|
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.
lol, have you seen morrow's zerg recently? he will win a lot i'm sure.. in the latest weeks i've seen morrow reach the finals of 2 or 3 tournaments!
Sjow on the other hand, wins at least 1/2 tournaments per week so.. your point is??
if it's about the skill level they are top eu players.. and you are?
BTW morrow&sjow you could have done this but you shouldn't let anybody see it.. now you will get lots of bad PR..
|
On December 22 2010 18:54 DennizR wrote:
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.
Every ten posts or so, someone comes in and mentions prize splitting. It is not prize splitting, it's collusion. Please read.
|
On December 22 2010 18:34 sadyque wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:28 BurningSera wrote:
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. Yeah right the college example is exactly the same thing  )... So if your friend gets into college and you dont make it and you are 1st one below the admission line.. So then your friend says "Hey man im gonna give up my spot so you can get in cuz i got in 2 colleges anyways.." Is that cheating?
They are cheating the person from that other college...
|
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.
Here's the small change that supposedly changes everything:
- The prize money goes to the player that has won the most tournaments (and there is no increment in prize money if you win a certain number of tournaments).
What would be the result? They would probably just have agreed to share the prize pool. Or, they would never have agreed on anything. Basically, the organizers have brought this on themselves.
So it's not the cheater's fault for cheating; it's the tournament's fault for having a structure where cheaters have a better chance for more money than players who play by the rules?
How does it feel being a complete moron?
|
I think it is unethical to do what they planned to do regardless of setup, but it is very human thing to do so I can not blame them very much for there are not very much people who can take high ground on this one.
Still tournament setup probably should be changed to prevent scenarios like that.
|
On December 22 2010 18:56 Whiladan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:54 DennizR wrote:
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. Every ten posts or so, someone comes in and mentions prize splitting. It is not prize splitting, it's collusion. Please read.
Prize splitting is a form of collusion, in the sense that players are colluding to maximize their risk-adjusted expected value. But usually "collusion" implies conspiring to hurt another participant. Prize splitting and Sjow/morrow's scheme are similar in that it doesn't hurt any of the other players.
|
On December 22 2010 18:46 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:41 MiraMax wrote: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.
Nobody wins that prize under fair circumstances? So you say that it is impossible for one player to win 11 out of 18 tournaments? Do you actually think about what you are writing?
The design of the tournament is meant to attract players to participate in all 18 tournaments, since the more they win the higher the overall prize. Like this, a single player can win a huge prize, but only if he achieves something extraordinary. Instead of trusting in their individual strength, these guys want to team up and corrupt the system for their own benefit. It shows that they see playing tournaments as a way to grind money, which is fine from their perspective. From the perspective of the sponsors it would thus be as fine to ban them from the tournament, since that is not what they are paying for. Do you agree to that?
|
I dont think its such a big thing. Sure its kind of stupid but those things happen all the time and nobody cares. You could really blame the players but i bet there would be many others that did / would do the same.
The tournament did the first mistake by doing such a stupid prizesystem. The players abused it. Players abusing a system ... iam shocked.
|
On December 22 2010 18:57 Askesis 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.
Here's the small change that supposedly changes everything:
- The prize money goes to the player that has won the most tournaments (and there is no increment in prize money if you win a certain number of tournaments).
What would be the result? They would probably just have agreed to share the prize pool. Or, they would never have agreed on anything. Basically, the organizers have brought this on themselves. So it's not the cheater's fault for cheating; it's the tournament's fault for having a structure where cheaters have a better chance for more money than players who play by the rules? How does it feel being a complete moron?
I ask myself that every day, and I think you should too. =] Plus I wouldn't call this cheating. It's like "Hey friend have a new computer."If they were already in the finals anyway, and didn't cheat to get there. . .I don't see the issue. It's Sjow's choice, and if he willingly gives it up, who cares?
My ONLY complaint is that they took away some good games from the viewers. It'd be better if they played and then one of them stepped down afterwards or something.
|
On December 22 2010 18:57 Askesis wrote:
So it's not the cheater's fault for cheating; it's the tournament's fault for having a structure where cheaters have a better chance for more money than players who play by the rules?
How does it feel being a complete moron?
