|
On December 22 2010 23:43 VoirDire wrote:
An update now that I have read Inferno Onlines prices for the tournament.
It's not actually that binary as I first suspected. The more tournaments you win, the better price you'll get.
If you win 10 tournaments, you'll get a Intel Core i7 Extreme 980X-processor+mobo (like ~€1100 retail price). If you win 9 tournaments' you'll get a Intel Core i5-750+mobo. (like ~€330). Etc.
I'd still feel bad about robbing my friend of that €4000 computer though.
You're not robbing it from him if he's agreeing to give it to you. That's like saying getting a birthday present from a friend is robbing them.
Basically everyone needs to not just look at the title and actually read about what happened before this turns into something it isn't.
Oh wait, it already has.
|
On December 22 2010 23:45 Invictus wrote:
With the way things are now(<- please read this line first), i don't see why its a problem already if either morrow/sjow is the only one participating while the other was not.
People seem to be intentionally ignoring the assumption that morrow and sjow are wholly assuming that both of them can win the entire damn tournament. This is particularly important, which i will address later.
Firstly morrow and sjow had said that both of them wanted the computer and seeing that the condition was 11 wins out of 18, they asked that they could fix the matches to let someone win the computer while additionally letting the other player have the experience of playing in the tournament itself. However, the organizer said no. So, the 2 players decided, fine, then 1 of us will play and win the computer instead.
So, assuming that things go as they planned, 1 of them win 11 times and win the computer. Now, remove the above paragraph. 1 of them wins the computer, everyone is happy for him/ pissed that he just rolls everyone and proceeds to share the wininings with someone that has not participated. Now everyone may be pissed that they actually orchestrated the entire thing. But, consider this. Would you have raged at the both of them if..
Only 1 of them had participated, and he wins the entire thing, and had passed the winnings to the other guy in secret?
I have no idea why are people still angry at this point. If the winner decides to pass some of the winnings to the other guy, he is therefore ASSUMING that the other guy would also reach the finals with him. Who would have known what would happen along the way? He might get eliminated by some up and coming rookie. It is therefore the winner's winnings to lose. Sure he got the computer but that is the other guy's loss, he decided that his friendship with the other guy meant that he could give the other guy the computer.
That doesnt mean that i actually approve of their attitude either. its downright disgusting, but there's nothing anyone could probably do unless they could out play them.
EDIT: and morrow is a downright idiot for actually streaming this.
Much like jaywalking, illegal but no one is gonna do anything about it (not even the police)
|
Cant tournament organizers start adding one extra row to their rules:
"If admins have good reason to suspect rigged games taking place or players dropping out because they intend to split prize money, the admins have the right to cancel any prize money that was supposed to be paid out to the suspected players" or something? Seems like a good thing to add to me.
Im not defending the behavious sjorrow but it really doesnt seem like they broke any rule so it would be kinda wrong to punish them. Add a rule next time and problem solved?
|
On December 22 2010 23:59 S.O.L.I.D. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 23:43 VoirDire wrote:
An update now that I have read Inferno Onlines prices for the tournament.
It's not actually that binary as I first suspected. The more tournaments you win, the better price you'll get.
If you win 10 tournaments, you'll get a Intel Core i7 Extreme 980X-processor+mobo (like ~€1100 retail price). If you win 9 tournaments' you'll get a Intel Core i5-750+mobo. (like ~€330). Etc.
I'd still feel bad about robbing my friend of that €4000 computer though. You're not robbing it from him if he's agreeing to give it to you. That's like saying getting a birthday present from a friend is robbing them. Basically everyone needs to not just look at the title and actually read about what happened before this turns into something it isn't. Oh wait, it already has.
I think you've misread my posts.
|
On December 22 2010 22:31 arctics86 wrote:
One Question:
If one of them leads 8-7, the other one can just stop participating... no need for match-fixing and they would get the computer (if they are better then the oher players of course)
This is actually not correct unless they each have a 100% chance of beating every other player (they don't). Here's why:
# of wins - Prize
1 - 250kr (25€) gift certificate
2 - Steelseries Mousepad
3 - Steelseries headphones (XAI/7H, pick one out of the 2)
4 - Steelseries Keyboard
5 - Tony Hawk SHRED (PS3 game)
6 - Guitar Hero: Warriors of rock (PS3 game)
7 - DJ Hero 2
8 - 21,5" Phillipcs LCD monitor
9 - Intel core i5-750 (+mobo, "Sweclockers recomend")
10 - Intel Core i7-908x (+mobo, "Worlds fastest CPU")
11 - HP Z800 computer, valued 40 000kr (4 000€)
Winning prizes 1 through 7 as well as 1 through 8 is worth considerably less than winning 1 through 11; both of them competing means maximizing the potential prize pool (for a small gain) while minimizing the room for error (1 chance to lose vs a random compared to 7).
