|
On December 22 2010 18:31 Whiladan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:27 decemberscalm wrote:On December 22 2010 18:25 Whiladan wrote: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:
[quote]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. And yet here is where it is different: Those rules do not apply to this tournament. Morrow and Sjow are not team mates. The prize pool is not fixed, it is intended to increase upon consistent performance, therefore it is immoral to increase it through illegitimate or otherwise unintended means rather than good performance (this is why EG members are not allowed to compete for the MSI notebook if they win Master's Cup). Your entirely missing my point. The tourney admin could have just as easily said that they could forfeit to a friend to have a shot at bigger prizes. In that case it is no longer immoral. IE: No universal law saying that it is always immoral.
The bigger issue is whether or not morrow co were merely discussing the possibility or planning to do this under cover. Simply planning together to try to get the bigger prize pool and then seeing if they are allowed to do it would make them entirely in the clear. Otherwise, yeah they are being entirely unethical.
|
On December 22 2010 18:37 ParasitJonte wrote:
The organizers provide an incentive to do things like this
The only problem I see is that Morrow and SjoW shouldn't be stupid enough to talk about it in the open. But no one can really blame them for doing what is rational..
WHAT.
How can people honestly think like this?
Every single form of cheating is based on the fact there is an incentive to do so. Are you really ok with a boxer throwing a match? Or a football team?
|
why can't they just play it out and if sjow wins, he can just give morrow the computer? :S
|
On December 22 2010 18:33 TheBanana wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:24 Askesis wrote:
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.
Do you have link to this? After reading Sjows post the prize doesn't sound right to me, but I'll believe it if I see it.
Link: http://www.infernoonline.com/index.php?cat=arkiv&page=nyheter&id=574
Bottom prize, comp worth aprox 40k SEK, meaning around $5,6k.
Also should probably point out that the exact same structure is running for Counterstrike... And the CS-fans are ripping pretty hard at the SC2-players and community right now... Cant say i blame them when i read players trying to defend and justify this behaviour.
|
On December 22 2010 18:22 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 17:59 MiraMax wrote:On December 22 2010 17:44 Impervious wrote:On December 22 2010 17:30 -Archangel- wrote:On December 22 2010 17:26 Impervious wrote:On December 22 2010 17:15 -Archangel- wrote:On December 22 2010 16:50 garbanzo wrote:On December 22 2010 16:34 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I wish people would read, and then in addition to reading try to understand what they read...
I'm very glad that Sjow came in here to clear up what actually ended up happening, and my opinion of neither player has been lowered.
If anything, I think this is a result of the cafe being greedy and putting on an event which discourages competition between the best players. If they were evenly matched, and they split the tournaments 9-9, then neither would get the large prize, but if one of them forfeited only 2 or the finals of the tournaments, then one could actually attain the large prize.
The cafe put up a very good prize with the expectation that no one would realistically be able to win it. I actually find that worse than what Morrow and Sjow were planning. They simply wanted to draw more people into their cafe, make more money, and then keep the prize.
It's really a very stupid format. It's like if for the GSL you won 100,000$ 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.....
Care to elaborate the difference? Taking your logic a step further, you would also be okay if all players of the tournament agree to split the prize pool and simply appoint a winner for all 18 rounds, right? I mean it's win-win for them and the tournament setup rewards people doing so. Notice that this is not a slippery slope argument, since each additional player who joins in effectively kills a part of the competition until there is no competition left.
How do you not see that this is not what sponsors and fans are paying for. The "product" which Morrow and Sjow are payed for is a fair competition. Any player who is not willing to provide that should step aside and look for another job. Understanding that is not rocket science.
|
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote:
Meanwhile in Korea,
Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game.
Luxury: Only if I get half share.
Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this,
SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it.
Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer.
SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Woa woa woa... if you are going to name players, atleast use their actual words and not accuse them of saying something that wasn't remotely close to what was said.
Morrow: I really need a new computer, think we could split the prize? I get the computer, you get everything else
SjoW: Well, all we'd have to do is let one win once we get to the finals.
...
SjoW: They're saying in the chat that it's cheating, I don't want to cheat.
