Mod edit: please read SjoW's explanation before posting, thanks.
Mod edit #2:
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.
Mod edit #3:
On December 23 2010 02:28 MorroW wrote: when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
Just saw this on Gosugamers. Reposting here.
MorroW and SjoW caught match fixing!
Apparently MorroW and SjoW have been caught planning to cheat in the upcoming IOL tournament. SjoW was supposed to lose the final so that Morrow could the get first place prize (a very nice computer). It will be interesting to see what Dignitas and mouz will make of this.
Edit: Full Translation of Original Article (source anon)
"Stars Plan Fixed Games" Two Swedish star players contracted by mouz and dignitas settle on match fixing.
Two of our greatest SC2-stars, the reigning Intel Extreme Masters champion Stefan "MorroW" Andersson (in German Mouseports) and Inferno Online Launch Party-champion Jeffery "SjoW" Brusi from British Team Dignitas are settling on results before matches have even been played.
It was all uncovered when hot headed Terran/Zerg-player MorroW was streaming while playing, at the same time chatting with SjoW about making sure they'd play the future IOS Christmas Tournament in a manner that would ensure one of them would win. The two "rivals" talked about rigging the tournament, so that the player they wanted to advance would advance, as well as in the case of both reaching the finals "throwing the match" and sharing the prize money.
Morrow PM to Sjow: *In case I'm streaming, they say can read it but it's hard. *Anyhow, everything's ok then I hope *We can play the finals *But only if we reward the win to whom we want
SjoW about it on the swedish IRC-channel #swe.sc2: *We are going to cooperate on IO *Me n' MorroW *And these faggots start to whine about it
As if this wasn't enough, Rakaka have received reports that one of the admins of Inferno Online's SC2-tournament, the well known Swedish SC2-commentator and tournament admin Marcel "Maven" Mattsson, has given his "approval" for the planed throwaway game. Rakaka found Maven through the chat in WoW, where he commented on what had transpired:
"* yea, i've talked to them * well you can't really do anything [about it] * Won't ban them either"
Rakaka.se has discussed what has happened with Dignitas manager ODEEE, who declined to give a comment before he had the chance to talk to his player.
Translator's summary and explanation (watching the stream and IRC discussion unfold personally): Swedish internet café holds 18 nightly events during the winter holidays. The prize payouts increase in an 11-step scale the more of the tournaments one single player wins, with the 11th win awarding a computer worth $6000.
Morrow thinks his stream quality is too bad for anyone to be able to read, he assures SjoW of this when SjoW asks him "Are you streaming?". Both of them then scheme and agree on working together to take advantage of the prize payout structure. If both of them compete, there's less of a chance any of them wins anything of real worth, so they agree that one of them (SjoW), will throwaway games if they both reach the finals. Or that they ensure that the "right" players reach the finals.
SjoW later discussed it in an open manner in the swedish IRC-channel #swe.sc2 (alof of people saw the conversation on Morrow's stream), not thinking it was a big deal at all.
Added SjoW's responses:
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
so its ok to cheat a local event but not a big one?... you know what they say, once a cheater....
How can you say its cheating? both are in finals and both agrees on splitting the money without playing the actual match. I dont get it...
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
So that makes it ok to predetermine winners because it's not a big name tournament? Who's to say this wouldn't occur in a larger one when you two get more confidence? It's still wrong deciding who's gonna win beforehand regardless of what tournament it is. If you want a computer that bad I hear EG has a tournament and you have to beat Idra. I guess doing this type of shit is easier than beating him eh?
I agree its wrong on a big tournament because it lets down the audiance. By not showing a good game or not a game at all. But in this case theres no audiance at all.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
So basically, you took a fun, community endeavour to have a cool local tournament, and abused it so that you and MorroW could literally win every single prize by making sure one of you finished first.
That's pretty shameful imo.
Just seems like you're greedy bastard trying to snatch whatever you can and exploit a tournament when the community is trying to host small tournaments to help grow e-sports, not let you win as many prizes as you can get your hands on.
You may not be letting down an audience, but I feel like it really lets down the community.
Theres only one prize on each tournament and read what I typed... We expected to be in finals every single one we participated in...
Update:
In a later article, rakaka got in touch with Inferno Online's owner Anton "Budak" Budak, who had the following to say: "No throwaway games, the slightest suspicion and they'll be banned for life". He added: "I decide, and nothing unsportsmanlike is allowed
Another Mod edit: This is a must read before responding to this to clear up what exactly happened.
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.
Update #2:
An inaccurate fact that is being spread in the thread is the fact that SjoW and MorroW asked the admin and got a "no" as an answer. Sjow himself writes admin said no, which is untrue.
SjoW and MorroW are both good friends with Maven, the tournament admin for Inferno Online's SC2-tournament. Since Maven is a friend of the two, rakaka deemed it probable he was biased in his decision to give the go ahead for the two to throwaway games.
The admin didn't say no. Since he was a friend of theirs he obliged and said yes. The one who ultimately said no and had the admin change his mind was internét café owner Budak. The newsworthiness of the article extends to reporting about the admin being biased in his judgement due to being too friendly with the players.
Ultimately, it was the internet café owner who stepped in to forbid it after the story broke. Not the admin.
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.
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.
This is stupid. This whole "news story" is based off of some random PMs that Morrow sent while streaming. Hardly good evidence.
He was probably joking IF this even really happened.
*Edit*
This is the Google Translation of the "news story" (hopefully someone else can provide a better translation later)
Stars scheduled place matches Two Swedish Dignitas and Mouz-tied big stars Stacraft 2 makes up for the matches before they finish.
Two of our largest Starcraft 2-stars, the reigning Intel Extreme Masters champion Stefan "Morrow"Smith (for everyday use in the German Mouse Sports) and Inferno Online SC2-launch party champion Jeffrey "Sjow" Busi from British Team Dignitas makes up for games before they have even been played.
It all came to light when the hot-headed Terran and Zerg gaming Morrow stream during the time he played while he chatted with Jeffrey about simply playing next IOS-JUL-tournament so that they want to win wins. The two "rivals" are talking about rigging the tournament so that the players they want to advance, and that when they both reach the finals, they "throw the match" and split the prize money ..
"Morrow PM to SjoW: * If I stream, they say they can read it but the hard ^ ^ * but anyway, everything ok, I hope * We can of course play the finals where * fixed only if we give the prize to the one we want
SjoW about the whole thing on IRC in # SWE.SC2: * [17:39] <+ dignitasSjoW> we should work on the IO * [17:39] <+ dignitasSjoW> I o Morrow * [17:39] <+ dignitasSjoW> and they start to whine here gays
As if this were not enough, Rakaka also been informed that one of the administrators of the Inferno Online's Starcraft 2 tournament, the famous Swedish SC2-commentator and turneringsadminstratören Marcel "Maven" Mattsson given his "approval" to the planned place match. Rakaka find Maven via chat in WoW where he comments on the incident:
"* aa yes have them talk to me * Like, you can not do anything * will not ban them either "
Rakaka.se have discussed the incident with Dignitas boss ODEE who can not comment on what occurred before he has talked to his players.
This thread should be closed, this is nothing more than pure speculation at this point and will serve no purpose other than to defame two very good players and respected members of this community.
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.
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.
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.
What the hell garbage are you spewing out?
To OP: Wow, that is freaking huge. How disappointing. But... Morrow's Zerg isnt very good, and apparently Sjow doesnt have to scout. So, not suprising.....
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.
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.
You have no sense of morality, do you?
people match fix in street fighter many times to help the poor player win some money =.=
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.
Do you even see what you're saying?
Matchfixing IS cheating, in every single way shape and form. And many aspects, its worse than maphacking, because its compromising the honor of TWO players, not just one.
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.
You have no sense of morality, do you?
people match fix in street fighter many times to help the poor player win some money =.=
Holy crap. have you never followed anything in your life? Cricket players do this shit, and get banned from playingcricket at any level for years. It's BAD news.
On December 22 2010 15:00 TheToast wrote: This is stupid. This whole "news story" is based off of some random PMs that Morrow sent while streaming. Hardly good evidence.
He was probably joking IF this even really happened.
This is the Google Translation of the "news story" (hopefully someone else can provide a better translation later)
Stars scheduled place matches Two Swedish Dignitas and Mouz-tied big stars Stacraft 2 makes up for the matches before they finish.
Two of our largest Starcraft 2-stars, the reigning Intel Extreme Masters champion Stefan "Morrow"Smith (for everyday use in the German Mouse Sports) and Inferno Online SC2-launch party champion Jeffrey "Sjow" Busi from British Team Dignitas makes up for games before they have even been played.
It all came to light when the hot-headed Terran and Zerg gaming Morrow stream during the time he played while he chatted with Jeffrey about simply playing next IOS-JUL-tournament so that they want to win wins. The two "rivals" are talking about rigging the tournament so that the players they want to advance, and that when they both reach the finals, they "throw the match" and split the prize money ..
"Morrow PM to SjoW: * If I stream, they say they can read it but the hard ^ ^ * but anyway, everything ok, I hope * We can of course play the finals where * fixed only if we give the prize to the one we want
SjoW about the whole thing on IRC in # SWE.SC2: * [17:39] <+ dignitasSjoW> we should work on the IO * [17:39] <+ dignitasSjoW> I o Morrow * [17:39] <+ dignitasSjoW> and they start to whine here gays
As if this were not enough, Rakaka also been informed that one of the administrators of the Inferno Online's Starcraft 2 tournament, the famous Swedish SC2-commentator and turneringsadminstratören Marcel "Maven" Mattsson given his "approval" to the planned place match. Rakaka find Maven via chat in WoW where he comments on the incident:
"* aa yes have them talk to me * Like, you can not do anything * will not ban them either "
Rakaka.se have discussed the incident with Dignitas boss ODEE who can not comment on what occurred before he has talked to his players.
There was also some messages on IRC, and also the commentator Maven condoned it as well, implying it was real. I think a PM between the 2 players is pretty damning evidence? Seems weird to "joke" about something like that, its like making bomb jokes in an airport.
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.
I see. That means any TOP teams/players/stars are allowed to rig a match, which, no doubt, will piss off all the fans, ruin the spectator-experience, except of course, those who think that matchfixing don't matter because TOP players are allowed to do so. If the outcome has already been planned, then there's no point of watching
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.
you sir are obviously too thick to argue with and too dense to realize
fixed fights= lack of trust from viewers= lack of respect for the sport= sport dies and the players lose out on all thier money and time spent practicing.
a true genius would then take thier crapped on sport that noone respects and complete the circle, they would fix fights that are so awesome and so epic that people actually start watching it again even though they know its fake as california tits. and this is the story of professional wrestling.
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.
You have no sense of morality, do you?
people match fix in street fighter many times to help the poor player win some money =.=
Pheew, I thought you were serious for a while, but now I see you're just a troll.
Anyways, hopefully there is no truth to these accusations, I like both of them. Hope it gets cleared up.
On December 22 2010 15:02 ShootingStars wrote: please tell me how match fixing is cheating, like map hacking thanks TWO players in an agreement. unlike maphacking
the key word is AGREEMENT. if both players agree, then its fine. its just like map choosing. both players agree to play on LOST TEMPLE,
Are you joking? Obviously something can be cheating even though players agree. Let's say two players on a team agree one of them will win so that both can advance through groups. Clearly this isn't allowed, and even if they agree to do it it's still violating the rules.
Otherwise, I am not sure about the validity of the claim in this article.
Meh the only thing that this will possibly mess with will be the level of play. However since they aren't screwing anyone over and the only ones that this will affect directly are the 2 players then I don't think it's that big of a deal. Not saying it's right but I think people are going to blow this up.
id bet that it was just some friendly shit like "yo sjow sup let me win the computer plz thx" and sjow is like "lol ok" and someone says OMG MATCHFIXING!!!
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.
What are you talking about? That's like saying that the Chicago Black Sox scandal is okay. It damages the integrity of the sport if stuff like this happens. I really hope this is false.
Match fixing for bribes by a 3rd party is a problem. If a player however, feels like throwing a match just to help someone out, that is his own prerogative and is not cheating by any definition of the term. (whether or not it is some other problem is another thing)
On December 22 2010 15:05 Kelethius wrote: id bet that it was just some friendly shit like "yo sjow sup let me win the computer plz thx" and sjow is like "lol ok" and someone says OMG MATCHFIXING!!!
On December 22 2010 14:58 Subversion wrote: How is matchfixing fine...?
whats wrong about it? its an agreement between 2 players. if you want to stop it, beat them at the tournament.
I'm not even going to comment on how stupid this sounds.
Anyway, doesn't surprise me, MorroW has never been very high on respect in my book, I would have hoped for more from Sjow though. =\
I feel the opposite. I have a ton of respect for Morrow, and I'm pretty sure that he is well above this type of behavior. He's a good kid with a lot of discipline; but anyway, you gotta give the benefit of the doubt until there is some more credible evidence.
I don't know what to think. On one hand, when accusing top players of such serious shit you need to bring some evidence. But on the other hand, there is no smoke without fire... If that whole matchfixing turns out to be true, I would not be surprised. Disappointed, yes.
Can we please warn ShootingStars? I don't want to be part of a community where there are guys like him who say that matchfixing is fine. I mean, doesn't TL have a reputation? Or are sewer rats allowed ?
I'd be really interested to see the translation if anyone's working on that. It looks to me from the screencap that it's only Morrow saying anything. It would be nice if someone could look in the archives of the stream and translate the entire convo that happened. Did Sjow reply to whatever Morrow said? What was the context of the conversation?
If anything, I would say play the tournament, and then if Sjow is such a nice guy and Morrow needs it so badly, he can just give him the computer after he wins (if he even does in the first place).
The only thing I don't like, is that now if they both get to the finals of this tournament, the whole series is going to be put in doubt about whether the players are actually trying their hardest. =/
On December 22 2010 15:00 TheToast wrote: This is stupid. This whole "news story" is based off of some random PMs that Morrow sent while streaming. Hardly good evidence.
He was probably joking IF this even really happened.
Why would they "joke" about fixing a match? "Random" PMs? How can you claim this isn't solid evidence? It was seen in the stream...
On December 22 2010 15:00 TheToast wrote: This is stupid. This whole "news story" is based off of some random PMs that Morrow sent while streaming. Hardly good evidence.
He was probably joking IF this even really happened.
This is the Google Translation of the "news story" (hopefully someone else can provide a better translation later)
Stars scheduled place matches Two Swedish Dignitas and Mouz-tied big stars Stacraft 2 makes up for the matches before they finish.
Two of our largest Starcraft 2-stars, the reigning Intel Extreme Masters champion Stefan "Morrow"Smith (for everyday use in the German Mouse Sports) and Inferno Online SC2-launch party champion Jeffrey "Sjow" Busi from British Team Dignitas makes up for games before they have even been played.
It all came to light when the hot-headed Terran and Zerg gaming Morrow stream during the time he played while he chatted with Jeffrey about simply playing next IOS-JUL-tournament so that they want to win wins. The two "rivals" are talking about rigging the tournament so that the players they want to advance, and that when they both reach the finals, they "throw the match" and split the prize money ..
"Morrow PM to SjoW: * If I stream, they say they can read it but the hard ^ ^ * but anyway, everything ok, I hope * We can of course play the finals where * fixed only if we give the prize to the one we want
SjoW about the whole thing on IRC in # SWE.SC2: * [17:39] <+ dignitasSjoW> we should work on the IO * [17:39] <+ dignitasSjoW> I o Morrow * [17:39] <+ dignitasSjoW> and they start to whine here gays
As if this were not enough, Rakaka also been informed that one of the administrators of the Inferno Online's Starcraft 2 tournament, the famous Swedish SC2-commentator and turneringsadminstratören Marcel "Maven" Mattsson given his "approval" to the planned place match. Rakaka find Maven via chat in WoW where he comments on the incident:
"* aa yes have them talk to me * Like, you can not do anything * will not ban them either "
Rakaka.se have discussed the incident with Dignitas boss ODEE who can not comment on what occurred before he has talked to his players.
There was also some messages on IRC, and also the commentator Maven condoned it as well, implying it was real. I think a PM between the 2 players is pretty damning evidence? Seems weird to "joke" about something like that, its like making bomb jokes in an airport.
Where is the proof? Someone could easily photoshop this picture. Does anyone have these supposed IRC logs? Does anyone have any kind of proof at all?
I highly doubt Morrow would be stupid enough to organize a match fixing while streaming and on an open IRC channel.
I'm not saying cheating doesn't go on, but for god sake lets wait until some form of actual proof is offered up before we damn the two of them to internet hell.
Otherwise these threads always just end up turning into crazed witch-hunts.
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.
You have no sense of morality, do you?
people match fix in street fighter many times to help the poor player win some money =.=
Pheew, I thought you were serious for a while, but now I see you're just a troll.
Anyways, hopefully there is no truth to these accusations, I like both of them. Hope it gets cleared up.
Not everyone who says retarded shit is a troll. Some people are just that misinformed and dumb.
If the link doesn't work for, in all it's ridiculous google-esque-lengthy-URL-characters-of-glory, just type the URL yourself in a page translator and get back here with your opinion. I am interested in the community's response, as it seemed to produce a nearly unanimous reply in late 2009 that the Korean pro-gamers involved in pro-game matchfixing were wrong in doing so.
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.
You have no sense of morality, do you?
people match fix in street fighter many times to help the poor player win some money =.=
Pheew, I thought you were serious for a while, but now I see you're just a troll.
Anyways, hopefully there is no truth to these accusations, I like both of them. Hope it gets cleared up.
Not everyone who says retarded shit is a troll. Some people are just that misinformed and dumb.
Come on, look at that post. No one could write that and be serious.
This doesn't make any sense. Why would someone throw the finals of a tourney just so the other guy can get the prize? Couldn't you just win and then send the prize to the other guy anyway?
On December 22 2010 15:11 huameng wrote: This doesn't make any sense. Why would someone throw the finals of a tourney just so the other guy can get the prize? Couldn't you just win and then send the prize to the other guy anyway?
My guess is this is what they were actually talking about and it got misinterpreted? But I await a credible translation.
On December 22 2010 15:02 ShootingStars wrote: please tell me how match fixing is cheating, like map hacking thanks TWO players in an agreement. unlike maphacking
the key word is AGREEMENT. if both players agree, then its fine. its just like map choosing. both players agree to play on LOST TEMPLE,
The amount of stupidity that comes out of this post is causing a massive tumour in my brain.
lol i'm sorry I find this hard to believe because how stupid would you have to be to say that while streaming? If they really are doing this I have to wonder if they were sober when they did it.
Bleh, I don't like Morrow or Sjow, but I honestly hope none of this is true. SC2 is on shakier ground than Brood War was during their scandal, and I hope that if this is true, that the damage can be minimized.