Doesn't matter, again, because no one seems to be paying attention to the whole part where Morrow and Sjow realized this already -- just posting this to clutter the thread up, I guess. It's a scandal for no reason and it's already coming up on the 40 page mark.
On December 22 2010 22:44 KevinIX wrote:
If you didn't want to prize-block your friend, you should simply not participate in the tourney. Participating and then throwing the match gives your friend a free win, cheats the tournament sponsors of a prize that wasn't legitimately won, and robs the fans of a good match to watch. It's bad sportsmanship.
I realize that yours was a response to a hypothetical situation, but for the sake of being topical: this is what they decided to do. Only one of them is competing.
The way the prize pool is structured, there's more incentive -- and the difference is a considerable amount of money -- for only one of these players to roflstomp through the brackets 11 times than for them both to compete for kicks.
A good tournament format rewards players for doing their best; this one does not. If comparable players compete their hardest in this tournament, nobody wins the prize they were competing for. Everyone loses. This is a bad format.
I thought the onus actually was on tournament organizers to incentivize playing the game over not playing the game, but maybe I've missed the point. It still remains to be seen whether or not Sjow and Morrow approached the tournament organizers about the rule clarification on fixing the finals, or vice versa; this is the only point of contention.
To the folks passing moral judgment on them for "tarnishing the spirit of eSports" (or whatever that billboard they're all reading has on it), and calling them to be banned from competitions, and all that nonsense: "Right, whatever." The only travesty is that to win big one of them needs to not play -- spirit of eSports, yeah.
QFT before posting:
On December 22 2010 23:41 Ipp wrote:
This is entirely blown out of proportion and incorrect. Do you honestly think a previous IEM winner is stupid enough to talk about match fixing while streaming? This news story comes from rakaka and as TLO stated in the TeamLiquid post regaurding this situation: “I wouldn’t take news that origins from rakaka too seriously thoe. They are basically the sun of e-sports so always read their posts with caution”.
So what happened? The event is a set of 18 “LAN” tournaments that will not be streamed. If you win 11 out of the 18, you get a very nice computer. As MorroW and SjoW are the only 2 pros competing, they plan to get to the finals every time. As they are equal in skill level, it is unlikely for one them to go 11 and 18. So they discussed making a pact starting that one will always forfeit; why? Because if they unlock all the prizes both of them can get a 1st place prize pool and come out winners.
They were caught talking about doing it, since then they talked to the admins to ask if it was ok. The admin said no, so one of them will drop out but they will still share the prize. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Is it a shame they are avoiding playing eachother so they can make more money? Yes but it’s because of the tournament setup, financially it is a no brainer.
Still don’t understand?
* it’s local LANs with not many spectators and not being streamed
* they talked to admins, the leaked convo was them realizing they could both get a 1st place prize pool
* they were going to forfeit, now one dropped out
* there was never a fixed match
I hope that settles this issue and if you are part of the media please verify before you post. Also shame on any site who just reposted Rakaka’s article, get some original content. In otherwords, Match Fixing? Don’t Worry, tahts BW.
|
On December 22 2010 23:46 TrainFX wrote:
Seems to me that the root of the problem is the way the grand prize in the tournament has been organized. As sjow pointed out the way things work, match fixing is encouraged. None of this would have happened if you simply needed the most wins in order to win the laptop.
Something to keep in mind for tournament organizers out there, we're only human after all...
There a a few posts like this and IMO it is a ridiculous sense of entitlement. No one has to sponsor a tournament. No on has to throw up a $6000 computer as a prize. Pro gaming NEEDS these sponsors to survive but this thread is full of people complaining about how they offer a prize. How about if you don't like the terms, you don't play in the tournament? How about if you don't like how the tournament is run, get your own $6000 to give away however you like?
|
The Korean match fixing scandal was exaggerated.
This is just... wow. There's nothing of interest here. Nothing bad has been done. Moving on.
|
On December 22 2010 23:26 cilinder007 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 22:06 Sewi wrote:On December 22 2010 22:00 cilinder007 wrote:On December 22 2010 21:56 Sewi wrote:
One thing that hasnt been pointed out enough imo is that it is unfair to the sponsors/organizers.