I don't have screenshots, and it was last night it happened, and in swedish, so my quotes aren't 100% correct iether, but it's alot closer to the truth.
On December 22 2010 16:51 Kokujin wrote:
it matters because it's a competitive environment. there was an agreement between players outside the tournament that could have changed the outcome of the tournament. the real question and the reason we are upset is not what happened but what would have happened if the public had not gotten wind of this.
same concept, using this mentality..a player should withdraw from GSL finals and split the 85k and 25k=55k each. i mean, it only affects those 2 players right? imagine how upsetting that would be
More like this, you and your teammate gets to the GSL final. Prize pool is as follows:
4-0: 100 000$ to the winner, 5 000$ to the runner up.
4-1: 50 000$ to the winner, 6 000$ to the runner up.
4-2: 20 000$ to the winner, 7 000$ to the runner up.
4-3: 10 000$ to the winner, 8 500$ to the runner up.
Why should the 2 teammates battle it out, when dominating is so much more rewarding if they decide to split the pool afterwards?
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?
The tournament has started, to win the grand prize, you have to win 11 out of the 18 tournaments, first one was played last night, Morrow did not participate, next one will be played tonight. (Midnight tournaments during the whole christmas holidays as I understand it).
I can't remember what the prizes were, but the first 8 were fairly crap, think 9 wins gave you a small TV, 10 wins gave you a processor+mobo and 11 gave you a kickass computer.
edit: Also, if I'm not mistaken, it costs like 150kr (20$ ?) to be at the LAN. Not sure if that was for the whole 18 night stay tho.
|
I'm pretty critical of matchfixing by third parties, but what was gonna happen here is not really a big deal. It's a lot like in poker where players agree to split the remaining prize pool; happens all the time. However, it's best if such things are done in the open, so that those betting on the games aren't hurt.
The reason why sAvior-style match fixing by gamblers is bad is not because it hurts the viewers. If the viewers don't even know about it, they in all likelihood aren't hurt at all. Who it does hurt are other gamblers, because the information disparity between those planning the match fixing and those who are not is quite large. Thus, those in the know are essentially stealing money from innocent gamblers.
Think about if sAvior had thrown his games not because he was being paid to do it by gamblers, but because he was sick, or his opponent was a good friend he wanted to see advance, or his opponent had cancer and it was his last chance to make a name of himself, or he was just bored of the game. Doesn't sound like bannable offenses does it?
|
On December 22 2010 18:40 Elwar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:37 ParasitJonte wrote:
The organizers provide an incentive to do things like this
The only problem I see is that Morrow and SjoW shouldn't be stupid enough to talk about it in the open. But no one can really blame them for doing what is rational.. WHAT. How can people honestly think like this? Every single form of cheating is based on the fact there is an incentive to do so. Are you really ok with a boxer throwing a match? Or a football team?
It does seem strange, yes. But, basically I would've done the same if I was in their shoes. It's a stupid setup. No harm would've been done if they hadn't said anything.
I would be very interested in a poll to see whether people here would've done the same thing. I would've done it in a heart beat.
|
football teams throw matches regularly to avoid other teams in the knockout phases of competitions. They send the B-team, they play they younger players - there are many ways to do that and be *fair* about it.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 22 2010 18:35 VdH wrote:
It's hardly the same thing. Fixing matches in a tournament affects the other players as well. Your buddy giving you his spot for college- that involves only the two of you.
How so? Fixing a match is exactly that. Predetermining the outcome. This is essentially the same as when Hwasin and Calm did it, only worse because it gets compounded on a weekly basis. They're essentially trying to bring teamwork into an individual event, which is collusion.
On top of that, the message logs and the forum responses make the situation even worse. They were trying to cover it up from fans/sponsors, and the explanations thus far have been mostly fallacious. "It's not a big tournament so it's okay." Really?
|
On December 22 2010 18:42 Danjoh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote:
Meanwhile in Korea,
Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game.
Luxury: Only if I get half share.
Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this,
SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it.
Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer.
SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic. Woa woa woa... if you are going to name players, atleast use their actual words and not accuse them of saying something that wasn't remotely close to what was said. Morrow: I really need a new computer, think we could split the prize? I get the computer, you get everything else SjoW: Well, all we'd have to do is let one win once we get to the finals. ... SjoW: They're saying in the chat that it's cheating, I don't want to cheat. I don't have screenshots, and it was last night it happened, and in swedish, so my quotes aren't 100% correct iether, but it's alot closer to the truth. Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 16:51 Kokujin wrote:
it matters because it's a competitive environment. there was an agreement between players outside the tournament that could have changed the outcome of the tournament. the real question and the reason we are upset is not what happened but what would have happened if the public had not gotten wind of this.
same concept, using this mentality..a player should withdraw from GSL finals and split the 85k and 25k=55k each. i mean, it only affects those 2 players right? imagine how upsetting that would be More like this, you and your teammate gets to the GSL final. Prize pool is as follows: 4-0: 100 000$ to the winner, 5 000$ to the runner up. 4-1: 50 000$ to the winner, 6 000$ to the runner up. 4-2: 20 000$ to the winner, 7 000$ to the runner up. 4-3: 10 000$ to the winner, 8 500$ to the runner up. Why should the 2 teammates battle it out, when dominating is so much more rewarding if they decide to split the pool afterwards? Show nested quote +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? The tournament has started, to win the grand prize, you have to win 11 out of the 18 tournaments, first one was played last night, Morrow did not participate, next one will be played tonight. (Midnight tournaments during the whole christmas holidays as I understand it). I can't remember what the prizes were, but the first 8 were fairly crap, think 9 wins gave you a small TV, 10 wins gave you a processor+mobo and 11 gave you a kickass computer.
OH MY GOD THANK YOU.
More details. If your translation is correct then this is just WAY OVERBLOWN.
"Morrow: I really need a new computer, think we could split the prize? I get the computer, you get everything else
SjoW: Well, all we'd have to do is let one win once we get to the finals.
...
SjoW: They're saying in the chat that it's cheating, I don't want to cheat."
If its publicly discussed and they go to the organizers about it, NOTHING WRONG HAPPENED.
|
So much for respecting Morrow for switching to zerg from terran.
Back on the dislike train, choo choo!
Do these people really need to fix matches to determine who will get the prize? Can't they donate it to the person that they want it to get and atleast give the fans a good match?
|
On December 22 2010 18:41 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:22 Impervious wrote:On December 22 2010 17:59 MiraMax wrote: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..... Care to elaborate the difference? Taking your logic a step further, you would also be okay if all players of the tournament agree to split the prize pool and simply appoint a winner for all 18 rounds, right? I mean it's win-win for them and the tournament setup rewards people doing so. Notice that this is not a slippery slope argument, since each additional player who joins in effectively kills a part of the competition until there is no competition left. How do you not see that this is not what sponsors and fans are paying for. The "product" which Morrow and Sjow are payed for is a fair competition. Any player who is not willing to provide that should step aside and look for another job. Understanding that is not rocket science.
Yup.
There is no competition in this tournament, when it's designed so that nobody wins that grand prize under fair circumstances.
EDIT - what is there is the "illusion" of competition, thanks to the smaller prizes which are actually obtainable. Really, though, they should be working together, because they, as a group, lose out by acting as individuals.
|
On December 22 2010 18:43 domovoi wrote:
I'm pretty critical of matchfixing by third parties, but what was gonna happen here is not really a big deal. It's a lot like in poker where players agree to split the remaining prize pool; happens all the time. However, it's best if such things are done in the open, so that those betting on the games aren't hurt.
The reason why sAvior-style match fixing by gamblers is bad is not because it hurts the viewers. If the viewers don't even know about it, they in all likelihood aren't hurt at all. Who it does hurt are other gamblers, because the information disparity between those planning the match fixing and those who are not is quite large. Thus, those in the know are essentially stealing money from innocent gamblers.
Think about if sAvior had thrown his games not because he was being paid to do it by gamblers, but because he was sick, or his opponent was a good friend he wanted to see advance, or his opponent had cancer and it was his last chance to make a name of himself, or he was just bored of the game. Doesn't sound like bannable offenses does it?