I noticed during the EG masters cup Slush seemed to throw the semi finals games against his teammate qxc, saying he was short on time. It was very disappointing to watch, and it takes away something from the whole tournament I feel. I hope organizations come down on things like this later on for the spectators' enjoyment. I can understand that if he was short on time and felt he had a low probability of winning against qxc he'd want to get it over with fast, but it was lame to watch. I turned the stream off after that.
Bringing it up because this is a similiar situation and needs to be discouraged. No one wants to watch fixed matches, unless you're a WWE fan.
Can someone please explain to me how matchfixing is cheating? Sure it's immoral and wrong but I don't really put it in the same category as cheating. By this I mean that if you cheat (maphack, stackhacks, whatever) you're doing something in-game to modify the outcome. Where as these guys are pretty much saying, let him have the prize. It's in essence, no different than one person winning and then giving the prize to another person.
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.
You have no sense of morality, do you?
Morality? If you think anything involving starcraft has anything to do with morality YOU don't have any sense of morality. MAYBE you can make an ethical argument, but thats a bit different I'd say.
I think the point is clearly that even if it is stupid (which I think it is, IF its even true), how do you even stop it? What can you possibly do, short of reading someone's mind, to know if they REALLY threw the match or not? It isn't cheating the same way a map hack is cheating for what I think are obvious reasons.
Would I be a fan of players who did something like this? NO. But thats because it would ruin my experience of watching their events, not out of some misplaced sense of morality.
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.
hmmm possibly a good point, come to think of it what's the point of a tournament?.. that someone wins something right?!...so if we all work together then we can join a tournament together and take it in turns to win a computer as long as everyone agrees to throws a match for someone that hasn't won one yet. Who wants to sign up?!? anyone???...no, maybe Morrow will
On a serious note, please forgive me as I wash off the stench of sarcasm for the moment (so Yes! disregard that last paragraph), but Seriously guys match throwing hurts the competitive side of esports and its reputation for everyone involved, not just the players but the spectators that have to watch the crap, tournament organisers who will attempt to defend the event, the sponsors for putting up the cash and support and its cheating everyone other than the players (to a degree, I mean some fans will be disappointed, 'The Morrow Fanclub' thread is being posted in row now, ironic how its very close to this one... so in the long run maybe it comes back to the player, can't say but all I know is the majority of us true lovers of the game want to a see a good fight not a sissy half ass attempt to any degree.
Isn't it kind of like spliting the prize in a poker tournament? like if two friends make the final two and make an agreement to split the prize pool anyways?
seems to me like morrow was just jokingly telling sjow to let him win the tournament as an inside joke assuming they'd both make it to the finals, thus stating everyone else at the tournament isn't as good as they are.
Whatever the case, this evidence isn't good enough. Even so, I don't think speculated pre-crime is grounds to disqualify 2 of the tournaments best players.
On December 22 2010 15:03 ShootingStars wrote: okay whatever, call it however, but you guys failed to realize they are both in agreement.
User was warned for this post
In three pages of replies only a couple of people actually explained the problem with fixing professional sporting matches to you. If you still don't understand, it's that player behavior like this is regulated by the official body of the sport because the financial support (the fans) want to watch matches in which the outcome is determined by who is better, period. That's what gives the sport an air of excitement and justifies 'fandom' as an activity. If the players or teams or league decide who wins on a basis other than player ability, then they aren't fulfilling the demands of the fans who keep the sport in business. So it doesn't matter that the players are in agreement (and I assure you that we didn't 'fail to realize' that), because the players are there to serve the fans. The first place prize is their reward for doing so. They don't get to all group up and decide who it should go to, because it's not theirs.
Either way, how do you enforce this exactly? If someone decides to throw a match you can't prove anything. It's not really something you can prevent. In this case there's obviously evidence but it's not exactly proof, and usually you don't talk about it on stream (is that what happened?).
The thing is... There will be 16 "game nights" with one tournament every night. Every time you win a tournament you will take one more step in a "price-stair". The last stair is #11. So if you win 11tournaments your price will be a computer worth 4000€ + the other stairs. So there will be really hard to get to this last step if there are many good players attending.
To make it clear, you have to win 11 of 16 cups for The Big Prize. There for morrow and sjow decided to give the win to one of them, and then split the big prize.
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.
If you let people matchfix, the fans get screwed over. If the fans get screwed over, they will stop watching. If they stop watching, SC2 doesn't make it as an esport.
Don't say it's just an agreement between the players, it's not.
On December 22 2010 15:20 Redmark wrote: Either way, how do you enforce this exactly? If someone decides to throw a match you can't prove anything. It's not really something you can prevent. In this case there's obviously evidence but it's not exactly proof, and usually you don't talk about it on stream (is that what happened?).
It raises the question why you would participate in a tournament and even joke about throwing a match in a tell on a stream in the first place? If the allegations are true than I say throw them out of professional starcraft all together.
I actually saw this live on his stream. Morrow asked Sjow if he could have the computer and then he would give Sjow all the other stuff that he won so he could sell it so sjow could get money. But sjow didnt like this he wanted to sell the computer and split the cash.
I don't get it. I'm assuming this is so MorroW could get the computer? If thats the case why didnt MorroW and SjoW just come to an agreement that MorroW could get the computer regardless of the results of the final. Seems kind of stupid to me if SjoW agreed to lose to MorroW so that MorroW could get a computer when SjoW could just play and give it to MorroW if he wins. What does SjoW have to gain in this?
On December 22 2010 15:24 xelorion wrote: I actually saw this live on his stream. Morrow asked Sjow if he could have the computer and then he would give Sjow all the other stuff that he won so he could sell it so sjow could get money. But sjow didnt like this he wanted to sell the computer and split the cash.
This was no joke it was real.
But why would they type it, while streaming, when they were sitting next to each other?
I'm not sure why you're all coming down so hard on ShootingStar, he kind of does have a point. In Broodwar the match-fixing scandal was, for me, not scandalous because a player lost on purpose, but because they were cheating their sponsor and the tournament by doing it to get financial gain. ShootingStar mentioned Street Fighter tournaments and while I'm not familiar with the scene, I assume most of them are underground where the players buy in to the tournament and play for their own prize pool. In that case, I think it's perfectly legitimate to throw a game if you want to because you are participating for something that you invested in. However, in the case of Starcraft tournaments, where most of our prizes come from sponsorship, it is kind of cruddy to throw a game and cheat the fans who the sponsors are trying to provide content for.
If these rumors are true, I agree with you all that it would be wrong for Morrow and Sjow to do this, but I can see why ShootingStar would disagree, especially if he comes from a competitive gaming background where prizes were driven by the players rather than by sponsorship and audience.
Maphacking is cheating the game. Matchfixing is cheating the SYSTEM. It is still cheating.
If someone finds out the answers to a test ahead of time, it's cheating. If two people make an arrangement to cheat off each other on a test, it is still cheating. People who don't think matchfixing is cheating are confusing cheating with hacking.
How can the image be proof in any way? It would be INCREDIBLY easy to photoshop it just to ruin their credibility. I think Morrow would be more intelligent than doing this while on stream.
Is match fixing bad? Yes, it is the bane of any competition. This can't be proven, though, except from this "screen capture of his stream" (which is a very sketchy and unreliable source due to the ease of doctoring images), unless there is a real confession from Sjow or Morrow.
Perhaps I misunderstand the situation, but I would question the authenticity of that screenshot of the stream before I questioned if these two players were really match fixing.
On December 22 2010 15:24 xelorion wrote: I actually saw this live on his stream. Morrow asked Sjow if he could have the computer and then he would give Sjow all the other stuff that he won so he could sell it so sjow could get money. But sjow didnt like this he wanted to sell the computer and split the cash.
This was no joke it was real.
But why would they type it, while streaming, when they were sitting next to each other?
What are you talking about? They werent sitting next to each other. They were home at each others house streaming.
Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
On December 22 2010 15:24 xelorion wrote: I actually saw this live on his stream. Morrow asked Sjow if he could have the computer and then he would give Sjow all the other stuff that he won so he could sell it so sjow could get money. But sjow didnt like this he wanted to sell the computer and split the cash.
This was no joke it was real.
But why would they type it, while streaming, when they were sitting next to each other?
What are you talking about? They werent sitting next to each other. They were home at each others house streaming.
If this is the inferno online thing with 18 nightgibs thingy, then no... the tournament was played at inferno online, the gaming café. Maybe they were talking about it BEFORE going to the tourney though, while streaming. However, I can confirm that only SjoW played in the tournament. MorroW did not. So what SjoW is saying here definitely seems true.
They werent allowed to fix matches, so only one of them played - they havent cheated. Considering the way this event works, OF COURSE they dont want to beat each other. That means neither of them could win the big prize. Its not the same as match fixing when the winner of the finals just takes it all. This is a LADDER event.
Besides, when the admins said they werent allowed to both play, only one of them played... whats the big deal?
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
Wait so basically, they can't scoop to another in a tourny? I mean I dont find anything wrong. They could have discussed it and Sjow could have simply forfeited. And this happens a lot think of WCG when Stork loses on purpose so he can get his countrymen into top 4.
Remember unlike proleagues matchfixing where people are under contract to win and they actually broke the law due to underground gambling. These tournies are just a way for Morrow and Sjow to make money. Unless they have a obligation for their employer to win(stated within their contract or within thetourny contract) they can easily jsut forfeit.
Allowing any player any form of match-fixing is in itself wrong. If Sjow wants to win the tourney and give his prize to morrow, that is fine. But fixing the match is terrible.
On December 22 2010 15:33 Baarn wrote: Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
If you ask the organizers "can we do this?" and they say "no", it's not exactly "gaming" the tournament, is it? I don't understand why you feel they should be banned.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
On December 22 2010 15:36 Chimpalimp wrote: Allowing any player any form of match-fixing is in itself wrong. If Sjow wants to win the tourney and give his prize to morrow, that is fine. But fixing the match is terrible.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
so its ok to cheat a local event but not a big one?... you know what they say, once a cheater....
a tournament with that kind of prize having no publicity at all ? sounds pretty ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as u not seeing how this would harm the organizer
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
so its ok to cheat a local event but not a big one?... you know what they say, once a cheater....
The only reason they didnt want to beat each other, is that if they did, neither of them could win a big prize, but they both wanted to participate in the event and enjoy it. An admin told them they wouldnt be allowed to do that, SO THEY DIDNT DO IT.
Of course they wanted to do it,... they both wanted to play, obviously. But in the end, only one of them played.
On December 22 2010 15:24 xelorion wrote: I actually saw this live on his stream. Morrow asked Sjow if he could have the computer and then he would give Sjow all the other stuff that he won so he could sell it so sjow could get money. But sjow didnt like this he wanted to sell the computer and split the cash.
This was no joke it was real.
I'm confused, couldn't they spilt/sell the earnings regardless of who won? Like they just play legitimitley but have a pre-agreement that they split the winnings? If that's the case, I don't think it matters, the winner can do whatever he wants to do with his earnings. But if they cheat the tournaments and the viewers by saying "Morrow is going to win," and then split the earnings, how is that different from "We play our hardest, and regardless of who wins, we split the winnings." (I mean the difference is, the first option we cheat, and the second we play fair. But both outcomes, they both split the winnings? Why would they have to cheat?)
err I just read Sjow's response, and that makes sense, I just assumed that if they played each other they would have the best chance to win the grand finals if they both played the hardest they could and the best player would play in the finals.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
So that makes it ok to predetermine winners because it's not a big name tournament? Who's to say this wouldn't occur in a larger one when you two get more confidence? It's still wrong deciding who's gonna win beforehand regardless of what tournament it is. If you want a computer that bad I hear EG has a tournament and you have to beat Idra. I guess doing this type of shit is easier than beating him eh?
Well from where I'm standing there is a very big difference in playing a fixed match and a player just not participating in a tournament so that a different player could win. This whole thing is acctually the tournaments fault since the structuring of the prize pool discourages competition from what I'm reading. I mean what if 18 different players won each tournament, suddenly no one gets the prize.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Did you ask the organization before your conversation took place?
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
so its ok to cheat a local event but not a big one?... you know what they say, once a cheater....
How can you say its cheating? both are in finals and both agrees on splitting the money without playing the actual match. I dont get it...
On December 22 2010 15:41 Antiochus wrote: Well from where I'm standing there is a very big difference in playing a fixed match and a player just not participating in a tournament so that a different player could win. This whole thing is acctually the tournaments fault since the structuring of the prize pool discourages competition from what I'm reading. I mean what if 18 different players won each tournament, suddenly no one gets the prize.
You get a small prize for winning one tournament. The more you win, the more and bigger prizes you get.
Its actually not a tournament. This gaming cafe lets people nightgib, and to make the nightgibs more fun / add incentive for people to nightgib, they have Counterstrike and SC2 tournaments during the gibs. The more you win, the more and bigger prizes you win, giving people incentive to gib more, thus giving the cafe more money. Its just an event during the winter holiday to make gibbing more fun - its not a tournament like Dreamhack.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
so its ok to cheat a local event but not a big one?... you know what they say, once a cheater....
The only reason they didnt want to beat each other, is that if they did, neither of them could win a big prize, but they both wanted to participate in the event and enjoy it. An admin told them they wouldnt be allowed to do that, SO THEY DIDNT DO IT.
Of course they wanted to do it,... they both wanted to play, obviously. But in the end, only one of them played.
What is there to be pissed about?
I wish more people would read this post. It explains what happened pretty well. Nothing contraband happened, guys.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
so its ok to cheat a local event but not a big one?... you know what they say, once a cheater....
How can you say its cheating? both are in finals and both agrees on splitting the money without playing the actual match. I dont get it...
If they talked to the admins and were told they weren't aloud then decided only one would play I don't see what's wrong with that and it just seems every one's blowing this out of proportion? Calm down you guys :o
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
so its ok to cheat a local event but not a big one?... you know what they say, once a cheater....
How can you say its cheating? both are in finals and both agrees on splitting the money without playing the actual match. I dont get it...
Its best not to try and argue with people here dood, not worth it. O_O;;
On December 22 2010 15:02 ShootingStars wrote: please tell me how match fixing is cheating, like map hacking thanks TWO players in an agreement. unlike maphacking
the key word is AGREEMENT. if both players agree, then its fine. its just like map choosing. both players agree to play on LOST TEMPLE,
because it's not a competition anymore, you dumbass. how old are you seriously?
The motivation behind the match-fixing here is different than the behind-the-scenes betting scandals that happened in Korea, but I feel that the end principal and product, match-fixing itself, should not be taken lightly or condoned. I hope that any players who feel that it's acceptable will at least adjust their feelings once they have sponsors, fans, and organizations relying on their ingenuous efforts.
I think this was the wrong way of going about this. If sjow wanted to have morrow win so he could have the computer it would have been better to just play it that then give the computer to him if he won. Therefore there would be no bullshit repercussions like this. Now they both look like idiots to there sponsors ;(.
"we didnt see any harm in it"..."to do fixed matches" Not to quote something out of context or hold someone to a misstatement, but wow.
It's just so unprofessional by all... just really disappointing. Better to just win the computer yourself and ask for it to be shipped to the person you want to give it to and still play real games. I would have spraypainted "pwned" all over it before shipping it though.
Maybe we are all just overreacting though. Once you think of them as just really good players as opposed to pros that do this for a living, it's just a youthful indiscretion.....Surely in the exact same situation with higher stakes they wouldn't consider the same thing..........right? right????
shootingstar really giving himself a bad name. just stop posting so people forget what you've said here.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
so its ok to cheat a local event but not a big one?... you know what they say, once a cheater....
How can you say its cheating? both are in finals and both agrees on splitting the money without playing the actual match. I dont get it...
Sjow, it is only cheating if prize splitting is not allowed in the tourny so might as well as just msg the admin of the tourny and check and stop the this bs thread.
I really don't see anything wrong. People they could have literraly played their hardest and when borrow has nothing but a extractor left, Sjow GGs and leaves. Morrow is still the winner it doesn't matter if they play or not.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
So that makes it ok to predetermine winners because it's not a big name tournament? Who's to say this wouldn't occur in a larger one when you two get more confidence? It's still wrong deciding who's gonna win beforehand regardless of what tournament it is. If you want a computer that bad I hear EG has a tournament and you have to beat Idra. I guess doing this type of shit is easier than beating him eh?
I agree its wrong on a big tournament because it lets down the audiance. By not showing a good game or not a game at all. But in this case theres no audiance at all.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
So basically, you took a fun, community endeavour to have a cool local tournament, and abused it so that you and MorroW could literally win every single prize by making sure one of you finished first.
That's pretty shameful imo.
Just seems like you're greedy bastard trying to snatch whatever you can and exploit a tournament when the community is trying to host small tournaments to help grow e-sports, not let you win as many prizes as you can get your hands on.
You may not be letting down an audience, but I feel like it really lets down the community.
This thing happens all the time on online tournaments, In the wolf cup it was a tt1 final 200 for first 50 for second, they decided to change the prize pool to 150 100. This is the same thing, there is nothing wrong because they are still working for the prize
So basically MorroW and Sjow didn't want to play in the finals but would rather split the prize money?
If that's the case that's fine, but throwing away games on purpose to one side would be considered game fixing.
But there's something wrong with a Inferno Online's system that almost seems to encourage this sort of thing. I mean if you dominate the majority of the event but don't win all 11 you don't get the biggest prize? Seems like they almost want players to use their brain and cheat.
On December 22 2010 15:48 RoarMan wrote: So basically MorroW and Sjow didn't want to play in the finals but would rather split the prize money?
If that's the case that's fine, but throwing away games on purpose to one side would be considered game fixing.
But there's something wrong with a Inferno Online's system that almost seems to encourage this sort of thing. I mean if you dominate the majority of the event but don't win all 11 you don't get the biggest prize? Seems like they almost want players to use their brain and cheat.
They want people to nightgib a lot so that they can make money, lol.
match fixing is not cheating guys. the 2 people are in agreement. lets just match fix every single game in GSL, force all the players to agree and split the money among all the participants. yes? this is how e-sports should really be. my liquibets will never be wrong ever again.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
So basically, you took a fun, community endeavour to have a cool local tournament, and abused it so that you and MorroW could literally win every single prize by making sure one of you finished first.
That's pretty shameful imo.
Just seems like you're greedy bastard trying to snatch whatever you can and exploit a tournament when the community is trying to host small tournaments to help grow e-sports, not let you win as many prizes as you can get your hands on.
You may not be letting down an audience, but I feel like it really lets down the community.
Theres only one prize on each tournament and read what I typed... We expected to be in finals every single one we participated in...
They should of just structured it so that instead of having to win 11/18 small tournaments to get the grand prize there would be a final tournament with all the people who had won the small tournaments participating. Seeding and any walkovers could be determined by total number of small tournaments won. This current system they have just seems terrible.
