|
On December 22 2010 19:24 blackh3d wrote: Have they cheated? No.
It's like saying "I'm going to steal from you" when I have not clearly committed the act.
So does that make me a thief just because I say it?
*cough* if only Minority Report existed *cough*
|
It disgust me how many people, think it's okay, that they decide to fix a match. Really..
|
Shame on both players for even talking about matchfixing. It's tantamount to cheating and is unacceptable in any sport, SC2 included.
|
If they really asked the organizers before this was made public, it's not that big a deal, though it's still quite questionable. Regardless, I'm astounded by the stupidity of talking about it over the stream, even if Morrow was convinced the quality was too low.
|
Well this is embarassing. Match fixing is principally the same as cheating, no matter how you look at it.
|
The only cheating here was from the tournament organizers. Bloody marketing ploy, get 2 great players, advertise a huge prize and make rules/games so nobody can with it. Shame on the cafe for doing this shit. I would have thought of the same thing in a heartbeat had I been friends with the only other person that could win the tournaments.
If MorroW and Sjow are close enough in skill but way ahead of everyone else in the tournament then the chances are that together they'd win the majority of rounds. Being even would mean there would be an extremely low chance of anyone actually going home with the only reason they'd even agree to be there.
The fact that in the first round of the tournament only one of them played is proof enough the "leaks" occured before any games were even played and so did the talk with the organizers (and they would have been dumb to let the players fix a winner for something they didn't want to give away).
For something not casted and with no spectators that is rigged against the players from the start I would have said fuck em and go for the prize, maybe next time they would think twice before trying to get money out of 2 players' names and pay nothing for it.
This is not players trying to cheat the community, this is sponsors trying to cheat the players for free publicity without actually giving anything in return.
|
On December 22 2010 19:33 decemberscalm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 19:29 Telcontar wrote:On December 22 2010 19:24 blackh3d wrote: Have they cheated? No.
It's like saying "I'm going to steal from you" when I have not clearly committed the act.
So does that make me a thief just because I say it?
I don't see why the allegations thrown against them when they've allegedly discussed it but have yet to act on it.
If you have proof that they've done it, then by all means, call them matchfixers. but if no crime has been done, you can't simply go around claiming they're matchfixing.
Of course everyone knows they haven't actually done anything because the tournament hasn't happened yet! However there is the matter of 'intent'. If you caught olympic athletes talking to each other about doping or fixing results before the games, should everyone just not make a big deal because it hasn't happened yet? The fact that they're even considering and planning it brings the tournament and the whole sport into disrepute. The difference here is that the "athletes" are idly discussing it in a public stream and might not be aware of whether its legal or not where as you better believe Olympic athletes would be. You can discuss a plan without knowing its legality, and then ask if its allowed. For all intents and purposes this seems like what happened from what was said in the stream.
I think this sums it up quite nicely. They saw a problem and discussed it and even contacted the tournament admins about that to ask them.
Now, you can like them less for that, because you don't agree on their moral stance and all that, but they simply didn't do anything wrong that you can judge them for.
|
On December 22 2010 19:33 Rhokdar wrote: It disgust me how many people, think it's okay, that they decide to fix a match. Really..
It disgusts me how many people can't challenge themselves to think one step further.
|
I read Sjow's explanation. But still doing something like this is wrong. One thing though, why don't you guys discuss this matter via...sms on your cell phone O_O :D
|
By HuK not competing in this tournament he is basicly giving Morrow and SjoW the wins, therefore he is matchfixing.
|
On a very practical point of view (aka financially) both players have a calculated that they will have a bigger prize pool if they wouldn't play for the grandprize, because it might reduce their chances if one beats the other is this correct?.. but in a very ethical point of view this is terrible sportsmanship. Anyway I can empathize with both players since in my old CS days team 1 and team 2 decides to play for "pride" only then splits the cash in half 
I guess both players should just play definitely for pride instead of practicality just like the Americans. Both of you guys are so cute, being nice to each other and all but what you're deciding is really affecting the esports community as a whole
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On December 22 2010 19:33 decemberscalm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 19:29 Telcontar wrote:On December 22 2010 19:24 blackh3d wrote: Have they cheated? No.
It's like saying "I'm going to steal from you" when I have not clearly committed the act.
So does that make me a thief just because I say it?
I don't see why the allegations thrown against them when they've allegedly discussed it but have yet to act on it.
If you have proof that they've done it, then by all means, call them matchfixers. but if no crime has been done, you can't simply go around claiming they're matchfixing.
Of course everyone knows they haven't actually done anything because the tournament hasn't happened yet! However there is the matter of 'intent'. If you caught olympic athletes talking to each other about doping or fixing results before the games, should everyone just not make a big deal because it hasn't happened yet? The fact that they're even considering and planning it brings the tournament and the whole sport into disrepute. The difference here is that the "athletes" are idly discussing it in a public stream and might not be aware of whether its legal or not where as you better believe Olympic athletes would be. You can discuss a plan without knowing its legality, and then ask if its allowed. For all intents and purposes this seems like what happened from what was said in the stream. Ok, so they didn't know the offcial stance on 'prize sharing fixing' so they were discussing it and it happened to be on stream and got caught by some keen eyed people? Fine, they're more guilty of carelessness than malicious intent but as experienced progamers, they should've known ANY form of match fixing whether the rules are unclear is not right.
|
On December 22 2010 19:31 Askesis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 19:11 domovoi wrote: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. And that's exactly what the 6k computer is: a risk of a payout that the house (tournament) if offering. The players were trying to collude to win an individual nonguaranteed bonus prize. And yes, there are rules against collusion. What are you arguing? I'm not really sure.