No it is not the same, this is a King of Hill style tournament where the prizes increase exponentially. Match fixing is not only unsportsmanlike but it also hurt the organisers and sponsors.
|
On December 22 2010 18:45 Chaosvuistje wrote:
So much for respecting Morrow for switching to zerg from terran.
Back on the dislike train, choo choo!
Do these people really need to fix matches to determine who will get the prize? Can't they donate it to the person that they want it to get and atleast give the fans a good match?
Did you even read anything that was in this thread at all?
|
On December 22 2010 18:44 VdH wrote:
football teams throw matches regularly to avoid other teams in the knockout phases of competitions. They send the B-team, they play they younger players - there are many ways to do that and be *fair* about it.
This is a good point. In the US, all sports teams do a little to "throw" matches near the end of the season when they start resting regulars, or they want to train upcoming talent, or they simply want the draft pick.
|
On December 22 2010 18:41 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:22 Impervious wrote:On December 22 2010 17:59 MiraMax wrote: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..... Care to elaborate the difference? Taking your logic a step further, you would also be okay if all players of the tournament agree to split the prize pool and simply appoint a winner for all 18 rounds, right? I mean it's win-win for them and the tournament setup rewards people doing so. Notice that this is not a slippery slope argument, since each additional player who joins in effectively kills a part of the competition until there is no competition left. How do you not see that this is not what sponsors and fans are paying for. The "product" which Morrow and Sjow are payed for is a fair competition. Any player who is not willing to provide that should step aside and look for another job. Understanding that is not rocket science.
I can't speak for the person you've quoted. But I want to make a distinction:
There are two issues. Whether it is morally right, and whether it is "legal" so to speak. For the latter case, it obviously isn't legal. What they were planning to do was wrong, in that sense. But morally, I think they weren't doing anything wrong and that the organizers should now really reconsider the format they've proposed.
|
On December 22 2010 18:40 decemberscalm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:31 Whiladan wrote:On December 22 2010 18:27 decemberscalm wrote:On December 22 2010 18:25 Whiladan wrote: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:
[quote]
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. And yet here is where it is different: Those rules do not apply to this tournament. Morrow and Sjow are not team mates. The prize pool is not fixed, it is intended to increase upon consistent performance, therefore it is immoral to increase it through illegitimate or otherwise unintended means rather than good performance (this is why EG members are not allowed to compete for the MSI notebook if they win Master's Cup). Your entirely missing my point. The tourney admin could have just as easily said that they could forfeit to a friend to have a shot at bigger prizes. In that case it is no longer immoral. IE: No universal law saying that it is always immoral. The bigger issue is whether or not morrow co were merely discussing the possibility or planning to do this under cover. Simply planning together to try to get the bigger prize pool and then seeing if they are allowed to do it would make them entirely in the clear. Otherwise, yeah they are being entirely unethical.
I don't see where the point stands at all, actually. Sure, the rules COULD have been different. But they're not, so why argue a moot point? Objectivism is considering a situation from all possible angles, given the angles apply to the situation. Smaller issue or no, you propose an entirely different situation that neither applies nor needs to be discussed.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 22 2010 18:44 VdH wrote:
football teams throw matches regularly to avoid other teams in the knockout phases of competitions. They send the B-team, they play they younger players - there are many ways to do that and be *fair* about it.
Yes, and it happens in WCG group stages as well. That doesn't make it acceptable or less deceitful towards the fans.
|
On December 22 2010 18:44 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:35 VdH wrote:
It's hardly the same thing. Fixing matches in a tournament affects the other players as well. Your buddy giving you his spot for college- that involves only the two of you. How so? Fixing a match is exactly that. Predetermining the outcome. This is essentially the same as when Hwasin and Calm did it, only worse because it gets compounded on a weekly basis. They're essentially trying to bring teamwork into an individual event, which is collusion. On top of that, the message logs and the forum responses make the situation even worse. They were trying to cover it up from fans/sponsors, and the explanations thus far have been mostly fallacious. "It's not a big tournament so it's okay." Really?
The college situation isn't predetermining the outcome... If your friend lets you have his spot he will do so because he got into a better school. The process is done after the outcome has been determined. He won't just say - "you have my spot, I'll be digging ditches for the rest of my life".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