Edit: Seriously this is like if you only got money in the GSL finals if yo 4:0ed your opponent. It's just dumb.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
So basically, you took a fun, community endeavour to have a cool local tournament, and abused it so that you and MorroW could literally win every single prize by making sure one of you finished first.
That's pretty shameful imo.
Just seems like you're greedy bastard trying to snatch whatever you can and exploit a tournament when the community is trying to host small tournaments to help grow e-sports, not let you win as many prizes as you can get your hands on.
You may not be letting down an audience, but I feel like it really lets down the community.
Theres only one prize on each tournament and read what I typed... We expected to be in finals every single one we participated in...
Just because it's a small event doesn't mean it justifies match fixing. It is what it is ultimately.
I honestly don't blame you two for thinking of an idea like this, I guess you did present it to the admin.
It really seems Inferno Online just doesn't want to part with their computer prize -_-;;
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
So that makes it ok to predetermine winners because it's not a big name tournament? Who's to say this wouldn't occur in a larger one when you two get more confidence? It's still wrong deciding who's gonna win beforehand regardless of what tournament it is. If you want a computer that bad I hear EG has a tournament and you have to beat Idra. I guess doing this type of shit is easier than beating him eh?
I agree its wrong on a big tournament because it lets down the audiance. By not showing a good game or not a game at all. But in this case theres no audiance at all.
It's not an issue of cheating so much as it is an issue of betraying the spirit of competition and sportsmanship. What you do afterward with the prize money is, of course, your business, but would it have killed you guys to just play out the games normally and see who wins regardless? It's not as if it's some sort of massive investment of time or effort.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
So basically, you took a fun, community endeavour to have a cool local tournament, and abused it so that you and MorroW could literally win every single prize by making sure one of you finished first.
That's pretty shameful imo.
Just seems like you're greedy bastard trying to snatch whatever you can and exploit a tournament when the community is trying to host small tournaments to help grow e-sports, not let you win as many prizes as you can get your hands on.
You may not be letting down an audience, but I feel like it really lets down the community.
They didn't play the finals at all, they just took the prize when both of them were in the finals, basically splitting THAT T_T
I preface my statement with the notion that I really condone this type of behavior in e-sports.
This type of thing is actually pretty common from what I've heard. It's a totally unrelated scene, but the same issue came up in the Super Smash Brothers Brawl community with the top two players aimed to split the prize at MLG in a similar fashion - it was condoned as match fixing. Even an acquaintance of mine did the same thing at a local tournament (nothing really big, but still). I always assumed that this type of thing happened in SC to some extent, and to some degree I can see why they see nothing "wrong" with it, but these players should also realize the gravity of doing something as frowned upon as "match fixing" in this regard.
I hope the players realize that though it seems "reasonable" to split the prize money if they both will be in the finals, that its a huge middle finger to a growing e-sports community that wants nothing more than integrity from the players.
On December 22 2010 15:51 FataLe wrote: This sort of garbage is what taints e-sports. Your robbing the fans of true and fair matches with proper results.
Shame on you two SjoW & MorroW. Hope you both get refused entry in future tournaments.
Im sorry for being a shitty poster, but god damn. Let me ask you something (again):
What is wrong with both of them wanting to participate and enjoy the events, while still wanting to win the biggest prizes, AND deciding that only one of them is going to play when an admin tells them that its not ok to match fix, despite the system?
They werent allowed to fix matches, so only one of them played - they havent cheated. Considering the way this event works, OF COURSE they dont want to beat each other. That means neither of them could win the big prize. Its not the same as match fixing when the winner of the finals just takes it all. This is a LADDER event.
Besides, when the admins said they werent allowed to both play, only one of them played... whats the big deal?
The only reason they didnt want to beat each other, is that if they did, neither of them could win a big prize, but they both wanted to participate in the event and enjoy it. An admin told them they wouldnt be allowed to do that, SO THEY DIDNT DO IT.
Of course they wanted to do it,... they both wanted to play, obviously. But in the end, only one of them played.
What is there to be pissed about?
What did they do thats bad?
I have a feeling you commented without reading every post. If you did read every post, explain yourself...
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
So that makes it ok to predetermine winners because it's not a big name tournament? Who's to say this wouldn't occur in a larger one when you two get more confidence? It's still wrong deciding who's gonna win beforehand regardless of what tournament it is. If you want a computer that bad I hear EG has a tournament and you have to beat Idra. I guess doing this type of shit is easier than beating him eh?
I agree its wrong on a big tournament because it lets down the audiance. By not showing a good game or not a game at all. But in this case theres no audiance at all.
It's not an issue of cheating so much as it is an issue of betraying the spirit of competition and sportsmanship. What you do afterward with the prize money is, of course, your business, but would it have killed you guys to just play out the games normally and see who wins regardless? It's not as if it's some sort of massive investment of time or effort.
I don't think you get the situation.
It's not just 1 series they were gonna have to play, it's a series of a bunch of tournaments. If, like roughly expected, they split these tournies 50-50, they each get an ok prize. But if they let 1 guy win most of them, he gets a way bigger prize, which they could then split and each make more money.
Then they asked the tournament director and he said no, so one of them isn't playing. Nothing even happened. I have no idea why people are still mad, Sjow's posts cleared everything up.
On December 22 2010 15:50 SjoW wrote:Theres only one prize on each tournament and read what I typed... We expected to be in finals every single one we participated in...
Just let it be, man. I think at this point most people understand that no harm was done. The remaining people either don't understand or just don't want to understand, and there's not much you or anyone can do about that.
On December 22 2010 15:49 JoeSchmoe wrote: match fixing is not cheating guys. the 2 people are in agreement. lets just match fix every single game in GSL, force all the players to agree and split the money among all the participants. yes? this is how e-sports should really be. my liquibets will never be wrong ever again.
It isn't cheating, but it kills sports. IF suddenly i see that every single SC2 tournament is rigged, i'd stop watching them, that is for sure. And then, as more and more people stop watching, suddenly sponsors back out... then suddenly there is no tournament to be seen in the first place.
Hahahahahahahahaha this is way blown out of proportions. This kind of thing is very common in sports. In nascar players will intentionally block another racer so that their teammate will win. In sumo, a wrestler facing elimination will get a free win from a player that has already qualified. It really depends on the rules and conditions surrounding the event.
If the rules are dumb enough such that to win the large prize you have to win a certain number of tournaments, but the chances are you and your buddy will split the tournaments evenly, then of course you do an agreement like this. What this really is is sjow and morrow trying to get around some dumb rules. Imagine if in the GSL they said that if you go 4-0 in the finals, then you get double the prize. That would be retarded.
Blame the system not the players.
Plus it's not televised or anything important. There won't be any bets going on and it will probably not end up online. Not a big deal at all.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
I don't see what the big deal is. The way the event is structured discourages competition. If they split the competition evenly, noone gets the prize. The only way someone will win the big prize is if he dominates. The event was at a small internet cafe. It was an event to get people to play there, to make money. It wasn't a competition. The way it was structured was greedy and served to allow the business to get out of giving a sizable prize.
The two players asked permission if they could do this, since they were (apparently) obviously going to be in every finals. They weren't allowed, so only one person competed so that one could get the prize.
You are all over reacting. This was a small event made to make money for the cafe. Competition meant no one would get the prize. Morrow and Sjow wanted one of them to get it. So only one person entered. Match fixing didn't happen.
Match fixing is wrong and is a hindrance for the development of a professional sport. But this wasn't a tournament, nor was it anything important. It was as much a tournament as a lunchtime 1 on 1 on the court for a pot of money is the same as the NBA playoffs.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
So that makes it ok to predetermine winners because it's not a big name tournament? Who's to say this wouldn't occur in a larger one when you two get more confidence? It's still wrong deciding who's gonna win beforehand regardless of what tournament it is. If you want a computer that bad I hear EG has a tournament and you have to beat Idra. I guess doing this type of shit is easier than beating him eh?
I agree its wrong on a big tournament because it lets down the audiance. By not showing a good game or not a game at all. But in this case theres no audiance at all.
You're letting down the sponsor/s, the other participants and E-sports in general. You're tainting known names and setting a terrible example. Shame on both of you. You deserve to be barred from future tourneys for this shit.
On December 22 2010 15:56 tok wrote: Why would you even think this is ok? You do realize Brood War is still recovering from their scandal so why even attempt to do something similar?
Honestly, I see no problem with this, unless they are benefiting monetarily at the expense of a third party, or harming other people's chances in the tournament. Since neither is the case, and both parties are in agreement, there is nothing wrong. What's to prevent sjow from not trying at the finals? Is he not entitled that right? If you don't like it, don't be a fan. Although, a much better way to deal with the issue: if morrow really wants the laptop, why can't he just play the finals normally and agree with sjow that sjow will give him the prize if he wins.
On December 22 2010 15:47 Subversion wrote: So basically, you took a fun, community endeavour to have a cool local tournament, and abused it so that you and MorroW could literally win every single prize by making sure one of you finished first.
That's pretty shameful imo.
Just seems like you're greedy bastard trying to snatch whatever you can and exploit a tournament when the community is trying to host small tournaments to help grow e-sports, not let you win as many prizes as you can get your hands on.
You may not be letting down an audience, but I feel like it really lets down the community.
^^^^ This, and how you can not see this is beyond me (no matter if there's one prize or not).
How would you feel if you put up money for a showmatch only to find out the participants didn't even try to put up a good match but were only interested in getting the money the easiest way possible?
If sjow and morrow both try beat each other, they will end up with small prizes each. If they cooperate, they will end up with medium prizes each, but if one wants to cooporate and the other deceives and wins the whole prize, then one would end up with a large prize, but the other with a small or no prize.
Can people stop going hyper and actually look at what SjoW is writing and also read up on the tournament structure? There is no cheating involved.
The way the tournament is setup it would be ridiculous for SjoW and MorroW to both play in it and give it their best against each other in the finals of the mini tours. They talked to the tournament administrators about if it would be okay for them to drop games on purpose to each other (in the finals where they both already have taken out one bracket each) and it was not so now only one of them plays, so that guy is guaranteed the big prize, instead of them screwing each other out of the big price by splitting wins.
In this particular tournament they are such huge favourites aswell that they are almost guaranteed to be in the finals of every one of the tours. Would be so stupid to split wins.
I'm annoyed by Rakaka aswell for their sensationalistic bullshit article tarnishing the name of two of swedens greats in SC2 without any form of research behind it.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Did you ask the organization before your conversation took place?
Nevermind, I am an idiot for asking that question. Of course you wouldn't have been talking about matchfixing if you had already talked to the organizers and got a no from them. A better question would be if you had asked the organizers before you realized that people were able to read your little conversation (as opposed to morrow saying that it's difficult to read on stream) and started making a big deal out of it.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
So that makes it ok to predetermine winners because it's not a big name tournament? Who's to say this wouldn't occur in a larger one when you two get more confidence? It's still wrong deciding who's gonna win beforehand regardless of what tournament it is. If you want a computer that bad I hear EG has a tournament and you have to beat Idra. I guess doing this type of shit is easier than beating him eh?
I agree its wrong on a big tournament because it lets down the audiance. By not showing a good game or not a game at all. But in this case theres no audiance at all.
It's not an issue of cheating so much as it is an issue of betraying the spirit of competition and sportsmanship. What you do afterward with the prize money is, of course, your business, but would it have killed you guys to just play out the games normally and see who wins regardless? It's not as if it's some sort of massive investment of time or effort.
I don't think you get the situation.
It's not just 1 series they were gonna have to play, it's a series of a bunch of tournaments. If, like roughly expected, they split these tournies 50-50, they each get an ok prize. But if they let 1 guy win most of them, he gets a way bigger prize, which they could then split and each make more money.
Then they asked the tournament director and he said no, so one of them isn't playing. Nothing even happened. I have no idea why people are still mad, Sjow's posts cleared everything up.
What I'd like to know is did they ask the tourney director if this is ok or did they get taught talking about it and were told that they can't do it (and that one of them must forfeit their spot from the league)
Those are two very different scenarios. If they asked and were just told no then I think that neither of them did anything wrong in inquiring as to whether they could split things up in a way that would benefit one of them more.
If they got caught talking about it (likely not with any intention of letting the organizers know), then thats pretty serious. I doubt this is the case though as I would fully expect both of them to get banned if this happened.
Can we get a word from the tournament organizer in here to clear this up?
Nobody is even bothering to read Sjow's post explaining it all, this is just getting blown way our of proportion by people too lazy to read through the whole thread.
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.
honestly, even thinking the organizers would be ok with it is pretty stupid ^^ but some ppl dont realize that if they both played and got to every final and then played like 9-9, nobody would get the prize, so i guess its also kind of a bad format which doesnt make this any more smart :D
Added a translation of the original article to the OP.
On December 22 2010 16:01 Backpack wrote: This thread needs to be locked.
Nobody is even bothering to read Sjow's post explaining it all, this is just getting blown way our of proportion by people too lazy to read through the whole thread.
We've read the post, and a lot of us, myself included, don't feel like it particularly justified anything.
I don't see how people call this cheating. It just seems like prize splitting to me. This is done all the time in tournaments of all sorts and usually isn't a secret or anything. If two people make it to the finals of a tourney they should be able to do whatever they want with the winnings. This is nothing like savior since there is no betting going on.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
so its ok to cheat a local event but not a big one?... you know what they say, once a cheater....
How can you say its cheating? both are in finals and both agrees on splitting the money without playing the actual match. I dont get it...
By your logic, then why even play the finals? Why not just have each of you get a prize for being at the finals or pay part of the prize to each top player in the tournament? Starcraft, like all spectator sports, are based on competition. If games are fixed, then there's no point in having a tournament at all. It's been mentioned before, but match-fixing absolutely ruins sports. Think back to the Savior match-fixing scandal of Brood War. Please play the games out to the best of your ability. Then if you feel that you should split the prize in the end, feel free to do so.
Teamliquid.net desperately needs a rule regarding reading the thread before posting, and teamliquid.net desperately needs about 50% of the membership banned.
On December 22 2010 16:01 Backpack wrote: This thread needs to be locked.
Nobody is even bothering to read Sjow's post explaining it all, this is just getting blown way our of proportion by people too lazy to read through the whole thread.
I read SjoW's posts, and it still puts a bad taste in my mouth. Apparently it is perfectly fine to be unethical folks, as long as nobody is watching.
On December 22 2010 15:02 ShootingStars wrote: please tell me how match fixing is cheating, like map hacking thanks TWO players in an agreement. unlike maphacking
the key word is AGREEMENT. if both players agree, then its fine. its just like map choosing. both players agree to play on LOST TEMPLE,
Are you joking? Obviously something can be cheating even though players agree. Let's say two players on a team agree one of them will win so that both can advance through groups. Clearly this isn't allowed, and even if they agree to do it it's still violating the rules.
Otherwise, I am not sure about the validity of the claim in this article.
I'm not sure it's realistic to expect 2 players who are teammates and good friends to be in the same group and not try to help each other if possible. This should be avoided by not placing teammates in the same groups if possible, and if they are have teammates play each other first in group rounds.
I don't think there is anything wrong with teammates setting up playing certain qualifier tourneys and even purposely getting a lower seed if they are that confident they will be able to meet each other in the finals regardless of who else they face. However, staging the finals shouldn't be done and is stupid. They even can agree to split the money, and try using silly strats if they want.
edit: Just read SjoW post in this thread. I'd have to see the tourney information to fully understand but it sounds like a bad position to put the players in. Doesn't seem to malicious to me (the actions of SjoW/MorroW that is.)
On December 22 2010 16:03 DEN1ED wrote: I don't see how people call this cheating. It just seems like prize splitting to me. This is done all the time in tournaments of all sorts and usually isn't a secret or anything. If two people make it to the finals of a tourney they should be able to do whatever they want with the winnings. This is nothing like savior since there is no betting going on.
but in those tours u can just split the prize and then play a normal game anyways, its like giving the other guy half of the prize after u won, but that is not possible here because of the format, they would have to throw matches
I wouldn't necessarily call it matchfixing per se. It's not like they're betting on it or anything. As for them wanting the people they want in the finals, that could simply mean they want team mates or friends to do well.
Finding loopholes into the format no matter how bad it is still hurts the integrity and esports in general. I read the explanation from Sjow and it still doesn`t give any credibility at all to be honest. Call it what you will, that is still match fixing.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
so its ok to cheat a local event but not a big one?... you know what they say, once a cheater....
How can you say its cheating? both are in finals and both agrees on splitting the money without playing the actual match. I dont get it...
I don't understand how you could take esports seriously if you think this is ok on any competitive level, I mean we can take the 'its ok to split if everyone agrees' mindset to the extreme and lets say the 64 qualifiers of GLS were to split the prize pool which is around $150,000 a season, around $2300 per player and all they 64 had to do was qualify each month and pocket a nice salary for doing much less, everyone is a winner, GLS fails of course and fans are left disappointed but match fixing is ok if everyone agrees right?.... (bad mindset, and where do we draw the line if we say its ok in smaller tournaments)
That mindset cheats so many people, spectators, sponsors and the seriousness of the game as a competitiveness arena. It makes a joke out of anyone putting on an event and having you turn up with your friends to rig it. I see it that, by signing up to a competition you have a duty as a participant to play that out tournament out to the best of your ability if you want to win it or punished by a more deserving player.
If sjow and morrow both try beat each other, they will end up with small prizes each. If they cooperate, they will end up with medium prizes each, but if one wants to cooporate and the other deceives and wins the whole prize, then one would end up with a large prize, but the other with a small or no prize.
Game Theory FTW
The utility curve of each player is more than just the computer prize. You also have to take into consideration all future benefits of playing SC2 which are drastically reduced after allegations/plans of match fixing.
Game Theory FTW. Go rationalize Match Fixing some more. Actually don't. Just stop posting.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
so its ok to cheat a local event but not a big one?... you know what they say, once a cheater....
How can you say its cheating? both are in finals and both agrees on splitting the money without playing the actual match. I dont get it...
By your logic, then why even play the finals? Why not just have each of you get a prize for being at the finals or pay part of the prize to each top player in the tournament? Starcraft, like all spectator sports, are based on competition. If games are fixed, then there's no point in having a tournament at all. It's been mentioned before, but match-fixing absolutely ruins sports. Think back to the Savior match-fixing scandal of Brood War. Please play the games out to the best of your ability. Then if you feel that you should split the prize in the end, feel free to do so.
The point is, the two wanted to fix the finals because if they competed wholeheartedly in the finals then it's likely neither would have gotten the prize, which is only awarded for winning 11 of 18. They asked the managers whether they could fix the finals, and the managers said no. If I'm reading SjoW's post right, no matchfixing actually occurred. To that end, I think a title change might be in order, since the current title implies that there's reason to believe SjoW and MorroW actually fixed something.