The rule says that the comp is given awy only if one player wins 11 finals. If not, no computer is given away. So matchfixing takes away the option that there is no computer to be given to any player.In a fair competition, the two finalists should try hard to win 11 final games, which is not easy.
Matchfixing in this case ruins the whole thought behind the tournaments system.
It is NOT the same as if there was a single finals with fixed price money, which both of them agree to share after the finals.
My oppinion about the actual two players:
I dont like that they think about doing something like this. And I dont think it makes them look smart when they discuss this while being on stream. Personally I think both should be banned from this specific tournament, now that it is all public. so because the touranment organisers didnt put a rule that this isnt alowed, they should be 'fair' enough to play for real and not get a computer just to please some people who think that they are the moral police and settle for a lesser prize while they can get a bigger and better prize without braking any rules ? Do you really think that? Would be interesting to know if any major tournament like MLG, IEM, GSL has something like "no matchfixing allowed" written in their rules. Seriously, it is just disrespectful to do something like that. And imo it is kinda obvious that matchfixing is NOT allowed at ANY tournament. YES THEY DO !!! if a rule is not written you dont have to follow it, PERIOD weather you choose something from a moral standpoint is up to you
Our moral standpoints differ quite a bit then. And so does our understanding of e-sports, pcrices tournaments etc.
|
On December 22 2010 23:41 Ipp wrote:
This is entirely blown out of proportion and incorrect. Do you honestly think a previous IEM winner is stupid enough to talk about match fixing while streaming? This news story comes from rakaka and as TLO stated in the TeamLiquid post regaurding this situation: “I wouldn’t take news that origins from rakaka too seriously thoe. They are basically the sun of e-sports so always read their posts with caution”.
So what happened? The event is a set of 18 “LAN” tournaments that will not be streamed. If you win 11 out of the 18, you get a very nice computer. As MorroW and SjoW are the only 2 pros competing, they plan to get to the finals every time. As they are equal in skill level, it is unlikely for one them to go 11 and 18. So they discussed making a pact starting that one will always forfeit; why? Because if they unlock all the prizes both of them can get a 1st place prize pool and come out winners.
They were caught talking about doing it, since then they talked to the admins to ask if it was ok. The admin said no, so one of them will drop out but they will still share the prize. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Is it a shame they are avoiding playing eachother so they can make more money? Yes but it’s because of the tournament setup, financially it is a no brainer.
Still don’t understand?
* it’s local LANs with not many spectators and not being streamed
* they talked to admins, the leaked convo was them realizing they could both get a 1st place prize pool
* they were going to forfeit, now one dropped out
* there was never a fixed match
I hope that settles this issue and if you are part of the media please verify before you post. Also shame on any site who just reposted Rakaka’s article, get some original content. In otherwords, Match Fixing? Don’t Worry, tahts BW.
Ipp's post should be in OP so ppl would actually think before posting "match fixing is bad mmm'kay "
|
On December 23 2010 00:02 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 23:46 TrainFX wrote:
Seems to me that the root of the problem is the way the grand prize in the tournament has been organized. As sjow pointed out the way things work, match fixing is encouraged. None of this would have happened if you simply needed the most wins in order to win the laptop.
Something to keep in mind for tournament organizers out there, we're only human after all... There a a few posts like this and IMO it is a ridiculous sense of entitlement. No one has to sponsor a tournament. No on has to throw up a $6000 computer as a prize. Pro gaming NEEDS these sponsors to survive but this thread is full of people complaining about how they offer a prize. How about if you don't like the terms, you don't play in the tournament? How about if you don't like how the tournament is run, get your own $6000 to give away however you like?
It's not sponsorship. It's one company (i-cafe type) pulling a publicity stunt while encouraging non-competition. They make the contest to bring in players to come spend money at their place. Period. They're not throwing $6K, they're throwing $2K and the best way for good players to win here is only for one to play so in the end that's what they're doing, not playing because it's the best chance to win maximum amount of the prizes. Better read the damn thread before posting, will you?
|
On December 23 2010 00:02 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 23:46 TrainFX wrote:
Seems to me that the root of the problem is the way the grand prize in the tournament has been organized. As sjow pointed out the way things work, match fixing is encouraged. None of this would have happened if you simply needed the most wins in order to win the laptop.