What are "the rules"? Apparently in this tournament this sort of scheme is not allowed, so they're not going to do it. But if it were allowed, would you consider it cheating?
|
On December 22 2010 15:00 ShootingStars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 14:59 charlie420247 wrote:On December 22 2010 14:57 ShootingStars wrote:
your point? if you arent the better player it doesnt matter really =/
if you want to stop them from match fixing, go to the tournament and beat them so they cant fix the final
matchfixing is FINE. it doesnt affect you... they ARE top players. this is a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE attitude to have towards cheating. cheating is cheating is cheating. funny, how is matchfixing CHEATING? is it map hacking? no. its an agreement.
exactly.
but the case is different if people can officially bet on these games and therefore commit fraud. i don't know if they can though.
and of course it's immoral and unsportsmanlike in any case.
|
On December 22 2010 18:54 decemberscalm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:47 Whiladan wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
You can argue a moot point all day, but your OWN broad generalizations about morality fail to adhere to the specific discussion of THIS situation, where match fixing IS immoral.
|
in poker, softplaying, which is exactly what this is, is collusion aka cheating.
checking down jackpot hands is also not allowed
|
i hope morrow or sjow never streams again because of this
imagine they DIDNT stream it, they just had an idea of how to win the prizemoney, THEN THEY ASKED an admin, he said no, noone would ever knew. they obviously didn't want to cheat, that's why they asked admin in the first place.
am i wrong?
|
On December 22 2010 19:00 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:57 Askesis wrote: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.
Here's the small change that supposedly changes everything:
- The prize money goes to the player that has won the most tournaments (and there is no increment in prize money if you win a certain number of tournaments).
What would be the result? They would probably just have agreed to share the prize pool. Or, they would never have agreed on anything. Basically, the organizers have brought this on themselves. So it's not the cheater's fault for cheating; it's the tournament's fault for having a structure where cheaters have a better chance for more money than players who play by the rules? How does it feel being a complete moron? I ask myself that every day, and I think you should too. =] Plus I wouldn't call this cheating. It's like "Hey friend have a new computer."If they were already in the finals anyway, and didn't cheat to get there. . .I don't see the issue. It's Sjow's choice, and if he willingly gives it up, who cares?
The organisers wanting a fair tournament? The sponsors supplying the prizes? The other players seing the finals becoming a mockery?
|
You have to reduce it to the situation they were imagining.
They were thinking that the only 2 good players capable of winning would be themself. Therefore you can skip the whole tournament thing. Just think of it as 18 1v1s where the prize pool is not static. More wins for one player means more prizes.
Now, they calculated that their expected value would be maximized if one of them won 11 games and they shared the prizes. Probably because neither of them is confident that they can win more than ~65% of the games against the other player.
In that situation it only makes sense to cooperate. Doing anything else is stupid. This should be plain for all to see.
What are they going to do now? Well, now only one person will be playing. So, given that there were only 2 persons capable of winning in the first place, there are now 18 1v1s where one person has automatically forfeited. And they will share the prize money; except now they won't get the second place prizes.
Is that any more morally correct or is it the same thing with just fewer winnings?
Honestly, I do think they're both idiots for talking about it, while livestreaming no less lol. But it's the rational thing to do. It's hard to blame them.
|
On December 22 2010 19:01 trancey_ wrote:
but the case is different if people can officially bet on these games and therefore commit fraud. i don't know if they can though.
If there is gambling going on, they should announce their plan, or at least make it known what they did. Usually the house will consider that a push and return all bets.
|
On December 22 2010 18:54 DND_Enkil wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:50 Impervious wrote: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.
Did it say that forfeitting matches was cheating in the format for the tournament? If there was a rule against it, then it would be cheating. If not, whether it is unsportsmanlike is debatable.
Also, what is defined as "unsportsmanlike conduct" in this situation? This one guy (sponsor of giant prize and the setup which is causing the problem) has the final say on it.....
Generally, "unsportsmanlike conduct" is an act that goes against the "spirit" of competition. A competition has some kind of reward for winning, which cannot be shared. in this case, you have a bigger prize for cooperation than competition, so there is no actual "spirit" of competition in this actual tournament. It's fucking disgusting how people are standing up for it.
I hope this tourney gets some bad PR and isn't successful. Also, I hope MorroW takes the grand prize home.
|
On December 22 2010 19:01 PredY wrote:
i hope morrow or sjow never streams again because of this
imagine they DIDNT stream it, they just had an idea of how to win the prizemoney, THEN THEY ASKED an admin, he said no, noone would ever knew. they obviously didn't want to cheat, that's why they asked admin in the first place.
close the thread pls.
They were stupid to talk publicly about this. Even you have to agree to that, being Morrow's friend and all.
|
On December 22 2010 18:57 Askesis 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.
Here's the small change that supposedly changes everything:
- The prize money goes to the player that has won the most tournaments (and there is no increment in prize money if you win a certain number of tournaments).
What would be the result? They would probably just have agreed to share the prize pool. Or, they would never have agreed on anything. Basically, the organizers have brought this on themselves. So it's not the cheater's fault for cheating; it's the tournament's fault for having a structure where cheaters have a better chance for more money than players who play by the rules? How does it feel being a complete moron?
You can't win any arguments by using the word "cheater".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