On December 22 2010 16:01 Backpack wrote: This thread needs to be locked.
Nobody is even bothering to read Sjow's post explaining it all, this is just getting blown way our of proportion by people too lazy to read through the whole thread.
We've read the post, and a lot of us, myself included, don't feel like it particularly justified anything.
If you read the posts and still think there's an issue then you're just an idiot that should stop posting in this thread anyways. So either way it should be locked.
people.. its not like what they did was wrong, from what i can tell is that they wont even play the finals if they faced each other, and just let one of them win, which honestly is perfectly fine considering they got to the finals legitimately, the difference b/t this and a regular cheating scandal is that a player will lose on purpose, but in this case it isnt the case
*correct me if i have any info incorrect as i didnt read every post/skimmed some of it, in which case my post cud be totally irrelavant/pointless
I think what hes saying is that, since they're pretty much guaranteed the finals, one of them is going to win every tournament anyway. all their arrangement meant was that they would plan which one it would be ahead of time. they're not cheating anyone else out of a chance at the prize or anything.
the reason sjow thinks this is ok in this tournament and not a large one is because this tournament has no audience to disappoint with a lackluster or 1 sided game. their games could be 1 minute or 2 hours and it wouldn't make a difference because theres' no one spectating them.
im not sure if the underlying morals of this are good or not, but in this case the "cheating" doesn't hurt any other players
On December 22 2010 16:02 Subversion wrote: Added a translation of the original article to the OP.
On December 22 2010 16:01 Backpack wrote: This thread needs to be locked.
Nobody is even bothering to read Sjow's post explaining it all, this is just getting blown way our of proportion by people too lazy to read through the whole thread.
We've read the post, and a lot of us, myself included, don't feel like it particularly justified anything.
If you read the posts and still think there's an issue then you're just an idiot that should stop posting in this thread anyways. So either way it should be locked.
With that kind of attitude and inflammatory posting, you should stop posting on TL at all.
On December 22 2010 16:08 mango_destroyer wrote: Finding loopholes into the format no matter how bad it is still hurts the integrity and esports in general. I read the explanation from Sjow and it still doesn`t give any credibility at all to be honest. Call it what you will, that is still match fixing.
Actually it's nothing since only one of them ended playing after they asked the organizers.
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.
I was on vent with a guy who claimed he was the reason this whole scandal started, and was have a bit of a debate with him. He was preatty stubborn about this beeing a huge scandal.
I tried to argue what does it matter if the winner and the runner up decides to split the prize. + Show Spoiler [Example] +
Both make it to final. Player A takes headphones Player B takes 30€ + Mouse, regardless of outcome.
But then after some intense googling, I managed to find the tournament and after another 20 minutes I managed to find the rules.
At that point I could understand it a bit more why they would want to decide winner also, but then I asked my friend "Wouldn't another way of fixing this be for one of the players to simply not compete?"
Wich seems to be what Morrow and Sjow decided on after contacting the tournament staff. Same result.
Also, to add something that hasn't already been said in the topic. Sjow did whisper morrow during the stream saying "I don't want to cheat". (not exact quotation, but it was in the context of if what they were doing was against the tournament rules).
On December 22 2010 16:02 Subversion wrote: Added a translation of the original article to the OP.
On December 22 2010 16:01 Backpack wrote: This thread needs to be locked.
Nobody is even bothering to read Sjow's post explaining it all, this is just getting blown way our of proportion by people too lazy to read through the whole thread.
We've read the post, and a lot of us, myself included, don't feel like it particularly justified anything.
If you read the posts and still think there's an issue then you're just an idiot that should stop posting in this thread anyways. So either way it should be locked.
With that kind of attitude and inflammatory posting, you should stop posting on TL at all.
Say what you want, doesn't change the fact that there is clearly no issue here, ESPECIALLY since they didn't even end up both playing after talking to the organizers. So this is clearly people making a big issue out of something that is a non issue. Most of the people making an issue out of it clearly haven't read the whole thread but you claim to have read what was said and still somehow think it's an issue.
God, some of you guys really need to calm down and read the thread before posting.
Sjow explained himself. I don't see any problem with what they are doing(way different from what Savior did).They didn't go through it, they even asked the tournament manager about it and nothing happened.
-To win the major prize the tournament organiser has ruled that you have to clearly be the best player (ie win 11/18 games)
-It seems neither Sjow or Morrow felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it
-They then tried to work out a plan to get the main prize by handing one free wins
So for me, the intention to cheat was there. That they asked the admin and didn't go ahead is a good thing, but then again, did you only check with the admin because this was leaked?
So for me, the intention to cheat was there. That they asked the admin and didn't go ahead is a good thing, but then again, did you only check with the admin because this was leaked?
This was leaked after the first tournament was over, and in the first tournament, only one of them played. There is no possible way they could have checked it with the admin because it was leaked, because it was leaked AFTER they played. (one of them, that is).
Rumours and tabloids triumphs over all logic once again. Seriously, passing judgement on them based on some one sided article is pretty retarded.
Additionally, this situation is not really that big of a deal. It is similar to one of a round robin predicament where player A and player B are teammates. Player A cannot qualify since he has already lost 2 of 3 games, but if he lose the next match against player B, his teammate player B will be able to qualify over some other player. I think it is entirely fair if player A intentionally loses to player B just to allow him to qualify.
If both of them reach the finals, I really don't see how they choose to split the money matters. It can be considered an evenly distributed prize pool show match event. And stop linking it to the BW match-fixing incident which involves third party betting organizations.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Ahh you agreed to "game" the tournament but got busted? Serves you right. Shame both of you aren't banned from that tournament and others.
This isnt any big league or anything. Nothing is streamed or no publicity just a fun tournament for gamers in a local gaming center. its not like we are playing infront of lots of people or anything.
so its ok to cheat a local event but not a big one?... you know what they say, once a cheater....
How can you say its cheating? both are in finals and both agrees on splitting the money without playing the actual match. I dont get it...
By your logic, then why even play the finals? Why not just have each of you get a prize for being at the finals or pay part of the prize to each top player in the tournament? Starcraft, like all spectator sports, are based on competition. If games are fixed, then there's no point in having a tournament at all. It's been mentioned before, but match-fixing absolutely ruins sports. Think back to the Savior match-fixing scandal of Brood War. Please play the games out to the best of your ability. Then if you feel that you should split the prize in the end, feel free to do so.
The point is, the two wanted to fix the finals because if they competed wholeheartedly in the finals then it's likely neither would have gotten the prize, which is only awarded for winning 11 of 18. They asked the managers whether they could fix the finals, and the managers said no. If I'm reading SjoW's post right, no matchfixing actually occurred. To that end, I think a title change might be in order, since the current title implies that there's reason to believe SjoW and MorroW actually fixed something.
Then it naturally follows that only one of them (the planned winner) should participate in the entire tournament. SjoW shouldn't be able to knock out players that may have beaten MorroW and then throw the finals. The organization has already come to this verdict. In any case, arranging matches is still unethical. Obviously, it's worse if betting is involved, but even in this case, match-fixing (or whatever you prefer to call it) shouldn't be tolerated.
Thanks to Sjow for clarifying the situation, I agree this is not a HUGE issue, but now I'm even more disappointed. I may have misunderstood but are Sjow and Morrow only in it for the money or what? The part about agreeing to split prize without even playing the game. What happened to the love of competition and all that shit? I get it, you in for the money, screw esports, screw fame, screw fans. That reminds me of some professionnal soccer players, that kind of attitude disgusts me.
I think they should both avoid anything like this, ever, because of the potential damage to their reputations. One question I have though is, doesn't a player have the right to forfeit any match they don't want to play? It would probably have been better to just have one of them not participate in any of the following tournaments if one of them got close to 11. They were totally open about it though and even discussed this with the tournament officials, so really this whole thing should be disregarded imho.
So for me, the intention to cheat was there. That they asked the admin and didn't go ahead is a good thing, but then again, did you only check with the admin because this was leaked?
This was leaked after the first tournament was over, and in the first tournament, only one of them played. There is no possible way they could have checked it with the admin because it was leaked, because it was leaked AFTER they played. (one of them, that is).
I know I said Id quit this thread, but I just cant stop spamming that F5
Fair enough, then at least they didn't go ahead with it which is a good thing, but still a disappointing thing for them to be considering in the first place IMHO.
So for me, the intention to cheat was there. That they asked the admin and didn't go ahead is a good thing, but then again, did you only check with the admin because this was leaked?
This was leaked after the first tournament was over, and in the first tournament, only one of them played. There is no possible way they could have checked it with the admin because it was leaked, because it was leaked AFTER they played. (one of them, that is).
I know I said Id quit this thread, but I just cant stop spamming that F5
Fair enough, then at least they didn't go ahead with it which is a good thing, but still a disappointing thing for them to be considering in the first place IMHO.
That is a viable opinion. I wont argue with that. I am only here to argue about facts and truth.
The purpose of you needing to win 11 out of the 17 is because the computer is a very large prize that is probably intended to be near impossible to get to draw in more people for the lan cafe's financial gain. I think it is kinda funny that they are gaming their system to take a prize off of them that they are most likely not expecting to have to give out.
People who are talking about "so you think throwing tournament matches is ok?" are taking it out of context. It is like that N64 that you would see at the arcade when you were a kid that cost an absurd amount of tickets that the owner had no intention of selling, but used it to bait kids into spending more money than they would like to, and in the end, falling short, never to receive the N64. But then a group of 4 kids got smart and pooled tickets together, and bought the 64 with all of their tickets combined so they could all play super smash bros on the weekends.
They are not giving this from the perspective of a monthly cup tournament for $200 being livecasted to 5000 people. This is two kids trying to get the old man's 64 at the arcade that is never supposed to be won.
They didn't fix matches but planned on it. Pretty controversial stuff. I agree that the tournament format really caters to fixing finals but still is not excuse. "So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone." They didn't commit a crime but it certainly makes them look shady. If they can justify to themselves that match fixing is o.k. now, then what is stopping them from considering it in the future?
If your standard for immoral behavior includes something every progamer (and probably human) in the world would do if put into the same situation then it's a pretty useless standard.
if theyre both in the finals clearly one of them is the best player. so regardless of whether or not one of them throws games you know theyre the only ones getting the 1st or 2nd place prizes. does it really matter if sjow lets morrow win when he could just give morrow his prize anyway?
I wont comment on the match fixing thing, but even with only one of them playing it sounds pretty lame... it's not the players' fault that the tournament is like that, but having a good player not playing just to make it easier for the other player to win the thing is stupid. I wouldn't be interested to watch a single match of that kind of tournament.
Seriosuly, do people read threads? Like, at all? From Sjow's explanation this doesn't sound like an issue whatsoever
They wanted to fix the finals because if they competed wholeheartedly in the finals then it's likely neither would have gotten the prize, which is only awarded for winning 11 of 18.
Okay, they wanted to be able to have the grand prize. Not too big of a deal. They wanted to set the matches so that one would lose if the final. Again, this probably isn't allowed, but they have some legitimate reasons for wanting to see.
Now, here is the important part. They then checked with officials to see if it would be okay to do so. They were told no, and of course agreed they wouldn't matchfix in any way and only one would participate.
This is like going to a golf tournament with a new ball thats supposed to go thirty yards further. Your pretty sure however, that it is non conforming and thus illegal. You then ask the rules officials if this ball meets the conforming standards. You are told no, and this don't use the ball. This is in no way cheating, and I don't see how anyone can view it as such. I'm legitamately baffled.
On December 22 2010 16:16 Biggo wrote: This is why I see it as cheating:
-To win the major prize the tournament organiser has ruled that you have to clearly be the best player (ie win 11/18 games)
-It seems neither Sjow or Morrow felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it
-They then tried to work out a plan to get the main prize by handing one free wins
So for me, the intention to cheat was there. That they asked the admin and didn't go ahead is a good thing, but then again, did you only check with the admin because this was leaked?
Felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it? It was clear they would most like meet in the finals every time and it could very easily end up split 9-9 or 8-10 between the two of them. So seeing as how they're both friends why would they screw each other out of prizes? It's not like this is some elaborate scheme to get one of them to the finals and hopefully win something, they were both gonna be meeting in the finals.
On December 22 2010 16:16 Biggo wrote: This is why I see it as cheating:
-To win the major prize the tournament organiser has ruled that you have to clearly be the best player (ie win 11/18 games)
-It seems neither Sjow or Morrow felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it
-They then tried to work out a plan to get the main prize by handing one free wins
So for me, the intention to cheat was there. That they asked the admin and didn't go ahead is a good thing, but then again, did you only check with the admin because this was leaked?
Oh come on.. First of all they would be in different brackets every tournament because they are seeded highest. "Not confident to win".. The reason why they would have to not give it their best against each other is because they are confident they will destroy their brackets and make it to the finals in pretty much all of the tours, so the only thing keeping any of them from claiming the big price would be them screwing each other over by winning against each other.
Stop trying to stir up stuff out of nothing, you obviously are not aware of the tournament layout so don't post in absolutes based on misinterpreted rulesets.
If sjow and morrow both try beat each other, they will end up with small prizes each. If they cooperate, they will end up with medium prizes each, but if one wants to cooporate and the other deceives and wins the whole prize, then one would end up with a large prize, but the other with a small or no prize.
Game Theory FTW
The utility curve of each player is more than just the computer prize. You also have to take into consideration all future benefits of playing SC2 which are drastically reduced after allegations/plans of match fixing.
Game Theory FTW. Go rationalize Match Fixing some more. Actually don't. Just stop posting.
Pshhh taking things too seriously. This is why the prisoner's dilemma is not a real life scenario and is just hypothetical. I'm just having fun. If you can chill, chill.
On December 22 2010 16:23 L_Master wrote: Seriosuly, do people read threads? Like, at all? From Sjow's explanation this doesn't sound like an issue whatsoever
They wanted to fix the finals because if they competed wholeheartedly in the finals then it's likely neither would have gotten the prize, which is only awarded for winning 11 of 18.
Okay, they wanted to be able to have the grand prize. Not too big of a deal. They wanted to set the matches so that one would lose if the final. Again, this probably isn't allowed, but they have some legitimate reasons for wanting to see.
Now, here is the important part. They then checked with officials to see if it would be okay to do so. They were told no, and of course agreed they wouldn't matchfix in any way and only one would participate.
This is like going to a golf tournament with a new ball thats supposed to go thirty yards further. Your pretty sure however, that it is non conforming and thus illegal. You then ask the rules officials if this ball meets the conforming standards. You are told no, and this don't use the ball. This is in no way cheating, and I don't see how anyone can view it as such. I'm legitamately baffled.
Sorry kid, theres a golfdonuts.net forum that never bans dogshit posters that is now FURIOUS that you planned to cheat and to be honest you should never be allowed in golfing competitions again.
In fact, they were very honourable. They decided to check with the organizers to see if it was alright, when they could have just done it anyway and try to hide it, pretending they were playing their best. That way they could easily have gotten awesome prizes for sure.
On December 22 2010 16:23 L_Master wrote: Seriosuly, do people read threads? Like, at all? From Sjow's explanation this doesn't sound like an issue whatsoever
They wanted to fix the finals because if they competed wholeheartedly in the finals then it's likely neither would have gotten the prize, which is only awarded for winning 11 of 18.
Okay, they wanted to be able to have the grand prize. Not too big of a deal. They wanted to set the matches so that one would lose if the final. Again, this probably isn't allowed, but they have some legitimate reasons for wanting to see.
Now, here is the important part. They then checked with officials to see if it would be okay to do so. They were told no, and of course agreed they wouldn't matchfix in any way and only one would participate.
This is like going to a golf tournament with a new ball thats supposed to go thirty yards further. Your pretty sure however, that it is non conforming and thus illegal. You then ask the rules officials if this ball meets the conforming standards. You are told no, and this don't use the ball. This is in no way cheating, and I don't see how anyone can view it as such. I'm legitamately baffled.
How can there be no fucking issue? They are openly match fixing on stream. You guys are lucky I am not in charge of tournaments because I would've banned you two for future tournaments.
Just because its small doesn't make it right on any lvl. You can argue about the way the prize is setup, that doesn't make it right to match fix.
The reaction from sjow is ridiculous. Just admit you guys made a big mistake and apologize. Instead you say "its just a small tournament np get over it". My respect for the both of you was already very low, but it has reached an all time low.
Look at idra who faces huk and qxc for a notebook he can't even win, but still rolls them over. And don't give me that shitty argument that that one is being broadcasted because that doesn't fucking matter.
Well that's horribly fucked up, if it's true. Edit: Based on what Sjow said, they didn't actually fix anything and because of that, the title should be changed. It seems that they actually asked the tournament manager before doing anything anyways.
They decided to check if it was ok, asking the organizers, instead of just doing it anyway. They could have done it - they decided to ask first. The organizers said no. They didnt do it.
You would seriously ban two people for asking an admin if something is allowed, and then not doing it when the admin says its not allowed. You would ban them for that?
Shame on YOU, man. Lol. I would hate to play in a tournament you organized.
On December 22 2010 16:26 Brutus wrote: How can there be no fucking issue? They are openly match fixing on stream. You guys are lucky I am not in charge of tournaments because I would've banned you two for future tournaments.
Just because its small doesn't make it right on any lvl. You can argue about the way the prize is setup, that doesn't make it right to match fix.
The reaction from sjow is ridiculous. Just admit you guys made a big mistake and apologize. Instead you say "its just a small tournament np get over it". My respect for the both of you was already very low, but it has reached an all time low.
Look at idra who faces huk and qxc for a notebook he can't even win, but still rolls them over. And don't give me that shitty argument that that one is being broadcasted because that doesn't fucking matter.
Shame on you
There's no issue because they asked the admins if they both got to the finals if they would be allowed to give one a win to help them get the grand prize, the admin said no, THEY DIDN'T DO IT. Coming up with an idea, no matter how stupid, isn't an issue if you check if it's allowed before hand and then don't do it if it's not.
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.
They decided to check if it was ok, asking the organizers, instead of just doing it anyway. They could have done it - they decided to ask first. The organizers said no. They didnt do it.
You would seriously ban two people for asking an admin if something is allowed, and then not doing it when the admin says its not allowed. You would ban them for that?
Shame on YOU, man. Lol. I would hate to play in a tournament you organized.
just to think about match fixing and setting it up is enough for me. of course they shouldn't be banned because they didn't actually do it, but it is so dishonourable. How can you defend them?
And they actually eliminated the chance 1 of them will win it. Of 1 wins it expect a shitstorm
On December 22 2010 16:16 Biggo wrote: This is why I see it as cheating:
-To win the major prize the tournament organiser has ruled that you have to clearly be the best player (ie win 11/18 games)
-It seems neither Sjow or Morrow felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it
-They then tried to work out a plan to get the main prize by handing one free wins
So for me, the intention to cheat was there. That they asked the admin and didn't go ahead is a good thing, but then again, did you only check with the admin because this was leaked?
Felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it? It was clear they would most like meet in the finals every time and it could very easily end up split 9-9 or 8-10 between the two of them. So seeing as how they're both friends why would they screw each other out of prizes? It's not like this is some elaborate scheme to get one of them to the finals and hopefully win something, they were both gonna be meeting in the finals.
But the way the competition was structured was that you don't get a prize for making it to the finals, you get the prize for winning the finals. My comment was they didn't feel confident they could win 11 finals, which is what the competition required.
If you don't like a tournaments structure, don't join it. Don't try to conspire with the other best player in it to ensure one of you gets the prize if you haven't earned it fairly. Granted they didn't go through with it which is good for everybody involved, but the initial intention was not good.
They decided to check if it was ok, asking the organizers, instead of just doing it anyway. They could have done it - they decided to ask first. The organizers said no. They didnt do it.
You would seriously ban two people for asking an admin if something is allowed, and then not doing it when the admin says its not allowed. You would ban them for that?
Shame on YOU, man. Lol. I would hate to play in a tournament you organized.
just to think about match fixing and setting it up is enough for me. of course they shouldn't be banned because they didn't actually do it, but it is so dishonourable. How can you defend them?
And they actually eliminated the chance 1 of them will win it. Of 1 wins it expect a shitstorm
Well, you said you would ban them, did you not? Or did I misunderstand what you typed?
Sure, you can criticize their intention, but in the end, they didnt do anything. So stop acting like they did. All they are guilty of is considering and wanting to do something. If you dont like that, critisize it all you want, but PLEASE, dont act like thats not all they are guilty of.
They decided to check if it was ok, asking the organizers, instead of just doing it anyway. They could have done it - they decided to ask first. The organizers said no. They didnt do it.
You would seriously ban two people for asking an admin if something is allowed, and then not doing it when the admin says its not allowed. You would ban them for that?
Shame on YOU, man. Lol. I would hate to play in a tournament you organized.
just to think about match fixing and setting it up is enough for me. of course they shouldn't be banned because they didn't actually do it, but it is so dishonourable. How can you defend them?
And they actually eliminated the chance 1 of them will win it. Of 1 wins it expect a shitstorm
I hope they didnt ask the Admins after the fact as a way to clean their hands... And i dont see how rigging finals is justified, any tournament it should be the best player wins..
On December 22 2010 16:16 Biggo wrote: This is why I see it as cheating:
-To win the major prize the tournament organiser has ruled that you have to clearly be the best player (ie win 11/18 games)
-It seems neither Sjow or Morrow felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it
-They then tried to work out a plan to get the main prize by handing one free wins
So for me, the intention to cheat was there. That they asked the admin and didn't go ahead is a good thing, but then again, did you only check with the admin because this was leaked?
Felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it? It was clear they would most like meet in the finals every time and it could very easily end up split 9-9 or 8-10 between the two of them. So seeing as how they're both friends why would they screw each other out of prizes? It's not like this is some elaborate scheme to get one of them to the finals and hopefully win something, they were both gonna be meeting in the finals.
But the way the competition was structured was that you don't get a prize for making it to the finals, you get the prize for winning the finals. My comment was they didn't feel confident they could win 11 finals, which is what the competition required.
If you don't like a tournaments structure, don't join it. Don't try to conspire with the other best player in it to ensure one of you gets the prize if you haven't earned it fairly. Granted they didn't go through with it which is good for everybody involved, but the initial intention was not good.
So don't join if you don't like the structure? Isn't that exactly what they ended up doing?
They decided to check if it was ok, asking the organizers, instead of just doing it anyway. They could have done it - they decided to ask first. The organizers said no. They didnt do it.
You would seriously ban two people for asking an admin if something is allowed, and then not doing it when the admin says its not allowed. You would ban them for that?
Shame on YOU, man. Lol. I would hate to play in a tournament you organized.
just to think about match fixing and setting it up is enough for me. of course they shouldn't be banned because they didn't actually do it, but it is so dishonourable. How can you defend them?
And they actually eliminated the chance 1 of them will win it. Of 1 wins it expect a shitstorm
Well, you said you would ban them, did you not? Or did I misunderstand what you typed?
Sure, you can criticize their intention, but in the end, they didnt do anything. So stop acting like they did. All they are guilty of is considering and wanting to do something. If you dont like that, critisize it all you want, but PLEASE, dont act like thats not all they are guilty of.
No I admit I overreacted, but its because I am so disappointed in arguably one of the eu players.
And yes they did something, that is setting up a match fix. Just because they didn't do it doesn't make it right. And you are right, they didn't do anything bannable, but you have to admit it is a fucked up thing to do.
so they agree on whoever wins "this many times" then they win and the other matches dont count and will result in throwing away the other matches so one of them get the grand prize?
On December 22 2010 16:11 freeto wrote: I think what hes saying is that, since they're pretty much guaranteed the finals, one of them is going to win every tournament anyway. all their arrangement meant was that they would plan which one it would be ahead of time. they're not cheating anyone else out of a chance at the prize or anything.
the reason sjow thinks this is ok in this tournament and not a large one is because this tournament has no audience to disappoint with a lackluster or 1 sided game. their games could be 1 minute or 2 hours and it wouldn't make a difference because theres' no one spectating them.
im not sure if the underlying morals of this are good or not, but in this case the "cheating" doesn't hurt any other players
So they were only attempting to cheat the tournament host, not other players, so it's ok?
Say they both reached the finals in all 18 events. Say they are even-caliber players, and each win 9 each playing legit. Cool, they win whatever amounts they win, but neither of them win the Grand Prize because they didn't win the required 11 events.
Then they think "well hey, we're obviously the best players here and will get in the Finals, so instead of competing and neither of us get the big prize, we'll just have one of us win them all and get the extra $6k in prizes that neither of us would have gotten legit".
How can you not see anything wrong with that? And yea, that's a stupid tournament structure, but just because the structure is stupid doesn't give them the right to cheat it.
It would be a very fucked up thing to do. Its lame that they would have done it had it been allowed, but at least they didnt break any rules, so they maintained a decent level of honour.
On December 22 2010 16:16 Biggo wrote: This is why I see it as cheating:
-To win the major prize the tournament organiser has ruled that you have to clearly be the best player (ie win 11/18 games)
-It seems neither Sjow or Morrow felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it
-They then tried to work out a plan to get the main prize by handing one free wins
So for me, the intention to cheat was there. That they asked the admin and didn't go ahead is a good thing, but then again, did you only check with the admin because this was leaked?
Felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it? It was clear they would most like meet in the finals every time and it could very easily end up split 9-9 or 8-10 between the two of them. So seeing as how they're both friends why would they screw each other out of prizes? It's not like this is some elaborate scheme to get one of them to the finals and hopefully win something, they were both gonna be meeting in the finals.
But the way the competition was structured was that you don't get a prize for making it to the finals, you get the prize for winning the finals. My comment was they didn't feel confident they could win 11 finals, which is what the competition required.
If you don't like a tournaments structure, don't join it. Don't try to conspire with the other best player in it to ensure one of you gets the prize if you haven't earned it fairly. Granted they didn't go through with it which is good for everybody involved, but the initial intention was not good.
So don't join if you don't like the structure? Isn't that exactly what they ended up doing?
Yes, after being caught by the tournament directors. Do you really think they actually approached the TDs after talking about this and asked them permission to fix the finals matches, or do you think the TD's contacted THEM and asked them what was up?
On December 22 2010 16:44 Askesis wrote: So they were only attempting to cheat the tournament host, not other players, so it's ok?
Say they both reached the finals in all 18 events. Say they are even-caliber players, and each win 9 each playing legit. Cool, they win whatever amounts they win, but neither of them win the Grand Prize because they didn't win the required 11 events.
Then they think "well hey, we're obviously the best players here and will get in the Finals, so instead of competing and neither of us get the big prize, we'll just have one of us win them all and get the extra $6k in prizes that neither of us would have gotten legit".
How can you not see anything wrong with that? And yea, that's a stupid tournament structure, but just because the structure is stupid doesn't give them the right to cheat it.
It's pretty easy not to see anything wrong with it when they never actually attempted to cheat anyone, ever. How do you find the time to write miles long awful posts when reading the thread for a second would make it perfectly clear how stupid it is?
They decided to check if it was ok, asking the organizers, instead of just doing it anyway. They could have done it - they decided to ask first. The organizers said no. They didnt do it.
You would seriously ban two people for asking an admin if something is allowed, and then not doing it when the admin says its not allowed. You would ban them for that?
Shame on YOU, man. Lol. I would hate to play in a tournament you organized.
just to think about match fixing and setting it up is enough for me. of course they shouldn't be banned because they didn't actually do it, but it is so dishonourable. How can you defend them?
And they actually eliminated the chance 1 of them will win it. Of 1 wins it expect a shitstorm
Well, you said you would ban them, did you not? Or did I misunderstand what you typed?
Sure, you can criticize their intention, but in the end, they didnt do anything. So stop acting like they did. All they are guilty of is considering and wanting to do something. If you dont like that, critisize it all you want, but PLEASE, dont act like thats not all they are guilty of.
No I admit I overreacted, but its because I am so disappointed in arguably one of the eu players.
And yes they did something, that is setting up a match fix. Just because they didn't do it doesn't make it right. And you are right, they didn't do anything bannable, but you have to admit it is a fucked up thing to do.
No one has to admit it's a fucked up thing to do because all they wanted was so that they could both have fun playing the tournaments so they came up with an idea that would let them both play but not screw one out of the top prize. They even asked before hand to see if it was allowed but since it wasn't they didn't do it. So no, it's not at all a fucked up thing to do.
On December 22 2010 16:16 Biggo wrote: This is why I see it as cheating:
-To win the major prize the tournament organiser has ruled that you have to clearly be the best player (ie win 11/18 games)
-It seems neither Sjow or Morrow felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it
-They then tried to work out a plan to get the main prize by handing one free wins
So for me, the intention to cheat was there. That they asked the admin and didn't go ahead is a good thing, but then again, did you only check with the admin because this was leaked?
Felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it? It was clear they would most like meet in the finals every time and it could very easily end up split 9-9 or 8-10 between the two of them. So seeing as how they're both friends why would they screw each other out of prizes? It's not like this is some elaborate scheme to get one of them to the finals and hopefully win something, they were both gonna be meeting in the finals.
But the way the competition was structured was that you don't get a prize for making it to the finals, you get the prize for winning the finals. My comment was they didn't feel confident they could win 11 finals, which is what the competition required.
If you don't like a tournaments structure, don't join it. Don't try to conspire with the other best player in it to ensure one of you gets the prize if you haven't earned it fairly. Granted they didn't go through with it which is good for everybody involved, but the initial intention was not good.
So don't join if you don't like the structure? Isn't that exactly what they ended up doing?
Yes, after being caught by the tournament directors. Do you really think they actually approached the TDs after talking about this and asked them permission to fix the finals matches, or do you think the TD's contacted THEM and asked them what was up?
So basically you're assuming that they didn't check themselves and thus automatically assuming that they did something wrong with no proof?
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.
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.
it matters because it's a competitive environment. there was an agreement between players outside the tournament that could have changed the outcome of the tournament. the real question and the reason we are upset is not what happened but what would have happened if the public had not gotten wind of this.
same concept, using this mentality..a player should withdraw from GSL finals and split the 85k and 25k=55k each. i mean, it only affects those 2 players right? imagine how upsetting that would be
On December 22 2010 16:16 Biggo wrote: This is why I see it as cheating:
-To win the major prize the tournament organiser has ruled that you have to clearly be the best player (ie win 11/18 games)
-It seems neither Sjow or Morrow felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it
-They then tried to work out a plan to get the main prize by handing one free wins
So for me, the intention to cheat was there. That they asked the admin and didn't go ahead is a good thing, but then again, did you only check with the admin because this was leaked?
Felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it? It was clear they would most like meet in the finals every time and it could very easily end up split 9-9 or 8-10 between the two of them. So seeing as how they're both friends why would they screw each other out of prizes? It's not like this is some elaborate scheme to get one of them to the finals and hopefully win something, they were both gonna be meeting in the finals.
But the way the competition was structured was that you don't get a prize for making it to the finals, you get the prize for winning the finals. My comment was they didn't feel confident they could win 11 finals, which is what the competition required.
If you don't like a tournaments structure, don't join it. Don't try to conspire with the other best player in it to ensure one of you gets the prize if you haven't earned it fairly. Granted they didn't go through with it which is good for everybody involved, but the initial intention was not good.
So don't join if you don't like the structure? Isn't that exactly what they ended up doing?
They actually checked first, meaning they intended to at that time, but decided not to once they found out they couldn't. I am just saying it is poor form/sport for them to consider it in the first place, but luckily they did check
I saw the chat and know what they acctually were talking about, you guys just been corrupted by the media. They take out 3 sentences from a chat which was much longer.
Morrow: *We can play the finals *But only if we reward the win to whom we want
Meaning they will only "play" the final(tour) if they are allowed to give reward to whichever they want.
ERGO: The one who looses the first one will not participate in the rest of the tours.
EDIT: Only confirmed they would cooperate over the prize. Meaning what i just wrote above.
On December 22 2010 16:44 Askesis wrote: So they were only attempting to cheat the tournament host, not other players, so it's ok?
Say they both reached the finals in all 18 events. Say they are even-caliber players, and each win 9 each playing legit. Cool, they win whatever amounts they win, but neither of them win the Grand Prize because they didn't win the required 11 events.
Then they think "well hey, we're obviously the best players here and will get in the Finals, so instead of competing and neither of us get the big prize, we'll just have one of us win them all and get the extra $6k in prizes that neither of us would have gotten legit".
How can you not see anything wrong with that? And yea, that's a stupid tournament structure, but just because the structure is stupid doesn't give them the right to cheat it.
It's pretty easy not to see anything wrong with it when they never actually attempted to cheat anyone, ever. How do you find the time to write miles long awful posts when reading the thread for a second would make it perfectly clear how stupid it is?
I read the entire thread, thank you. Sorry my 7-8 sentences seem like an extraordinary long post, but I somehow had the five minutes free that it took me to write that.
One of the accused even admitted to trying do it, I really don't get how you think nothing is wrong? Perhaps YOU should read the thread... Or are you trying to say that it's acceptable because they were caught beforehand and were prevented from doing it? So conspiring to cheat is fine, as long as they are thwarted before they actually carry out the plan?
SjoW explained this way back on page five or something. They talked about it, and asked the tournament, got a no so they didn't do it. For what it's worth garbanzo makes a great post as well.
Mods, please edit the OP and add SjoWs response or change the topic title..
On December 22 2010 14:55 Subversion wrote: Morrow thinks his stream quality is too bad for anyone to be able to read, he assures SjoW of this when SjoW asks him "Are you streaming?"
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.
Please, please return you'r SC2 game and don't post anymore. You are either a troll or you are simply a retard fanboi who would back anything you'r hero does. Whether this is true or not I don't know but if it is, how is that fine? If everyone fixed matches how would that be ok? I don't even want to waste my time explaining how this is a bad thing that can ruin e-sports and has already made any mistake a pro makes in an important game go under the spot light so people can discuss whether it was a fixed match. BTW, fixing is cheating.
On December 22 2010 16:44 Askesis wrote: So they were only attempting to cheat the tournament host, not other players, so it's ok?
Say they both reached the finals in all 18 events. Say they are even-caliber players, and each win 9 each playing legit. Cool, they win whatever amounts they win, but neither of them win the Grand Prize because they didn't win the required 11 events.
Then they think "well hey, we're obviously the best players here and will get in the Finals, so instead of competing and neither of us get the big prize, we'll just have one of us win them all and get the extra $6k in prizes that neither of us would have gotten legit".
How can you not see anything wrong with that? And yea, that's a stupid tournament structure, but just because the structure is stupid doesn't give them the right to cheat it.
It's pretty easy not to see anything wrong with it when they never actually attempted to cheat anyone, ever. How do you find the time to write miles long awful posts when reading the thread for a second would make it perfectly clear how stupid it is?
Just because they got caught before committing the act, that means that they are still legit players? B.S. I surely wont ever cheer for neither of them and I think they should be banned from any and all tournaments just like what happened in Korea. It's not like they didn't do it because they decided it's wrong, they were going to do it but were too stupid to realize that people could read what they were typing.
On December 22 2010 16:34 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I wish people would read, and then in addition to reading try to understand what they read...
I'm very glad that Sjow came in here to clear up what actually ended up happening, and my opinion of neither player has been lowered.
If anything, I think this is a result of the cafe being greedy and putting on an event which discourages competition between the best players. If they were evenly matched, and they split the tournaments 9-9, then neither would get the large prize, but if one of them forfeited only 2 or the finals of the tournaments, then one could actually attain the large prize.
The cafe put up a very good prize with the expectation that no one would realistically be able to win it. I actually find that worse than what Morrow and Sjow were planning. They simply wanted to draw more people into their cafe, make more money, and then keep the prize.
It's really a very stupid format. It's like if for the GSL you won 100,000$ 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.
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.
Those were the restrictions of the tournament if I understand correctly. (Not sure about have to pay to play, but there must be some kind of restriction to join so the tournaments are time manageable).
Either way, the allure of the prize will bring more people into the cafe, so if there is an admittance fee to the establishment they make money. More people there means more people buy their products at the cafe. Also, the sad thing is, if both players (Morrow and Sjow) played, the cafe might have even used that as advertising to bring more people in who wanted to watch over their shoulders or talk to them after games, and then bring more money into the business, when both players had no shot at winning the grand prize.
It was all uncovered when hot headed Terran/Zerg-player MorroW...
Haha, so they're calling him terran/zerg now? Does anyone know the results of his experiment? I can't say I think he succeeded.
This seems like silly business. I would have said they were joking until I read that he said no one could read the chat cause of the quality. Now I think they're just dumb. Don't be a cheeta!
On December 22 2010 16:49 TehForce wrote: what the f***
morrow and sjow thought about a plan how to get the big prize. then they asked the officials. the officials said no. they didn't do it.
where is the problem? i really can't see it -.-
I don't think it's cheating.
Don't you agree, though, that it's kinda ridiculous they would ask that from the officials, like there was going to be any possibility for response other than no?
Then again, maybe not, because sjow and morrow was going to hurt the tournament anyway by having only one of them play to get the 11 wins, so they might as well submit to morrows and sjows wishes.
So it's not cheating, but can you still not see a problem?
Same tournament, Morrow and Sjow are the only strong players and they each make the finals every time. Without any discussion at all, Sjow forfeits the finals every time, Morrow wins the computer and gives nothing to Sjow. Live goes on normally.