Something to keep in mind for tournament organizers out there, we're only human after all... There a a few posts like this and IMO it is a ridiculous sense of entitlement. No one has to sponsor a tournament. No on has to throw up a $6000 computer as a prize. Pro gaming NEEDS these sponsors to survive but this thread is full of people complaining about how they offer a prize. How about if you don't like the terms, you don't play in the tournament? How about if you don't like how the tournament is run, get your own $6000 to give away however you like?
It is in both the tournament management and the sponsors' best interest to have as many big names entering the tournaments as possible to maximize its exposure. It is in the participants best interest to maximize profit from these tournaments.
The current format encourages that only one of the top players should enter in order to maximize player winnings. Thus, the format's bad for the tournament and the sponsors. Not for the players.
|
Re-posting because people posting before reading as always
On December 22 2010 23:41 Ipp wrote:
This is entirely blown out of proportion and incorrect. Do you honestly think a previous IEM winner is stupid enough to talk about match fixing while streaming? This news story comes from rakaka and as TLO stated in the TeamLiquid post regaurding this situation: “I wouldn’t take news that origins from rakaka too seriously thoe. They are basically the sun of e-sports so always read their posts with caution”.
So what happened? The event is a set of 18 “LAN” tournaments that will not be streamed. If you win 11 out of the 18, you get a very nice computer. As MorroW and SjoW are the only 2 pros competing, they plan to get to the finals every time. As they are equal in skill level, it is unlikely for one them to go 11 and 18. So they discussed making a pact starting that one will always forfeit; why? Because if they unlock all the prizes both of them can get a 1st place prize pool and come out winners.
They were caught talking about doing it, since then they talked to the admins to ask if it was ok. The admin said no, so one of them will drop out but they will still share the prize. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Is it a shame they are avoiding playing eachother so they can make more money? Yes but it’s because of the tournament setup, financially it is a no brainer.
Still don’t understand?
* it’s local LANs with not many spectators and not being streamed
* they talked to admins, the leaked convo was them realizing they could both get a 1st place prize pool
* they were going to forfeit, now one dropped out
* there was never a fixed match
I hope that settles this issue and if you are part of the media please verify before you post. Also shame on any site who just reposted Rakaka’s article, get some original content. In otherwords, Match Fixing? Don’t Worry, tahts BW.
|
On December 23 2010 00:01 VoirDire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 23:59 S.O.L.I.D. wrote:On December 22 2010 23:43 VoirDire wrote:
An update now that I have read Inferno Onlines prices for the tournament.
It's not actually that binary as I first suspected. The more tournaments you win, the better price you'll get.
If you win 10 tournaments, you'll get a Intel Core i7 Extreme 980X-processor+mobo (like ~€1100 retail price). If you win 9 tournaments' you'll get a Intel Core i5-750+mobo. (like ~€330). Etc.
I'd still feel bad about robbing my friend of that €4000 computer though. You're not robbing it from him if he's agreeing to give it to you. That's like saying getting a birthday present from a friend is robbing them. Basically everyone needs to not just look at the title and actually read about what happened before this turns into something it isn't. Oh wait, it already has. I think you've misread my posts.
Ah my bad, misunderstood what you were saying in the last post. Yeah I agree with your points, it would be a bad situation to be in.
|
After reading ipp's post, I think he makes a lot of sense.
|
This isnt poker boys, you cannot split.
Edit: Unless they dont catch you.
WTF. I had no idea morrown was a such a moron. Why the fuck would you, in any stream quality, stream while you chat about riggin a tourney. Its the absolute dumbest shit I've ever heard.
|
Just read quite a few pages of this thread and I have to say you can't really blame them for their intentions. The format of the tournament is partly to blame actually, with the attractive prize pool and the risk of either of them not being able to win the prize. I'm sure it would be a different story if the prize was given to the player wo won the most tournaments instead of 11/18.
From their point of view, there are two scenarios, number one is both of them playing normally just like any other tournament, and there's a high possibility of not being able to win 11/18, which is a lose-lose situation for both of them. Plus a big waste of time.
So scenario number two, assuming both of them reach the finals every single time, one person will lose on purpose so the other player gets prize and splits it, resulting in a win win situation. Given the format of the tournament and the audience (which is insignificant from what I read), I don't see a big deal here. Yes it is unethical but they aren't breaking any rules or doing anything illegal.
Overall it's the stupid format of the tournament, say the first prize gets the computer and the second place gets like 2k or something this wouldn't have happened. Heck if I were in their position I would have done the same, just that I wouldn't type it in my stream. That was just plain stupid lol.
|
|
|
On December 22 2010 15:00 AssuredVacancy wrote:
Why is SjoW doing this for morrow?
