|
On December 22 2010 18:47 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yeah. They use loopholes because that's what the setup encourages.
|
lol I love how they regard them as "uber top players". The only reason morrow won anything was before the reaper/terran nerfs. Since he switched over to zerg hes terrible, and now terran isnt so OP he doesnt have a leg to stand on.
As for sjow, havent really seen any of his games recently but I doubt hes much better.
|
On December 22 2010 18:47 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +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.
And so the question is: should we blame this on the players (who want to win everything) or should we blame it on the setup? And try to improve it so things like this won't happen?
|
On December 22 2010 18:46 DND_Enkil wrote:
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.
It's not exactly the same, but it's essentially the same. SjoW and Morrow want to maximize the prize pool and split it. There isn't really a poker analogy, but say there's a tournament where if the final two players split, they each get $2m, but if they play against each other, winner gets $2.5m and the loser gets $.5m. I would not have a problem with them splitting.
I don't see how their arrangement would hurt the organizers and sponsors. Is it somehow better that SjoW isn't even playing?
|
On December 22 2010 18:43 domovoi wrote:
It's a lot like in poker where players agree to split the remaining prize pool; happens all the time.
No, it's not at all.
It would be the same if they just decided to play for the thing and split whatever they won afterwards.
Throwing matches to get a bigger pricepool has nothing to do with this and if you want to compare it to poker it's like 2 people at a table squeezing and colluding versus other players to make more money than they would on there own or when they would play normally (which is considered cheating in the poker community or in any casino in the world).
|
On December 22 2010 18:50 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:47 Jibba wrote: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. And so the question is: should we blame this on the players (who want to win everything) or should we blame it on the setup? And try to improve it so things like this won't happen?
Setup, completely.
|
On December 22 2010 18:49 N0cturnal wrote:
lol I love how they regard them as "uber top players". The only reason morrow won anything was before the reaper/terran nerfs. Since he switched over to zerg hes terrible, and now terran isnt so OP he doesnt have a leg to stand on.
As for sjow, havent really seen any of his games recently but I doubt hes much better.
32 post troll rocking.
|
On a side note , imo organisers didnt want to give computer or at least leave a very small chance for someone to win it . Isnt it bad for e-sport too ? bate players with big prizes and then make worst conditiots to win them . If there was a normal format where lets say top 4 or top3 gets prizes , i doubt it would have happened.
|
The WCG is a clear example. They all avoid the Koreans like the plague.
|
This tournament format practically begs for the type of action Morrow and Sjow decided to do to get an edge, all ethics aside. Most pro's with a brain would do the same, but maybe not be dumb enough to speak about it in a public channel.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 22 2010 18:48 VdH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:44 Jibba wrote: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".
Sorry, I was speaking in reference to the situation as a whole. I agree, that analogy isn't great.
|
On December 22 2010 18:50 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:49 N0cturnal wrote:
lol I love how they regard them as "uber top players". The only reason morrow won anything was before the reaper/terran nerfs. Since he switched over to zerg hes terrible, and now terran isnt so OP he doesnt have a leg to stand on.
As for sjow, havent really seen any of his games recently but I doubt hes much better. 32 post troll rocking.
just because i have low post count doesnt mean im a troll : )
|
On December 22 2010 18:49 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:47 domovoi wrote: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. Yeah. They use loopholes because that's what the setup encourages.
The B-teamers will still try to win to get in the A-team though. It is understandable to rest your best players, if you don't really need them i think. They are in danger of getting injured, which could really hurt the team.
But they don't just throw the match. They may lose, but not on purpose.
|
On December 22 2010 18:51 razamanaz wrote:
On a side note , imo organisers didnt want to give computer or at least leave a very small chance for someone to win it . Isnt it bad for e-sport too ? bate players with big prizes and then make worst conditiots to win them . If there was a normal format where lets say top 4 or top3 gets prizes , i doubt it would have happened.
Yes, it's fucking terrible that they were doing that. But everyone seems to be overlooking it and sticking to their "moral high ground".....
|
I want to say terrible things about morrow that would get me banned, however I will stay my tongue and say that I am dissappointed =[.
|
On December 22 2010 18:50 djengizz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:43 domovoi wrote:
It's a lot like in poker where players agree to split the remaining prize pool; happens all the time. No, it's not at all. It would be the same if they just decided to play for the thing and split whatever they won afterwards. Throwing matches to get a bigger pricepool has nothing to do with this and if you want to compare it to poker it's like 2 people at a table squeezing and colluding versus other players to make more money than they would on there own or when they would play normally (which is considered cheating in the poker community or in any casino in the world).
No, it's nothing like that. In the poker scenario, the other players get screwed, because they make less money than they would have. Here, nobody's getting screwed. If they both make the finals, then the other players got what they deserved.
|
First of all, I don't see the big deal since they both said they would not want to cheat, and both of them were talking about who would ask the Tournament Organizer if it would be ok etc. Talk about making a mountain out of a hill.
Secondly, I don't see why any match fixing would even be necessary, since this is more of a Prize Split than anything. And while prize splits might be boring to the audience, I really don't think you can do anything about it, because it should be up to the winner to do whatever he wants to with his prize; he could smash it to pieces as soon as he won it, he could give it away to his grandmother, or he could effectively "sell" it to the fellow player in the finals so that they each get 50% of the prize. The only problem with this would be that the finals would be unexciting as the players would not care enough to do their best, and as I said, not much to do about it. Hopefully the players care enough about the honor of winning so that they would show an entertaining match nevertheless, or ask them to just "bet" with a piece of the prizepool i.e. winner gets 60% and loser gets 40% or whatever.
|
On December 22 2010 18:50 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:50 ParasitJonte wrote:On December 22 2010 18:47 Jibba wrote: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. And so the question is: should we blame this on the players (who want to win everything) or should we blame it on the setup? And try to improve it so things like this won't happen? Setup, completely.
If you dont like the setup, dont join the tournament. But joining and then cheating with the argument that the setup is bad is still cheating.
|
On December 22 2010 18:47 Whiladan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:40 decemberscalm wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
It does indeed. The whole stem of this conversation was my remark about someone making broad generalizations about immorality. In this case I am referring to objectivism in the moral sense, to show how fixing matches isn't ALWAYS immoral, which many people seem to think.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 22 2010 18:50 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:47 Jibba wrote: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. And so the question is: should we blame this on the players (who want to win everything) or should we blame it on the setup? And try to improve it so things like this won't happen?
In most formats it's possible. You prevent it by punishing hard for it.
One key difference between this and the Colts resting Payton Manning or Stork dropping games in the group stage is that in those cases, they're doing it in order to be more competitive in the future. The Colts have a truly meaningless game and so, in order to increase Manning's performance in the playoffs, they give him rest. Stork doesn't want to face Jaedong in the finals, so he comes in #2 so that he faces him in the finals. This situation was simply agreeing who would win and get the prize.
On top of that, in these situations only one party is acting. The Colts aren't agreeing with the other team to lose, nor is Stork agreeing with White_ra and probably not even Jd that he's going to drop a game, so he doesn't face Jaedong early.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