Is this just as bad as them agreeing to do this and split the prizes beforehand? Bad, but not as bad? Totally okay? Even worse? I'm not totally sure where I stand on this right now so I wanna create some discussion about related scenarios.
Jeez, so many dumb people in this thread it's unbelievable.
Match fixing is match fixing full stop. It's illegal in every other sport.
Does anyone want to watch a morrow sjow final when they already know morrow will win despite morrow being garbage at zerg compared with sjow's terran? Not to mention the fact people could make a lot of money from bets which is the primary reason why match fixing is banned in the first place.
Seriously, I thought the sc2 community was supposed to be intelligent, I can't even believe people are trying to condone this behaviour, it's ridiculous.
On December 22 2010 16:49 TehForce wrote: what the f***
morrow and sjow thought about a plan how to get the big prize. then they asked the officials. the officials said no. they didn't do it.
where is the problem? i really can't see it -.-
Would they have asked if they didn't get busted though? Frankly, I don't see how they thought this would be ok with the organizers. Would have made more sense to ask for a change in the rules.
I still don't understand how they thought this would be ok. I guess they didn't, given Sjow's question about streaming.
I don't believe this is matchfixing, this is just preset results. Hypothetically they make the finals against each other, they'll have preset results, not toss matches in an effort to make it look real, in order to ensure that either one of them will play. They could, in theory, just play the series and one of the players would simply walk over the other and get a quick victory, but their method is much faster.
It makes complete sense. This isn't something that's going to blow up because people are betting on Sjow/Morrow on some sort of betting campaign and are expecting either one of them toss the game in order to gain money.
Wow. This is NOT matchfixing. That involves secrecy. This is 100% out in the open, and now that they know it's not going to fly, they're not going to do it. Oh, and please stop the bitching.
Sigh. The details of this case are open to interpretation so of course everyone brings in their opinions and interprets this to the extreme.
I think it was naive at best for Sjow/Morrow to be considering this (especially on an open stream), but if they indeed contacted tournament admins first I don't think anyone should be terribly hung up on this.
This should be a reminder to those who run tournaments: don't tempt the players to match fix with counterproductive prize setups.
This is a bunch of nerds making mountains out of molehills. They're being a little odd but they're not really fixing big money tournament games. They tried to maximize their winnings without cheating.. and now that they know they can't do it, they're altering their plan.
People love e-tabloids I guess... but this is all hype and no crime.
How do you know for the future, if they are playing in a final, that they won't fix it? Right now, they didn't do anything forbidden, but the intention was there. (i mean, everyone with a bit of brain would know that your request would get denied)
It's just a huge image lose, and i personally, won't trust them anymore or their performance.
On December 22 2010 17:05 Deindar wrote: Wow. This is NOT matchfixing. That involves secrecy. This is 100% out in the open, and now that they know it's not going to fly, they're not going to do it. Oh, and please stop the bitching.
Yeah i agree with you its shouldnt damage their integrity.. Since they got caught and will no longer do it -_-'
Tournaments are for competition.. Best player should always come ahead, Fixing is wrong....
On December 22 2010 16:16 Biggo wrote: This is why I see it as cheating:
-To win the major prize the tournament organiser has ruled that you have to clearly be the best player (ie win 11/18 games)
-It seems neither Sjow or Morrow felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it
-They then tried to work out a plan to get the main prize by handing one free wins
So for me, the intention to cheat was there. That they asked the admin and didn't go ahead is a good thing, but then again, did you only check with the admin because this was leaked?
I agree with this post. I was planning to write something like this, but now I just need to support this one
On December 22 2010 16:16 Biggo wrote: This is why I see it as cheating:
-To win the major prize the tournament organiser has ruled that you have to clearly be the best player (ie win 11/18 games)
-It seems neither Sjow or Morrow felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it
-They then tried to work out a plan to get the main prize by handing one free wins
So for me, the intention to cheat was there. That they asked the admin and didn't go ahead is a good thing, but then again, did you only check with the admin because this was leaked?
Felt confident enough in their own skill to believe they could do it? It was clear they would most like meet in the finals every time and it could very easily end up split 9-9 or 8-10 between the two of them. So seeing as how they're both friends why would they screw each other out of prizes? It's not like this is some elaborate scheme to get one of them to the finals and hopefully win something, they were both gonna be meeting in the finals.
But the way the competition was structured was that you don't get a prize for making it to the finals, you get the prize for winning the finals. My comment was they didn't feel confident they could win 11 finals, which is what the competition required.
If you don't like a tournaments structure, don't join it. Don't try to conspire with the other best player in it to ensure one of you gets the prize if you haven't earned it fairly. Granted they didn't go through with it which is good for everybody involved, but the initial intention was not good.
So don't join if you don't like the structure? Isn't that exactly what they ended up doing?
Yes, after being caught by the tournament directors. Do you really think they actually approached the TDs after talking about this and asked them permission to fix the finals matches, or do you think the TD's contacted THEM and asked them what was up?
So basically you're assuming that they didn't check themselves and thus automatically assuming that they did something wrong with no proof?
Yes, I am making that assumption. Just like you are assuming that they themselves went and asked permission. Which assumption is more logical?:
1) They find a clever way to cheat the tourny and win a bigger prize. Then, instead of just carrying out the match-fixing, they decide to ask is they are allowed to fix the match beforehand (because, you know, they had every reason to think the tournament would agree to give them an unearned 6k prize, right?). After finding out that no, they are not allowed to match-fix, Morrow decides not to or is not allowed play the tournament.
or
2) They find a clever way to cheat the tourny and win a bigger prize. Someone observes them making the arrangement and reports them, and the directors ask them to explain the situation. They do, and then Morrow decides not to or is not allowed to play the tournament.
On December 22 2010 17:00 huameng wrote: A hypothetical scenario:
Same tournament, Morrow and Sjow are the only strong players and they each make the finals every time. Without any discussion at all, Sjow forfeits the finals every time, Morrow wins the computer and gives nothing to Sjow. Live goes on normally.
Is this just as bad as them agreeing to do this and split the prizes beforehand? Bad, but not as bad? Totally okay? Even worse? I'm not totally sure where I stand on this right now so I wanna create some discussion about related scenarios.
Is this a serious question? No, it's not okay to enter a competition and forfeit the final without a good reason.
On December 22 2010 17:03 ShootingStar wrote: Jeez, so many dumb people in this thread it's unbelievable.
Match fixing is match fixing full stop. It's illegal in every other sport.
Does anyone want to watch a morrow sjow final when they already know morrow will win despite morrow being garbage at zerg compared with sjow's terran? Not to mention the fact people could make a lot of money from bets which is the primary reason why match fixing is banned in the first place.
Seriously, I thought the sc2 community was supposed to be intelligent, I can't even believe people are trying to condone this behaviour, it's ridiculous.
Uhm, you talking about intelligence is pretty interesting.
1. No audience 2. No betting
Your entire argumentation is null and void because you have no facts right.
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.
On December 22 2010 17:03 ShootingStar wrote: Jeez, so many dumb people in this thread it's unbelievable.
Match fixing is match fixing full stop. It's illegal in every other sport.
Does anyone want to watch a morrow sjow final when they already know morrow will win despite morrow being garbage at zerg compared with sjow's terran? Not to mention the fact people could make a lot of money from bets which is the primary reason why match fixing is banned in the first place.
Seriously, I thought the sc2 community was supposed to be intelligent, I can't even believe people are trying to condone this behaviour, it's ridiculous.
Very similar names but contrasting opinions. Troll or unique user?
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.
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"?!
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.
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"?!
When did I say it was okay to cheat the house?
And no, not paying taxes is not equivalent to cheating the house. In theory taxes are used by the government to support the entire community. By not paying taxes you're cheating the community.
Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Can see why they were doing it if the format was as stupid as they say.
If they're the best two players in the tournament by a way, and they split them down the middle 9-9, neither of them get a computer. If they make sure one of them wins 11 times then at least someone gets it.
It's naughty but stuff like that has always happened in CS in the UK (my background).
You guy do know that match fixing is mainly problem when there is betting involved ? I mean , if they managed to beat every single person in there , there was no way anyone else couldve won anything even if they didnt plane it .
On December 22 2010 17:08 MorNin wrote: Since they got caught and will no longer do it -_-'
Tournaments are for competition.. Best player should always come ahead, Fixing is wrong....
They didn't "get caught". They asked the organizers beforehand and got told no. Get your facts straight.
And where are your facts, Mister? All that was states was that they "talked to" the staff. Whether they approached them outright or if the tournament caught wind and asked the players what was up has not been established.
On December 22 2010 17:04 Ryusei-R1 wrote: I don't believe this is matchfixing, this is just preset results. Hypothetically they make the finals against each other, they'll have preset results, not toss matches in an effort to make it look real, in order to ensure that either one of them will play. They could, in theory, just play the series and one of the players would simply walk over the other and get a quick victory, but their method is much faster.
It makes complete sense. This isn't something that's going to blow up because people are betting on Sjow/Morrow on some sort of betting campaign and are expecting either one of them toss the game in order to gain money.
You can't just use a synonym and make it something different. That would be like me saying your assertion isn't stupid, it's just moronic.
Regardless of which word we're using, a match with a pre-determined result is a fixed match. This is esports, not the WWE. Let's have some integrity.
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this.
Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness.
And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous.
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.
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.
And match fixing when related to gambling is completely illegal, so the parodies to what happened in Korea are pretty dumb.....
On December 22 2010 17:20 philly5man wrote: Can see why they were doing it if the format was as stupid as they say.
If they're the best two players in the tournament by a way, and they split them down the middle 9-9, neither of them get a computer. If they make sure one of them wins 11 times then at least someone gets it.
It's naughty but stuff like that has always happened in CS in the UK (my background).
It is a stupid format. But they could have just agreed that the when one of them reaches 3 or 4 wins the other one won't participate anymore.
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.
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"?!
When did I say it was okay to cheat the house?
And no, not paying taxes is not equivalent to cheating the house. In theory taxes are used by the government to support the entire community. By not paying taxes you're cheating the community.
OK, you didn't say it is OK, but you agreed with the poster you were quoting (who saw nothing wrong with what Sjow and Morrow tried to do) and you downplayed the cheating by a wrong example.
While technically tax money is the community money, in reality it is not. When you cheat on taxes you effectively cheat the "house" especially in countries like US where you know they will not lower their war budget to cover holes in the civilian sector.
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this.
Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness.
And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous.
The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition
On December 22 2010 17:00 huameng wrote: A hypothetical scenario:
Same tournament, Morrow and Sjow are the only strong players and they each make the finals every time. Without any discussion at all, Sjow forfeits the finals every time, Morrow wins the computer and gives nothing to Sjow. Live goes on normally.
Is this just as bad as them agreeing to do this and split the prizes beforehand? Bad, but not as bad? Totally okay? Even worse? I'm not totally sure where I stand on this right now so I wanna create some discussion about related scenarios.
Is this a serious question? No, it's not okay to enter a competition and forfeit the final without a good reason.
Yes it's a serious question. Why isn't it okay? No one is being harmed right? This tournament apparently isn't being streamed or anything, (maybe wrong about this idk) so there are no viewers losing out on an exciting finals.
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.
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.
if the tournaments not streamed, why the fuck care ?
its your right as a human to lose, as much as it is to win. If they want to give away their individual right of winning to someone else, its their own personal business. its their free will.
So...two players try to fix a tourny, then change it to simply being that if they meet in the last match of any of the series of tournaments they have a preset result instead of playing? They wanted to play the system and get a sweet computer on top of the winnings they both already expected to get a chunk of.
The first one is blatant cheating, the second is just taking a tournament and turning it into a not tournament. It's silly to try and keep the players from getting the grand prize by requiring an 11/18 wins for it, but it's just plain unethical to cheat the system like that.
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this.
Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness.
And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous.
The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition
I love how RIGHT after your post is an example of a competition where it is deemed acceptable. It depends on the tournament. The tournament organizers could have just as easily sayed "Yeah, ok, you two DID win against your opponents, you can just click the surrender button, its your match." But in all seriousness, the tournament would most likely count on the higher tier prizes being advertisement and bait for bigger names while still minimizing the cost of the tournament by having lower actual prize money.
well, at least they aren't hiding anything. i don't think its illegal or anything if there are no bets being placed. just a let down to the tournament organizers/players/spectators(if any) and now we'll be seeing matchfixing rumours whether they exist or not in the future
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this.
Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness.
And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous.
the whole point is if you want e-sports to grow, this type of negativity needs to be kept at a minimal regardless of the "severity" of the action involved. one person does it, people start getting ideas like oh what don't I do it too? Of course the argument goes back "well this scenario is completely different, it's not THAT big of a deal", blah blah but the point is if you don't do this, the problem and this whole mess and the endless arguing would not exist in the first place. (eg this thread)
On December 22 2010 17:32 Postman wrote: So...two players try to fix a tourny, then change it to simply being that if they meet in the last match of any of the series of tournaments they have a preset result instead of playing? They wanted to play the system and get a sweet computer on top of the winnings they both already expected to get a chunk of.
The first one is blatant cheating, the second is just taking a tournament and turning it into a not tournament. It's silly to try and keep the players from getting the grand prize by requiring an 11/18 wins for it, but it's just plain unethical to cheat the system like that.
It is a silly as asking a winner of the EG tourny to beat Idra for the computer after that person already won in the finals.
You are people looking at this the wrong way. The computer is not the main prize, it is the extra prize if someone really good manages to outplay all others all 11 times.
Considering this normal is same as considering normal for players to let someone win 25 times in a row on Gisado King of the Hill to let him get the prize
Lot of anger in this thread, as well as people reading the first page or two and not reading the rest.
My ethical judgement on this scenario is going to be based purely on Utilitarian analysis.
Who benefits from this: Morrow, Sjow
Who is hurt by this: Sponsor, SC2 Community (I don't actually feel like the community is in anyway hurt by this, and I can't really assign a value to it), Morrow and Sjow if the community finds out (and they did)
Essentially, Morrow and Sjow split a computer and the sponsor loses it. Other competitors had no chance as is, so I don't see them directly hurt in this scenario in anyway. There was also no audience, so I don't factor that in either. I feel as if it is a much better overall gain for Morrow and Sjow as aspiring pro-gamers to win an event from a sponsor to whom a computer would not be of a big financial loss. With such a horrible structure for a tournament, DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY to avoid paying out the main prize (And you people talk about ethics in this thread and don't even look at this?) it only makes sense for them to find a logical resolution that works for both of them.
While the exact details of whether or not they did this before asking the admins of the tournament is up in the air, the damage to their reputation is not likely to be undone and they have paid for whatever sins they have earned.
Now it is up for each person individually to consider the facts and make up their own mind. Stop trying to force your opinion upon others.
I think they are silly for talking about this on a live stream, but don't blame them for their actual actions.
On December 22 2010 17:31 isSoCool wrote: if the tournaments not streamed, why the fuck care ?
Seriously?! I though people in Sweden were fair and law abiding?!
Don't listen to morons like that, they are just 15 year olds who just recently have gone into puberty thinking they own the world. OnTopic: It's a shame that they even considered 'match fixing' or whatever you'd like to call it. Don't really see the honor in doing something like that, even if you ask the officials about it, it's still wrong.
On December 22 2010 17:00 huameng wrote: A hypothetical scenario:
Same tournament, Morrow and Sjow are the only strong players and they each make the finals every time. Without any discussion at all, Sjow forfeits the finals every time, Morrow wins the computer and gives nothing to Sjow. Live goes on normally.
Is this just as bad as them agreeing to do this and split the prizes beforehand? Bad, but not as bad? Totally okay? Even worse? I'm not totally sure where I stand on this right now so I wanna create some discussion about related scenarios.
Is this a serious question? No, it's not okay to enter a competition and forfeit the final without a good reason.
Yes it's a serious question. Why isn't it okay? No one is being harmed right? This tournament apparently isn't being streamed or anything, (maybe wrong about this idk) so there are no viewers losing out on an exciting finals.
If anything, it harms the people that Sjow beat beforehand in that scenario. The defeated players all entered for the chance to win, and Sjow is reaching the finals and essentially giving up, for no reason, an opportunity that many others would gladly take. But this is also open to discussion...
On December 22 2010 17:31 isSoCool wrote: if the tournaments not streamed, why the fuck care ?
its your right as a human to lose, as much as it is to win. If they want to give away their individual right of winning to someone else, its their own personal business. its their free will.
You really don't see anything wrong with people agreeing to lose matches so the other guy wins and repays you later? Isn't the definition of match fixing that a player loses so they would get some monetary gain from doing that.
This is pretty much the same thing as the korean betting scandal just with less money involved.
On December 22 2010 17:31 isSoCool wrote: if the tournaments not streamed, why the fuck care ?
Seriously?! I though people in Sweden were fair and law abiding?!
Judging by nationality is rarely going to get you anywhere.
I make an exception in the case of countries like Sweden where I heard all best about the local population. But it looks like those stories were either really old or really wrong.
1. Shouldn't have to discuss this in public (the 'prize fixing') 2. The tournament's format for winning the grand prize is pretty blah (and opened the loophole) 3. Man, they were sure confident that they would meet at least 11 times 4. I hope not one was betting behind the scenes, (but if they should meet and just forfeit i think the bets would be void) 5. They should know better that that due to their status, but if they came clean to the officials so i don't know about that 6. Little steps like this are dangerous, kinda like schoolchildren cheating in class and growing up to be f*cked up adults just because of the *no harm no foul* and *not caught not guilty mentality*
Not saying that i'm a saint, but it just makes me a little sad - mostly because they aren't no-names and their actions affect a larger circle
On December 22 2010 17:00 huameng wrote: A hypothetical scenario:
Same tournament, Morrow and Sjow are the only strong players and they each make the finals every time. Without any discussion at all, Sjow forfeits the finals every time, Morrow wins the computer and gives nothing to Sjow. Live goes on normally.
Is this just as bad as them agreeing to do this and split the prizes beforehand? Bad, but not as bad? Totally okay? Even worse? I'm not totally sure where I stand on this right now so I wanna create some discussion about related scenarios.
Is this a serious question? No, it's not okay to enter a competition and forfeit the final without a good reason.
Yes it's a serious question. Why isn't it okay? No one is being harmed right? This tournament apparently isn't being streamed or anything, (maybe wrong about this idk) so there are no viewers losing out on an exciting finals.
Cause it's a competition and the organizers actually expect you to compete. A tournament is supposed to be more than just deciding who gets the prize.
Let's ban stork for actively trying to come second in his wcg group a while back.
Stuff like this is never fun but it's bound to happen with this kind of a tournament setup, it's not even a 3rd party giving them the opportunity, it's the damn tournament itself.