Let's just say one is a pitcher other is a reciever.
|
On December 23 2010 00:15 SmoKim wrote:Re-posting because people posting before reading as always Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 23:41 Ipp wrote:
This is entirely blown out of proportion and incorrect. Do you honestly think a previous IEM winner is stupid enough to talk about match fixing while streaming? This news story comes from rakaka and as TLO stated in the TeamLiquid post regaurding this situation: “I wouldn’t take news that origins from rakaka too seriously thoe. They are basically the sun of e-sports so always read their posts with caution”.
So what happened? The event is a set of 18 “LAN” tournaments that will not be streamed. If you win 11 out of the 18, you get a very nice computer. As MorroW and SjoW are the only 2 pros competing, they plan to get to the finals every time. As they are equal in skill level, it is unlikely for one them to go 11 and 18. So they discussed making a pact starting that one will always forfeit; why? Because if they unlock all the prizes both of them can get a 1st place prize pool and come out winners.
They were caught talking about doing it, since then they talked to the admins to ask if it was ok. The admin said no, so one of them will drop out but they will still share the prize. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Is it a shame they are avoiding playing eachother so they can make more money? Yes but it’s because of the tournament setup, financially it is a no brainer.
Still don’t understand?
* it’s local LANs with not many spectators and not being streamed
* they talked to admins, the leaked convo was them realizing they could both get a 1st place prize pool
* they were going to forfeit, now one dropped out
* there was never a fixed match
I hope that settles this issue and if you are part of the media please verify before you post. Also shame on any site who just reposted Rakaka’s article, get some original content. In otherwords, Match Fixing? Don’t Worry, tahts BW.
Thanks Ipp for clarifying. I think the fact that they went to the tournament admins about this first shows they were doing the right thing. Sjow/Morrow Fighting!!
On December 23 2010 00:25 Dante08 wrote:
Just read quite a few pages of this thread and I have to say you can't really blame them for their intentions. The format of the tournament is partly to blame actually, with the attractive prize pool and the risk of either of them not being able to win the prize. I'm sure it would be a different story if the prize was given to the player wo won the most tournaments instead of 11/18.
From their point of view, there are two scenarios, number one is both of them playing normally just like any other tournament, and there's a high possibility of not being able to win 11/18, which is a lose-lose situation for both of them. Plus a big waste of time.
So scenario number two, assuming both of them reach the finals every single time, one person will lose on purpose so the other player gets prize and splits it, resulting in a win win situation. Given the format of the tournament and the audience (which is insignificant from what I read), I don't see a big deal here. Yes it is unethical but they aren't breaking any rules or doing anything illegal. It's not like you're under a pro team or a contract.
Overall it's the stupid format of the tournament, say the first prize gets the computer and the second place gets like 2k or something this wouldn't have happened. Heck if I were in their position I would have done the same, just that I wouldn't type it in my stream. That was just plain stupid lol.
Exactly, this gets to the heart of the issue. The tournament format is very poor, discouraging better players from participating. for every better player added to the pool, the less good prizes that will end up being payed out.
|
On December 23 2010 00:11 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2010 00:02 Treemonkeys wrote:On December 22 2010 23:46 TrainFX wrote:
Seems to me that the root of the problem is the way the grand prize in the tournament has been organized. As sjow pointed out the way things work, match fixing is encouraged. None of this would have happened if you simply needed the most wins in order to win the laptop.
Something to keep in mind for tournament organizers out there, we're only human after all... There a a few posts like this and IMO it is a ridiculous sense of entitlement. No one has to sponsor a tournament. No on has to throw up a $6000 computer as a prize. Pro gaming NEEDS these sponsors to survive but this thread is full of people complaining about how they offer a prize. How about if you don't like the terms, you don't play in the tournament? How about if you don't like how the tournament is run, get your own $6000 to give away however you like? It's not sponsorship. It's one company (i-cafe type) pulling a publicity stunt while encouraging non-competition. They make the contest to bring in players to come spend money at their place. Period. They're not throwing $6K, they're throwing $2K and the best way for good players to win here is only for one to play so in the end that's what they're doing, not playing because it's the best chance to win maximum amount of the prizes. Better read the damn thread before posting, will you?
Uh yeah, I know it's not a sponsorship, and the prize is a $6000 computer. I am not defending how well the tournament is run, if they don't like it, don't participate. It's that simple. The are not entitled to match fix to make the tournament more desirable to them. No one is forcing them to come in and spend their money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