Well if they actually were going to meet up in the final everytime, the victory is now guaranteed by not colluding and SjoW simply not playing at all. The house loses the prize and a top player.
|
On December 22 2010 19:42 aoe2fan wrote: By HuK not competing in this tournament he is basicly giving Morrow and SjoW the wins, therefore he is matchfixing.
that is some fallacious logic there kiddo
|
On December 22 2010 19:43 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 19:33 decemberscalm wrote:On December 22 2010 19:29 Telcontar wrote:On December 22 2010 19:24 blackh3d wrote: Have they cheated? No.
It's like saying "I'm going to steal from you" when I have not clearly committed the act.
So does that make me a thief just because I say it?
I don't see why the allegations thrown against them when they've allegedly discussed it but have yet to act on it.
If you have proof that they've done it, then by all means, call them matchfixers. but if no crime has been done, you can't simply go around claiming they're matchfixing.
Of course everyone knows they haven't actually done anything because the tournament hasn't happened yet! However there is the matter of 'intent'. If you caught olympic athletes talking to each other about doping or fixing results before the games, should everyone just not make a big deal because it hasn't happened yet? The fact that they're even considering and planning it brings the tournament and the whole sport into disrepute. The difference here is that the "athletes" are idly discussing it in a public stream and might not be aware of whether its legal or not where as you better believe Olympic athletes would be. You can discuss a plan without knowing its legality, and then ask if its allowed. For all intents and purposes this seems like what happened from what was said in the stream. Ok, so they didn't know the offcial stance on 'prize sharing fixing' so they were discussing it and it happened to be on stream and got caught by some keen eyed people? Fine, they're more guilty of carelessness than malicious intent but as experienced progamers, they should've known ANY form of match fixing whether the rules are unclear is not right. THAT. This is the mistake so many people are making. If the rules allow for it, you should defiantly go for it to increase your prize winnings in the tournament setup. Theres nothing wrong about it.
|
This thread is like a statement to what TL.net has become. But I guess that is "OK" for some here.
|
On December 22 2010 19:24 blackh3d wrote: Have they cheated? No.
It's like saying "I'm going to steal from you" when I have not clearly committed the act.
So does that make me a thief just because I say it?
I don't see why the allegations thrown against them when they've allegedly discussed it but have yet to act on it.
If you have proof that they've done it, then by all means, call them matchfixers. but if no crime has been done, you can't simply go around claiming they're matchfixing.
That metaphor means that your can never stop a planned crime. Like the police knows that someones gonna be killed but they have to stand and wait until it happens before they can act.
I'll fix your metaphor. Lets say I tell you I'll steal from you next week. You can report it to the police but I wont be charged for stealing, just the threat.
So the question is how to react to the "planning" of this fraud.
|
Why don't they just play out the game as normal and if sjow wins he sends the computer to morrow? seems like a better idea doesnt it ? instead of juiceing up the whole community and throwing games.
|
On December 22 2010 19:47 Jayson X wrote: This thread is like a statement to what TL.net has become. But I guess that is "OK" for some here. But uninformed opinions are fun! Right?
...
Right? :/
|
On December 22 2010 19:27 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 19:20 Askesis 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? 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. Because the prize is not Sjow's to give Morrow! JHave you even read the thread or know how the prizes are structured? If it was something like "first prize wins $1000 and second wins $500", and the players agreed to split it $750 each, then whatever. However, the tournament is not structured like that. The 6k computer is only given to a player if he pulls the incredible feat of winning 11 of 18 tournaments. There is a huge chance that nobody will get that prize. Sjow and Morrow tried to work together to ensure that they won the prize by forfeiting/throwing the finals to guarantee that one of them will hit the required (and very hard to legitimately get) 11 wins, instead of actually competing, where both of them might win some, but not the 11 required to get the big prize. They are taking a prize that is designed not to be won (because taking 11 of 18 tournaments legitimately is very difficult), and trying to work together to make sure that they win it. That's cheating. Eh. That's technically cheating in the strictest sense, but the thing that hits me is that they're the only two who could win it, in their minds. So instead of no one having it, one of them is saying "Why don't I give it to you?" So instead of wasting this awesome computer, they saw the opportunity and they're taking it. Yes, they are being opportunistic. They saw a way that they could take advantage of the system, and tried to do so. I'm having a hard time finding how you find this justifiable.
The computer belongs to the tournament. They offer to give it away if one player can accomplish a very difficult task; otherwise, they keep it. I don't get where it is acceptable for the players to say "we're entitled to this computer, we're going to game the system and make sure we win it". That's the exact opposite of what is intended.
I cannot say anything more to argue. If people disagree, I guess we just have considerably different ethical values.
|
|
|
|