It's exactly like someone said earlier: Imagine gsl finals where a 4-0 (comp) nets a total of 100k prizemoney to the two contenders but a 4-3 merely 35k (3.5/10 comp*), do you really think you wouldn't at least get tempted and explore some options? Here the final conclusion is as if they found a clause where if one playerforfeits the match the winner get's 90k (comp 9/10 times*) and decided that was good enough.
...and people need to remember the clause:
Innocent until proven guilty
Since if that were not needed you could basically condemn everyone since "well they might have".
*comp chances are best when both participate as the same player, less when only one competes but still way better than if both do and the comp becomes an unlikely prospect.
On a more general note I can understand the frustration. It's not like sc2-players have a union that can help out or call a strike if tournament organizers etc are unfair.
That said they should have realized that this way of doing it wrong.
On a separate note, what kind of weird tournament is this where the quality of players is so low so that sjow and morrow, albeit good of course, believes that they will make the finals, both of them, in most of 18 tournaments?
We missed something, SjoWs reaction when the news got up. * [17:39] <+dignitasSjoW> vi ska samarbeta på IO * [17:39] <+dignitasSjoW> jag o morrow * [17:39] <+dignitasSjoW> och dom här bögarna börjar whina
Translated:
* [17:39] <+dignitasSjoW>We're gonna cooperate on IO * [17:39] <+dignitasSjoW> me and morrow * [17:39] <+dignitasSjoW> And these fags starts to whine
On December 22 2010 17:33 freeto wrote: i just honestly dont see why we care.
one of them is basically guaranteed to win the prize anyway, because theyre the 2 best players, so its not ruining anyone elses chances of winning
and the final isnt streamed or even in front of an audience so theyre not cheating any viewers out of good games
Some people are going to care because it shows the type of person the players are. From the look of things these two are in for the money rather than competition. It's like a slippery slope that could lead to match fixing. It all starts with greed overshadowing the spirit of competition.
On December 22 2010 17:40 TheBanana wrote: I once fixed a whack a mole contest in amusement park so my 4 year old niece would win a cuddly teddy bear. Should I be guillotined?
Get a perspective on the size and outlay of the tournament.
If you are willing to do that then you might be willing to go bigger next time (when coupled with your other posts here). Shame on you...
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this.
Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness.
And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous.
the whole point is if you want e-sports to grow, this type of negativity needs to be kept at a minimal regardless of the "severity" of the action involved. one person does it, people start getting ideas like oh what don't I do it too? Of course the argument goes back "well this scenario is completely different, it's not THAT big of a deal", blah blah but the point is if you don't do this, the problem and this whole mess and the endless arguing would not exist in the first place. (eg this thread)
You just cant have such broad strokes for everything. There is absolutely a huge difference between something like this and what Savior did. Different tournament formats will change the nature of the game and how it should play out. Some can encourage team play, others dont. We dont even know if they did anything wrong yet until we get a detailed account of what exactly happened.
On December 22 2010 17:29 Boblion wrote: It reminds me of poker tourneys, when finalists agree to split the prizes.
I have seen that in Sc2 too. DeMuslim and SarenS off racing each other ( i think it was a Go4Sc2 but i'm not sure ).
Except, this wasn't "splitting prizes" that those two players are eligible for at the point. It was colluding to reach a prize they probably not have reached without the collusion.
To put it in poker terms, think of FullTilt's Daily Double tournaments. If you don't know what that is, all you need to know is that it's two tournaments that start at the same time, and if you happen to win them both, you get a huge bonus prize on top of the prize pools in each tournament. So if you win the first tournament, and reach the final two in the second one, and have your opponent intentionally lose to you (giving you the huge bonus) for a portion of that bonus.
If the final two players chop what's left in the prize pool, that's fine. If two players collude in order to get a bonus prize that they are not eligible for, then that's not fine. And that is what was trying to be done here.
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.
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.
On December 22 2010 17:40 TheBanana wrote: I once fixed a whack a mole contest in amusement park so my 4 year old niece would win a cuddly teddy bear. Should I be guillotined?
Get a perspective on the size and outlay of the tournament.
Ok.
They were trying to scam a prize worth six thousand dollars.
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
This. It's not so much the "actual" attempt of match-fixing that worries me, but the huge pile of completely stupid posts that try to justify it.
If a sponsor says "I give a grandprize only to the person who wins 11 out of 18 tournaments", then an agreement between two players that one should intentionally lose is nothing else but (attempted; in this case) fraud. Why the hell does everybody think the sponsor is "supposed" to give away the computer to match-fixers? That's certainly not how it was intended. In athletic sports there are often grand prizes for those who win many events in a season or in a row - obviously it could get the athletes banned from the scene if they were caught fixing this stuff.
Perfect way to drive away sponsors from e-sports, why the hell would anybody sponsor anything like that? The fact that apparently half of teamliquid thinks this is ok anyways because it is not streamed (WTF?) is disgusting.
On December 22 2010 17:40 TheBanana wrote: I once fixed a whack a mole contest in amusement park so my 4 year old niece would win a cuddly teddy bear. Should I be guillotined?
Get a perspective on the size and outlay of the tournament.
Ok.
They were trying to scam a prize worth six thousand dollars.
Now that that's cleared up, what's the verdict?
Scam? You don't know that. All we know is that they wanted to be able to get a bigger prize by having one player pre lose matches to the other in order to gain more monies. Its cheating if they kept it under wraps and actually went through with it without asking permission. Its not if they asked the admin about it first to see if they could. COMPLETELY different. We dont know which one of those it is yet.
Tournament hosts should avoid making formats that reward matchfixing. This incident was only discovered due to carelessness from the players, so I'm not very hopeful about being able to enforce rules against match fixing. We just have to accept that team mates and friends will not always bring their A game to a match. I would say the offense itself is about at the same magnitude as the ladder abuses in the TSL. They both involve gaming a bad system.
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.
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.
Seriously man. Just stop. Learn morals. Ask you parents or your teachers. It is not too late.
I don't understand what people are still arguing about, the only thing that would be of any interest to know (atleast for me) is if they approached admins before the tournament/finals and asked if their ''plan'' was allowed or if they tried to sneak it by and failed, which seems unlikely considering they weren't banned from the tournament (atleast from what I've understood).
If they were open about it with the tournament admins I really don't see what people are going crazy about, if they weren't then the tournament will ban them and I would assume maybe future tournaments aswell.
Making a thread implying that they have been caught matchfixing without providing actual evidence that they did doesn't seem fair to Sjow and Morrow to be honest.
Personally, I'm not going to take this seriously until the tournament itself releases some kind of statement saying that matchfixing did indeed occur.
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
This. It's not so much the "actual" attempt of match-fixing that worries me, but the huge pile of completely stupid posts that try to justify it.
If a sponsor says "I give a grandprize only to the person who wins 11 out of 18 tournaments", then an agreement between two players that one should intentionally lose is nothing else but (attempted; in this case) fraud. Why the hell does everybody think the sponsor is "supposed" to give away the computer to match-fixers? That's certainly not how it was intended.
Perfect way to drive away sponsors from e-sports, why the hell would anybody sponsor anything like that? The fact that apparently half of teamliquid thinks this is ok anyways because it is not streamed (WTF?) is disgusting.
This is what alot of people fail to realise. The point that not alot of people is watching and all that etc doesnt matter. If I were i sponsor, I would never give anything to a tourney that was fixed.
Also, the post I read from sjow where he said all that bs about it beeing just a small tourney, so one would watch, just happy amateurs etc. Thats just plain stupid, screwing over the 14 y olds who go to the nightgib with their friends, with some sort of hope in winning. And actually think that it doesnt matter and no one gives a damn.
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this.
Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness.
And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous.
The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition
I love how RIGHT after your post is an example of a competition where it is deemed acceptable. It depends on the tournament. The tournament organizers could have just as easily sayed "Yeah, ok, you two DID win against your opponents, you can just click the surrender button, its your match." But in all seriousness, the tournament would most likely count on the higher tier prizes being advertisement and bait for bigger names while still minimizing the cost of the tournament by having lower actual prize money.
Except that post RIGHT after his is talking about an entirely different situation. Chopping a prize pool heads up = fine (in poker, or in SC). Colluding to get a "frequent-winner" prize = not fine (in poker, or in SC)
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
This. It's not so much the "actual" attempt of match-fixing that worries me, but the huge pile of completely stupid posts that try to justify it.
If a sponsor says "I give a grandprize only to the person who wins 11 out of 18 tournaments", then an agreement between two players that one should intentionally lose is nothing else but (attempted; in this case) fraud. Why the hell does everybody think the sponsor is "supposed" to give away the computer to match-fixers? That's certainly not how it was intended. In athletic sports there are often grand prizes for those who win many events in a season or in a row - obviously it could get the athletes banned from the scene if they were caught fixing this stuff.
Perfect way to drive away sponsors from e-sports, why the hell would anybody sponsor anything like that? The fact that apparently half of teamliquid thinks this is ok anyways because it is not streamed (WTF?) is disgusting.
players going for it is a problem but the sponor itself is pretty much trying to offer matchfixing (perhaps inadvertently) and then dissing the players for going for it when it pretty much shares the blame. Just like how the bw matchfixers got their bit the match fixing organizers got theirs too.
On December 22 2010 17:40 wxwx wrote: Some people are going to care because it shows the type of person the players are. From the look of things these two are in for the money rather than competition. It's like a slippery slope that could lead to match fixing. It all starts with greed overshadowing the spirit of competition.
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.
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.
Seriously man. Just stop. Learn morals. Ask you parents or your teachers. It is not too late.
Then explain yourself, rather than talking down to me. Because it's not impressing me at all.
On December 22 2010 17:33 freeto wrote: i just honestly dont see why we care.
one of them is basically guaranteed to win the prize anyway, because theyre the 2 best players, so its not ruining anyone elses chances of winning
and the final isnt streamed or even in front of an audience so theyre not cheating any viewers out of good games
Some people are going to care because it shows the type of person the players are. From the look of things these two are in for the money rather than competition. It's like a slippery slope that could lead to match fixing. It all starts with greed overshadowing the spirit of competition.
This kind of stuff would happen all the time in real sports if the players weren't just rich as f*** already (which is basically the justification for them getting rich as f***).
You don't have to look far to see teams trying to lose or tie or whatever when it is actually more beneficial to them to do so...
Because if win means bad stuff and loss means good stuff isn't it the goal of the game to lose...? Which is why competitions need to actively try to not allow for those situations to rise.
This happened in Quake at last dreamhack where on the latter day getting second in the group was better (hardly arguable) and the most important games of said groups (deciding 1-2) were held that day and it caused a huge scene. The thing is that enabling this stuff can usually be avoided and therefore it should.
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.
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?
You guys seem to assume that the other players will not stand a chance anyway, and this might be true. But maybe just maybe we will see a guy who is able to once in a while beat either Morrow or Sjow. This guy will then need to win against both in order to have a chance at the prize, while his oppenents team up and make sure they never really play against each other. Matchfixing is pathetic whatever the tournament size, importance or setup is since it alienates audience, players and sponsors, alike. The organizer of a tournament has the right to decide on the rules. If you don't like them don't participate!
So lemme get this straight, the tournament has not yet been played. Both Morrow and Sjow thinks they will both reach the finals. Regardless of who wins the finals, they will both share the prize money with each other. How the hell is that cheating or match fixing. Thats like saying when a korean wins a tournament and shares the money with his team thats match fixing?
On December 22 2010 17:37 isSoCool wrote: Can someone pls post the rule that say youre NOT allowed to lose cuz im confused.
You are not allowed to lose on purpose, that's part of sportmanship and it is (one of) the referees' task to prevent this. No need for a written rule here.
So if 2 ogs members play eachother in the final, the team ogs won't benefit from either of their winnings? cool story teamliquid. close thread this is stupid
(not saying both are from the same team,but they're very close friends and maybe they provide food for eachother or something which you guys don't know about?)
What's with the "mountain out of a mole hill" comments ?
If you let that kind of slip-up go by, then that means that you don't care. You're seemingly showing enthusiasm for esports, but truth is you people actually don't give a shit and see it as nothing more but a mere recreation.
Well I guess the world is not ready for esports. Sorry Blizzard.
On December 22 2010 17:40 wxwx wrote: Some people are going to care because it shows the type of person the players are. From the look of things these two are in for the money rather than competition. It's like a slippery slope that could lead to match fixing. It all starts with greed overshadowing the spirit of competition.
Just to pose a question. Without a tangible reward, why would you compete?
Sure, there is pride about proving your the best. But in the tournament in context, there isn't anything of that sort, it might as well be a best of 15 show-match between the two players. Money is the only reason these players were interested in this tournament. Of course that is what they'll care about.
Imagine IdrA fixing the final vs. qxc by saying: you get the laptop and i get your 1k. And next time you reach the finals we do the same but the other way around.
Bonus are nice and just because it "rewards" matchfixing should not be an invitation to do so... I really don´t see how this can be defended by anyone.
What's funniest about this is that now they appear to be doing what they should have been doing all along.
If those two are clearly so much better than everybody else that both of them are pretty much a lock for the finals of every tournament, they should just have one of them play and clean up and have the other one not participate in the tournament at all. That way, they get their big prize, and in no way can be accused of match-fixing.
How can this even be considered okay? The tournament setup was king of the hill-style. Match fixing to make sure one player remains king in order to share prizes is obvioulsy cheating.
Dont like the tournament format? You dont have to, and nothing forces you to participate. But not liking the format is no excuse to cheat and match fix.
I am so extremely disappointed in both of them, and frankly wish they would both be kicked out of the tournament right away.
On December 22 2010 18:00 b_unnies wrote: I don't really understand the article.
So lemme get this straight, the tournament has not yet been played. Both Morrow and Sjow thinks they will both reach the finals. Regardless of who wins the finals, they will both share the prize money with each other. How the hell is that cheating or match fixing. Thats like saying when a korean wins a tournament and shares the money with his team thats match fixing?
Instead of competing, Sjow would (allegedly) forfeit to Morrow in order to accrue bonuses from multiple season wins. The intent of the bonus is to award consistent play by one player, not teamwork.
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this.
Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness.
And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous.
The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition
I love how RIGHT after your post is an example of a competition where it is deemed acceptable. It depends on the tournament. The tournament organizers could have just as easily sayed "Yeah, ok, you two DID win against your opponents, you can just click the surrender button, its your match." But in all seriousness, the tournament would most likely count on the higher tier prizes being advertisement and bait for bigger names while still minimizing the cost of the tournament by having lower actual prize money.
Except that post RIGHT after his is talking about an entirely different situation. Chopping a prize pool heads up = fine (in poker, or in SC). Colluding to get a "frequent-winner" prize = not fine (in poker, or in SC)
I was commenting on the sweeping generalization that was made
"The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition"
This is simply wrong. I would defiantly call the horse races honorable competition, in which case third parties ARE taking bets. That is all. The spring of arguments about why it is isn't entirely unethical to set matches is there for a reason. It depends on the rules.
Consider the following: You realize you could make alot more money by forfeiting your matches against your buddy when they arise. Is it unethical to ask the tourney admins if this is allowed?
It really makes me sad how many people defend this out of principle. Things like this ruin the integrity and credibility of Esports. Anyone believing in serious and honest competition, from fans to sponsors, is duped by this. It doesn't even matter that noone may be "harmed"; what matters is that they manipulate games for their own benefit.
On December 22 2010 16:23 L_Master wrote: Seriosuly, do people read threads? Like, at all? From Sjow's explanation this doesn't sound like an issue whatsoever
They wanted to fix the finals because if they competed wholeheartedly in the finals then it's likely neither would have gotten the prize, which is only awarded for winning 11 of 18.
Okay, they wanted to be able to have the grand prize. Not too big of a deal. They wanted to set the matches so that one would lose if the final. Again, this probably isn't allowed, but they have some legitimate reasons for wanting to see.
Now, here is the important part. They then checked with officials to see if it would be okay to do so. They were told no, and of course agreed they wouldn't matchfix in any way and only one would participate.
This is like going to a golf tournament with a new ball thats supposed to go thirty yards further. Your pretty sure however, that it is non conforming and thus illegal. You then ask the rules officials if this ball meets the conforming standards. You are told no, and this don't use the ball. This is in no way cheating, and I don't see how anyone can view it as such. I'm legitamately baffled.
Wanted to point out this post, mostly because it gets a bit closer to the heart of the matter.
It's seems, from what little information we do have, fairly straight forward what happened. Sjow & MorroW identified a real issue with the tournament structure: their mutual presence created a real Prisoner's Dilemma. Each possessed the ability to deny the other the grand prize. So the harder they played, the worse the mutual outcome was likely to end up being. From their mutual point of view, their interests were not aligned with the prize structure. As a result, they questioned what could be done and asked the tournament director(s) about the situation and if they could forfeit a finals if both of them ended up there. They said "no" and so one of them didn't play, thus maximizing their mutual benefit.
"Match fixing" is a pretty big issue again these days (truthfully, it's far, far less common than it used to be, there's just more media and the recent SC:BW issues raise the issue inside the community), but that's not what was going on. Match-fixing means parties were removing the doubt from what was thought to be an unbiased competition; what Sjow & MorroW asked about was forfeiting the finals if both played, so they wouldn't prevent each one of them from wining the grand prize. (You can't "fix" an openly requested forfeit)
Now, there are legitimate concerns about this type of stuff, and I don't think the thread is unfounded, but people do need to be careful in their terms. SjoW & MorroW simply realized a problem with tournament format, talked about it and brought it up to the directors. They decided to only have 1 of them play the tournament, to ensure, as best they can, a shot at the grand prize. They made the proper decisions given their circumstances, dealt with it directly with the parties in charge and made decisions based on those discussions.
If they'd just thrown the finals anyway, then, yes, what they'd have done was unethical (though not illegal, more than likely). But they didn't. They did what they should have. They just made the mistake of talking about a sensitive issue on a Livestream. Behold the dangers of only catching part of conversations, it always goes badly.
I don't think there's any Fire here to all the smoke, for this incident, but this kind of thing does happen all the time. It was good on Sjow & Morrow to be upfront with the tournament and for one of them to bow out of it. Which, also, removed any appearance of impropriety on their parts as well. So, in sum, they did the right thing for everyone involved. Hopefully, the tournament is better for it, as well.
(As a little side example to the problem they uncovered: GomTV has what seems like a really complex system for their Round-Robin section of the 2011 GSLs because they don't want to let players end up in the situation where losing to a team-mate ensures that team-mate advances; or conversely, a 0-2 player throwing the 3rd match to ensure someone they don't like is denied going onto the next stage. It's human nature to notice the things that benefit your group, small or large, and to act in those interests. [Actually, it's pretty much the basis of all society, but I'll let you read John Locke et al for that 2000+ years of discussion!] So, it's not unexpected when someone will notice those types of benefits. That Sjow & Morrow acted in the proper manner when those interests converged from the tournament's is a good thing.)
