in the process they prevent eachother from getting said prize.
It's a fucking ridiculous setup. How do you not see that?
It's the exact opposite of what is needed to spark competition..... And it's not the same to any sporting match where one team is able to improve their situation by winning while the other has nothing to win or lose..... It's not even close.....
|
I don't know why can't they just play 14 rounds, if one is in the lead, they'll agree and the other one won't participate anymore, if it's 7-7 then they'll decide in a non-tournament game. Not so hard.
|
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?
No, it's not unethical to ask. However, take into account the facts of this scenario. There is a $6k Grand Prize given out to one person if he happens to dominate and win 11/18 tournaments. This is far from a guaranteed prize, and I would argue very unlikely to happen legitimately.
Two players see this, and get the idea that they could guarantee winning that prize by colluding their matches against each other. At this point, there would be nothing unethical about them asking permission to do this. However, how can any rational person think there is any chance that the tournament would allow this? It's not just match-fixing, but fixing matches in order to win a prize that is not likely to be won by anybody.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I picture Sjow and Morrow as intelligent individuals. I see them as knowing they were planning on fixing matches, and I would like to believe that they would know that if they asked if they were allowed to rig the tournament in order to win that special prize, they would not be allowed to do so. Perhaps they are just morons and actually thought what they were doing was ok and would be granted permission to do it from the tournament, but I give their intelligence more credit than that.
Of course, we don't have the actual facts, and all we have are these little tidbits of information. And from the information I have put together, I feel it's much more likely that the tournament staff caught wind of what they were planning to do and asked about it, rather than them taking the initiative to go and ask the tournament if that was acceptable.
|
On December 22 2010 18:21 decemberscalm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:16 Whiladan wrote:On December 22 2010 18:13 decemberscalm wrote: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. Thats the point. People are putting objectivist views like fixing matches is always bad when there could be a tournament format that is ok with it. As far as we know they went to the admin and asked if they would be allowed to do it. The admin said no. The counter situation highlights that the admin could have just as easily said yes to promote people forming teams.
Yes, you are right. It is possible that in some alternate dimension, this would be OK because the only difference between our universe and the other is that match fixing is allowed. I fail to see how this is relevant at all to our universe however, where match fixing is not allowed.
|
On December 22 2010 18:20 Boundz(DarKo) wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:13 Tokay wrote: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? First off, look at IOL's rules; winning 11 of 18 to claim the main prize. That is pretty silly when you have players/friends of the same level competing. Why not just leave some games and split the money with your buddy? They only hurt themselves and well yeah IOL too but they asked them if it was OK to do this first. I don't see the harm in figuring this out and then asking the host if it's OK to play it out this way. Either way it's not foolproof cheating or anything, it's just a way of using the pretty weird system to your advantage.
Sure, go ahead and split the prize money with your buddy, thats not really the issue here. The issue here is cheating the system, for-fitting the games. If they played all the games the best they could straight up, do what ever you want with the money afterwards, why do I care.
But now they want to rig it so one of them has won before the games are played, and that doesnt only affect the tournament, but also the sponsors. Why the hell would a sponsor want to sponsor a tournament thats rigged? Look it from a bigger perspective. This can seriously hurt esport if people think this is OK.
And b.t.w, they did ask a admin first, a really biased admin it seemed, since he had no problem with it. But then when the owner of IOS got a hold of this info he said they would be banned for life if they did what they planned...
If you are stupid enough to get caught, you should really be punished.
|
On December 22 2010 18:20 Tyrran wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:13 PredY wrote:
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.. Once again, sharing prizepool is OK, however, collusion to get a bigger prize is not ! At the end, they asked the admins and did not do it. I dont think they will be banned or anything. Yet, just because they thought it was OK to do this, I've lost a lot of respect for both of these players. hopefully they will never think of matchfixing ( because yes, thats what they were planning to do) again.
How the hell do you call what these guys planned cheating? Just cuz the title says cheating/matchfixing that doesnt mean this is the case.
How about if in the last 2 tournaments Sjow would just forfeit even if he didnt talk to Morrow beforehand....just out of the goodness of his heart so his friend would get a nice rig...Would that be ok?
Matchfixing is when bets are involved or when a player/team loses a game for PERSONAL gain.
Cheating is when you brake rules and regulations. Where does it say that a player cant forfeit a game?
|
On December 22 2010 18:25 Whiladan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:21 decemberscalm wrote:On December 22 2010 18:16 Whiladan wrote:On December 22 2010 18:13 decemberscalm wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Thats the point. People are putting objectivist views like fixing matches is always bad when there could be a tournament format that is ok with it. As far as we know they went to the admin and asked if they would be allowed to do it. The admin said no. The counter situation highlights that the admin could have just as easily said yes to promote people forming teams. Yes, you are right. It is possible that in some alternate dimension, this would be OK because the only difference between our universe and the other is that match fixing is allowed. I fail to see how this is relevant at all to our universe however, where match fixing is not allowed.
This isn't some alternate universe. These are tournaments where team mates are allowed to share prize pools.
|
|
|
Just to add to this, Rakaka.se has gotten hold of the owner and "big boss" of IO for a comment (Anton Budak):
http://www.rakaka.se/?newsID=15698
"No fixed matches, smallest suspision of a fixed match and they are banned 4 life"
"I make the decisions, nothing unsportsmanlike are allowed"
Rough translations from me, please note that this was from SMS-texts and he does NOT say that the two players are banned but rather this is generals statements about the rules, at least that is how i read it.
|
rofl. is this about idra said he can never win a prized tourney lol
this is pathetic. and the person who said match fixing is fine, imagine that you are the no.1 high school student in your country but you wont get into the college/course you want because all the rich kids are 'fixed' to get those positions.
|
On December 22 2010 18:13 PredY wrote:
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..
You are misunderstand the situation pretty badly, sorry to say.
Read the thread; I'm not going to summarize 16 pages for you.
|
Im disappointed.
Not as much as in BW fixing but this is wrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
