|
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? 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.
agreed
|
On December 22 2010 19:02 DND_Enkil wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 19:00 MythicalMage wrote: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? I wouldn't say it's unfair. Quite the opposite, it's well within the rule. The sponsors. . .meh. This might get MORE views just through word of mouth about the tournament, and that helps the sponsors. Only time will tell on that one. And I don't think it's a mockery. It's a loophole, sure, but not a mockery.
|
Germany767 Posts
I wouldn'd take news that origins from rakaka too seriously though. They are basically the sun of e-Sports so always read their posts with caution.
|
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
Sigh. This is not the same as poker chopping; not in the slightest. I've already said this before, but you can equate it to poker by having players collude to win the Full Tilt Daily Double bonuses, which is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
The players are not agreeing to split the prize pool they are guaranteed. They are colluding to increase the total amount of money won, not just redistributing the prizes won.
|
On December 22 2010 19:02 DND_Enkil wrote:
The organisers wanting a fair tournament? The sponsors supplying the prizes?
Pretty sure the organizers and sponsors would have preferred both of them playing in the tournament, rather than only one. Besides, this sort of scheme generates publicity from religious/Kantian moralists, so they'd be pretty happy.
The other players seing the finals becoming a mockery?
If they care so much, they should try making the finals.
|
On December 22 2010 18:53 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:50 djengizz wrote: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.
In this case the tournament organisation gets screwed and indirectly this also hurts anyone competing in these type of tournaments.
It's two people working together to get an advantage they wouldn't have when they just played their matches normally. The only reason they are considering throwing matches is because of an advantage they gain from it.
|
wait i just read the op again. they didn't fix matches did they? if they only split the prizes but let the best one of them win and do not change the outcome of matches it's perfectly fine in my opinion.
|
On December 22 2010 19:01 Whiladan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:54 decemberscalm wrote: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:
[quote] 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.
The whole point was to display how it is of questionable morality until the rules are know. They asked the admins, admins say no, now its illegal. Plenty of people condemned them on the sole basis that it was "planning" match fixing. Planning match fixing is way different than actually doing. Your reading waaaaaay into what I write.
|
On December 22 2010 19:05 Liquid`TLO wrote:
I wouldn'd take news that origins from rakaka too seriously though. They are basically the sun of e-Sports so always read their posts with caution.
There were a lot of people watching Morrows stream. I was watching it as well. They were discussing this in Swedish, it was hard to read but not that hard. Forget rakaka, I'm sure there's like 100 other Swedish people who read the chat.
|
On December 22 2010 18:53 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 18:50 djengizz wrote: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.
So the tournament isn't getting screwed by having to pay out thousands more in prizes than if the tournament was ran without colluding players?
|
On December 22 2010 19:05 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 19:02 DND_Enkil wrote:On December 22 2010 19:00 MythicalMage wrote: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? I wouldn't say it's unfair. Quite the opposite, it's well within the rule. The sponsors. . .meh. This might get MORE views just through word of mouth about the tournament, and that helps the sponsors. Only time will tell on that one. And I don't think it's a mockery. It's a loophole, sure, but not a mockery.
Well within the rule? What the hell?
Let me again quote the owner and person ultimately responsible for the tournament in question:
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.
|
On December 22 2010 19:06 trancey_ wrote:
wait i just read the op again. they didn't fix matches did they? if they only split the prizes but let the best one of them win and do not change the outcome of matches it's perfectly fine in my opinion.
They tournament hasn't occurred yet. The only problem with it, is the way the tourney is set up so that the organizers loser more money by having to dish out bigger prizes in the event someone wins 11/18. Its designed so they shouldn't usually have to give out the big prize, but it is still player bait. Its more so just a question of the tournaments rules.
|
On December 22 2010 19:05 Askesis wrote:
Sigh. This is not the same as poker chopping; not in the slightest. I've already said this before, but you can equate it to poker by having players collude to win the Full Tilt Daily Double bonuses, which is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
Strictly prohibited not because it hurts other players but because it increases the house's risk of payouts. But if a site doesn't have a rule against it, I don't see it as immoral to do it.
|
On December 22 2010 19:09 Askesis wrote:
So the tournament isn't getting screwed by having to pay out thousands more in prizes than if the tournament was ran without colluding players?
Not this tournament, no. Because now, the odds they pay out the higher prize has increased since SjoW isn't participating. They're still colluding to maximize the prize pool, but I guess now people don't really mind.
|
On December 22 2010 19:09 DND_Enkil wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 19:05 MythicalMage wrote:On December 22 2010 19:02 DND_Enkil wrote:On December 22 2010 19:00 MythicalMage wrote: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? I wouldn't say it's unfair. Quite the opposite, it's well within the rule. The sponsors. . .meh. This might get MORE views just through word of mouth about the tournament, and that helps the sponsors. Only time will tell on that one. And I don't think it's a mockery. It's a loophole, sure, but not a mockery. Well within the rule? What the hell? Let me again quote the owner and person ultimately responsible for the tournament in question: 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. Ah well in that case it does break the rules. Most tournaments have different rule sets, and as you your self said it was from texts not the rules of the site or whatever unless I'm misreading.
|
On December 22 2010 19:03 VdH wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I would definitely agree on this, but I think it also tells us that they were not thinking that they were doing something bad. If they tried to go behind the tournamend admins back, they surely would have closed the stream, these guys are no morons.
Concerning morals, it's not an easy case for sure and I'm not gonna take a stance on that just because I've read John Locke 5 years ago. But at least it seems that they never intended to hide something and betray the tournament, they were open about it, since they saw the flaw in the tournament setup. So in this regard, this matter is really blown out of proportion.
|
who cares ?
They are pro and matchfixing isnt so bad in this case...
In Korea they do it even worse and with BM, they put all the foreigners ALWAYS in the same "random"-brackets...
e-sports is some unfair piece of crap sometimes 
|
On December 22 2010 19:03 ParasitJonte 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? You can't win any arguments by using the word "cheater".
Match fixing, in essence giving away wins, is against the tournament rules. If you you do something that is against the rules, you cheat. That is pretty much the defition.
I agree that they dont cheat in Starcraft 2, but they are discussion cheating in the tournament.
*edit*
In the end they did not do it and from what i understand they actually asked the organisers if it was okay before doing it.
So i am not saying they are cheaters, but i am arguing against all the people saying that this is OK. But i do think they should really have been able to figure this out themselves.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
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? 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.
This is my one and only problem with what they were planning to do. If they got to the finals on their own merit, fair enough. However to taint that by fixing the finals is grossly unprofessional whether or not it's within the rules.
|
On December 22 2010 19:15 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 19:00 MythicalMage wrote: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? 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. This is my one and only problem with what they were planning to do. If they got to the finals on their own merit, fair enough. However to taint that by fixing the finals is grossly unprofessional whether or not it's within the rules. Read the thread, there are no viewers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