If they were actually trying to fix matches, they would be very stupid to talk so openly about it. These guys are friends, so it's really easy for them to split the prizes if they so want to (and actually get to that point in the tournament where they can do so). It's so damn easy to do these gimmicks when the only interaction between players, organizers and sponsors is the internet.
The true problem lies with attitude: if this is true, then these guys can hardly call themselves professional players. A pro trains hard to win and he would beat his own brother in order to win a tournament. Day9 had to beat Tasteless in tournaments and he did so, even though he felt like crap for his brother afterward. But that's the difference between someone who respects the game and has a professional attitude towards it (even though Day9 was hardly a "progamer" - his respect towards Starcraft and the spirit of competition was worthy of every pro out there), and these people who play just to get a small paycheck or hardware or whatever. Too bad these two players are so talented and yet they would resort to crap like this. If Morrow wants the computer and Sjow wants him to have it, he should just help him practice all day long so he actually *earns* it.
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.
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.
Seriously man. Just stop. Learn morals. Ask you parents or your teachers. It is not too late.
Morals and ethics are not the same. Both are also very relative to your social, cultural, and political upbringings.
On December 22 2010 18:03 Shockk wrote: It really makes me sad how many people defend this out of principle. Things like this ruin the integrity and credibility of Esports. Anyone believing in serious and honest competition, from fans to sponsors, is duped by this. It doesn't even matter that noone may be "harmed"; what matters is that they manipulate games for their own benefit.
Whasts so esport about inviting ppl they know will win the whole shit. Also they spoke their mind openly about them alrdy being confident of winning, they were just suggesting which one of them would win.
This is pretty bad.. I can't believe people are actually condoning what they are doing. These are players who are paid to compete at their highest level and they have an obligation to do so. They're intentionally fixing the match outcome for the sole purpose of manipulating the prize pool. Where is the competition in that? It shouldn't be allowed.
This is my attitude towards match fixing but I can't say that I'm 100% clear on what they're intending to do.
This has clearly been blown out of proportion, but at the same time, come on now, spirit of competition should come first. Honor your own play, and that of those you face by always playing to your highest potential.
I don't know, maybe I'm spouting an anachronism here...
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this.
Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness.
And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous.
The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition
I love how RIGHT after your post is an example of a competition where it is deemed acceptable. It depends on the tournament. The tournament organizers could have just as easily sayed "Yeah, ok, you two DID win against your opponents, you can just click the surrender button, its your match." But in all seriousness, the tournament would most likely count on the higher tier prizes being advertisement and bait for bigger names while still minimizing the cost of the tournament by having lower actual prize money.
Except that post RIGHT after his is talking about an entirely different situation. Chopping a prize pool heads up = fine (in poker, or in SC). Colluding to get a "frequent-winner" prize = not fine (in poker, or in SC)
I was commenting on the sweeping generalization that was made
"The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition"
This is simply wrong. I would defiantly call the horse races honorable competition, in which case third parties ARE taking bets. That is all. The spring of arguments about why it is isn't entirely unethical to set matches is there for a reason. It depends on the rules.
Consider the following: You realize you could make alot more money by forfeiting your matches against your buddy when they arise. Is it unethical to ask the tourney admins if this is allowed?
Yeah, you misunderstand what you are quoting. Winnings gained by competitors through clever and/or unlawful usage of third parties taking bets. I.e. SaviOr scandal. NOT the mere act of betting through a third party.
EDIT:
Scenario: Hey, I bet on you just now. I'll throw the match and we'll split the winnings. NOT OKAY Scenario: Hey, I bet this guy is gonna win! $100 on him. OKAY
On December 22 2010 18:06 Kimaker wrote: This has clearly been blown out of proportion, but at the same time, come on now, spirit of competition should come first. Honor your own play, and that of those you face by always playing to your highest potential.
Honor tends to be a fool's tool nowadays in all aspects of life...
Rakaka always wants to make things seem like a huge deal and I can tell they have suceeded once again. Let's just hope this doesn't damage the two players images.
On December 22 2010 18:02 MyXoMoPBL wrote: So if 2 ogs members play eachother in the final, the team ogs won't benefit from either of their winnings? cool story teamliquid. close thread this is stupid
(not saying both are from the same team,but they're very close friends and maybe they provide food for eachother or something which you guys don't know about?)
If 2 ogs members reach the finals, they will battle out to see who is the winner. None of them will be throwing the game. Really that hard to get?? Throwing game after game after game to reach a big prize is plain out cheating and should be punished accordingly.
The only thing more ridiculous/stupid than these guys streaming this conversation, is the people thinking this is somehow okay.
Since when is it okay to join a competition and not actually plan on competing. If these players did indeed make it to the finals every time, it just means it's worse, because then they lack respect for all the other players that tried their hardest just to win one of those freaking tournament days.
On another note, the soccer team I coach is making it to the finals, and I plan on setting up something with the other coach so that my team can advance to the regionals. It would really help me get recognized as a coach . It's not like its televised so it should be okay.
But it should damage their images...there's nothing professional about this sort of behavior. What do they have sponsors for? Don't they get paid by them, or receive hardware from them? But that's another issue - the one that a sponsor should provide his players with decent gaming machines.
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this.
Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness.
And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous.
The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition
I love how RIGHT after your post is an example of a competition where it is deemed acceptable. It depends on the tournament. The tournament organizers could have just as easily sayed "Yeah, ok, you two DID win against your opponents, you can just click the surrender button, its your match." But in all seriousness, the tournament would most likely count on the higher tier prizes being advertisement and bait for bigger names while still minimizing the cost of the tournament by having lower actual prize money.
Except that post RIGHT after his is talking about an entirely different situation. Chopping a prize pool heads up = fine (in poker, or in SC). Colluding to get a "frequent-winner" prize = not fine (in poker, or in SC)
I was commenting on the sweeping generalization that was made
"The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition"
This is simply wrong. I would defiantly call the horse races honorable competition, in which case third parties ARE taking bets. That is all. The spring of arguments about why it is isn't entirely unethical to set matches is there for a reason. It depends on the rules.
Consider the following: You realize you could make alot more money by forfeiting your matches against your buddy when they arise. Is it unethical to ask the tourney admins if this is allowed?
Yeah, you misunderstand what you are quoting. Winnings gained by competitors through clever and/or unlawful usage of third parties taking bets. I.e. SaviOr scandal. NOT the mere act of betting through a third party.
EDIT:
Scenario: Hey, I bet on you just now. I'll throw the match and we'll split the winnings. NOT OKAY Scenario: Hey, I bet this guy is gonna win! $100 on him. OKAY
Still, clearly sweeping generalizations. If I made the same format for this tournament and allowed team-mates to forfeit matches against their team mates, all of a sudden it becomes ethical!!! WOW! This is what happens when you apply objectivism to such a complex topic. Honorable competition is following the rules. As far as I am aware and anyone in this thread knows, Morrow and co have not broached the rules.
On December 22 2010 18:10 Boundz(DarKo) wrote: Rakaka always wants to make things seem like a huge deal and I can tell they have suceeded once again. Let's just hope this doesn't damage the two players images.
do i'm not gonna read all the pages, but what i understand is they wanted to rig the system, then they asked an admin, he said no, they backed out. is that correct? call me biased because morrow is my friend and sjow is pretty cool guy, but i don't see problem with that.
i bet naama and mana shared prizemoney from dreamhack. is that match fixing?
It seems like the people still coming down on Sjow and Morrow didn't really read the full story, they just saw the word 'matchfixing' and wanted this to be a scandal...
Seriously, if you're still arguing that they are horrible people destroying esports with their lack of morals blah blah blah, go back, read Sjow's explanation of the situation again a few times until you understand the situation better. They did nothing wrong, and it's really too bad that this situation is tainting their reputation -_-
Taf the ghost ^^ understands the situation. Read his post too.
What Saviour and Hwasin etc. did that was so bad was deliberately lose games that people had bet on to ensure the bets came out the right way. This is a totally different situation and calling what they considered doing matchfixing is really a stretch.
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this.
Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness.
And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous.
The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition
I love how RIGHT after your post is an example of a competition where it is deemed acceptable. It depends on the tournament. The tournament organizers could have just as easily sayed "Yeah, ok, you two DID win against your opponents, you can just click the surrender button, its your match." But in all seriousness, the tournament would most likely count on the higher tier prizes being advertisement and bait for bigger names while still minimizing the cost of the tournament by having lower actual prize money.
Except that post RIGHT after his is talking about an entirely different situation. Chopping a prize pool heads up = fine (in poker, or in SC). Colluding to get a "frequent-winner" prize = not fine (in poker, or in SC)
I was commenting on the sweeping generalization that was made
"The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition"
This is simply wrong. I would defiantly call the horse races honorable competition, in which case third parties ARE taking bets. That is all. The spring of arguments about why it is isn't entirely unethical to set matches is there for a reason. It depends on the rules.
Consider the following: You realize you could make alot more money by forfeiting your matches against your buddy when they arise. Is it unethical to ask the tourney admins if this is allowed?
Yeah, you misunderstand what you are quoting. Winnings gained by competitors through clever and/or unlawful usage of third parties taking bets. I.e. SaviOr scandal. NOT the mere act of betting through a third party.
EDIT:
Scenario: Hey, I bet on you just now. I'll throw the match and we'll split the winnings. NOT OKAY Scenario: Hey, I bet this guy is gonna win! $100 on him. OKAY
Still, clearly sweeping generalizations. If I made the same format for this tournament and allowed team-mates to forfeit matches against their team mates, all of a sudden it becomes ethical!!! WOW! This is what happens when you apply objectivism to such a complex topic. Honorable competition is following the rules. As far as I am aware and anyone in this thread knows, Morrow and co have not broached the rules.
Sure, if it clearly states in the rules that team mates (Morrow=Mouz, Sjow=Dignitas fyi) may forfeit matches against one another, that is one thing. But that is an entirely different situation and can't be applied at all. Also, I would hardly call anything you have said in this thread objective.
It's their business what they do after the matches are played. But during those matches they should both try to win. Anyway it's ridiculously easy to throw a game in Stracraft. Just make a blunder here and there and no one would know you did that on purpose.
Ok so if i get it right. 1) There are 18 mini tournaments. 2) If you win 11 of them you get a nice PC rig
And now:
3) Sjow and Morrow looking at the brackets asumed that they will both make it to the finals. 4) Morrow proposed Sjow that if that happened they should make it that one of them will be winning in all the torunaments and after it they will split the prices.
So Morrow and Sjow wanted to break the torunament system by doing matchfixing to get better rewards for games. Remember that ifMorrow would win 9 tournaments and Sjow the other 9 than none of them would win the kick ass PC. Im not surprised that the tournament organisers didn't agree for them to matchfix the finals of each tourney in the series since it would increase their costs (keep in mind its kind of hard to win 11 out of 18 tourneys in which are players on the same level as you).
EG Masters tourney is using simmilar idea for their game for the laptop. You can win big priced laptop by wining Idra in a BO3 on maps decided by Idra.
In both the tourneys the high priced price (which is a nice way to get more viewers, players) is hard as hell to get thx to the setup that orgainizers decided.
Now Morrow and Sjow decided to to challenge this system.
Imagine what would happen if we didnt learn about it before and both of them would play and we would get 11 finals of Morrow winning strange games. People would rage at this.
On December 22 2010 18:10 Boundz(DarKo) wrote: Rakaka always wants to make things seem like a huge deal and I can tell they have suceeded once again. Let's just hope this doesn't damage the two players images.
Seriously, how can you consider this ok?
First off, look at IOL's rules; winning 11 of 18 to claim the main prize. That is pretty silly when you have players/friends of the same level competing. Why not just leave some games and split the money with your buddy? They only hurt themselves and well yeah IOL too but they asked them if it was OK to do this first. I don't see the harm in figuring this out and then asking the host if it's OK to play it out this way. Either way it's not foolproof cheating or anything, it's just a way of using the pretty weird system to your advantage.
On December 22 2010 18:13 PredY wrote: do i'm not gonna read all the pages, but what i understand is they wanted to rig the system, then they asked an admin, he said no, they backed out. is that correct? call me biased because morrow is my friend and sjow is pretty cool guy, but i don't see problem with that.
i bet naama and mana shared prizemoney from dreamhack. is that match fixing?
you guys just want to couse a sensation, wtf..
Once again, sharing prizepool is OK, however, collusion to get a bigger prize is not !
At the end, they asked the admins and did not do it. I dont think they will be banned or anything. Yet, just because they thought it was OK to do this, I've lost a lot of respect for both of these players. hopefully they will never think of matchfixing ( because yes, thats what they were planning to do) again.
I was just saying that the games DON'T HAVE TO BE STRANGE. It's so easy to make game changing mistakes in SC 2, and it's so easy to make them seem unintentional.
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this.
Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness.
And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous.
The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition
I love how RIGHT after your post is an example of a competition where it is deemed acceptable. It depends on the tournament. The tournament organizers could have just as easily sayed "Yeah, ok, you two DID win against your opponents, you can just click the surrender button, its your match." But in all seriousness, the tournament would most likely count on the higher tier prizes being advertisement and bait for bigger names while still minimizing the cost of the tournament by having lower actual prize money.
Except that post RIGHT after his is talking about an entirely different situation. Chopping a prize pool heads up = fine (in poker, or in SC). Colluding to get a "frequent-winner" prize = not fine (in poker, or in SC)
I was commenting on the sweeping generalization that was made
"The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition"
This is simply wrong. I would defiantly call the horse races honorable competition, in which case third parties ARE taking bets. That is all. The spring of arguments about why it is isn't entirely unethical to set matches is there for a reason. It depends on the rules.
Consider the following: You realize you could make alot more money by forfeiting your matches against your buddy when they arise. Is it unethical to ask the tourney admins if this is allowed?
Yeah, you misunderstand what you are quoting. Winnings gained by competitors through clever and/or unlawful usage of third parties taking bets. I.e. SaviOr scandal. NOT the mere act of betting through a third party.
EDIT:
Scenario: Hey, I bet on you just now. I'll throw the match and we'll split the winnings. NOT OKAY Scenario: Hey, I bet this guy is gonna win! $100 on him. OKAY
Still, clearly sweeping generalizations. If I made the same format for this tournament and allowed team-mates to forfeit matches against their team mates, all of a sudden it becomes ethical!!! WOW! This is what happens when you apply objectivism to such a complex topic. Honorable competition is following the rules. As far as I am aware and anyone in this thread knows, Morrow and co have not broached the rules.
Sure, if it clearly states in the rules that team mates (Morrow=Mouz, Sjow=Dignitas fyi) may forfeit matches against one another, that is one thing. But that is an entirely different situation and can't be applied at all. Also, I would hardly call anything you have said in this thread objective.
Thats the point. People are putting objectivist views like fixing matches is always bad when there could be a tournament format that is ok with it. As far as we know they went to the admin and asked if they would be allowed to do it. The admin said no. The counter situation highlights that the admin could have just as easily said yes to promote people forming teams.
Guys, IdrA long ago noted that MorroW gamed the system in SCBW and, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Sjow have a history of cheating? This recent event isn't hurting their reputation, this IS their reputation.
An integral component to esports is competition. Competition spawns interest which spawns eyeballs which spawns various sponsorships. There aren't a throng of people out there watching SCII just so Morrow can get a new computer, they are watching it because they love the mix of analytical ability, practiced maneuvers, nerves, apm and luck that go into every match.
Morrow and Sjow conspired to do away with everything the public loves about SCII and, after they got caught, they "asked officials." Based on this incident alone, I'd give them a pass. When you couple it with their history, I'd be happy to never have to watch them in another tournament again.
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.
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.....
I don't know why can't they just play 14 rounds, if one is in the lead, they'll agree and the other one won't participate anymore, if it's 7-7 then they'll decide in a non-tournament game. Not so hard.
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this.
Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness.
And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous.
The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition
I love how RIGHT after your post is an example of a competition where it is deemed acceptable. It depends on the tournament. The tournament organizers could have just as easily sayed "Yeah, ok, you two DID win against your opponents, you can just click the surrender button, its your match." But in all seriousness, the tournament would most likely count on the higher tier prizes being advertisement and bait for bigger names while still minimizing the cost of the tournament by having lower actual prize money.
Except that post RIGHT after his is talking about an entirely different situation. Chopping a prize pool heads up = fine (in poker, or in SC). Colluding to get a "frequent-winner" prize = not fine (in poker, or in SC)
I was commenting on the sweeping generalization that was made
"The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition"
This is simply wrong. I would defiantly call the horse races honorable competition, in which case third parties ARE taking bets. That is all. The spring of arguments about why it is isn't entirely unethical to set matches is there for a reason. It depends on the rules.
Consider the following: You realize you could make alot more money by forfeiting your matches against your buddy when they arise. Is it unethical to ask the tourney admins if this is allowed?
No, it's not unethical to ask. However, take into account the facts of this scenario. There is a $6k Grand Prize given out to one person if he happens to dominate and win 11/18 tournaments. This is far from a guaranteed prize, and I would argue very unlikely to happen legitimately.
Two players see this, and get the idea that they could guarantee winning that prize by colluding their matches against each other. At this point, there would be nothing unethical about them asking permission to do this. However, how can any rational person think there is any chance that the tournament would allow this? It's not just match-fixing, but fixing matches in order to win a prize that is not likely to be won by anybody.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I picture Sjow and Morrow as intelligent individuals. I see them as knowing they were planning on fixing matches, and I would like to believe that they would know that if they asked if they were allowed to rig the tournament in order to win that special prize, they would not be allowed to do so. Perhaps they are just morons and actually thought what they were doing was ok and would be granted permission to do it from the tournament, but I give their intelligence more credit than that.
Of course, we don't have the actual facts, and all we have are these little tidbits of information. And from the information I have put together, I feel it's much more likely that the tournament staff caught wind of what they were planning to do and asked about it, rather than them taking the initiative to go and ask the tournament if that was acceptable.
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this.
Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness.
And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous.
The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition
I love how RIGHT after your post is an example of a competition where it is deemed acceptable. It depends on the tournament. The tournament organizers could have just as easily sayed "Yeah, ok, you two DID win against your opponents, you can just click the surrender button, its your match." But in all seriousness, the tournament would most likely count on the higher tier prizes being advertisement and bait for bigger names while still minimizing the cost of the tournament by having lower actual prize money.
Except that post RIGHT after his is talking about an entirely different situation. Chopping a prize pool heads up = fine (in poker, or in SC). Colluding to get a "frequent-winner" prize = not fine (in poker, or in SC)
I was commenting on the sweeping generalization that was made
"The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition"
This is simply wrong. I would defiantly call the horse races honorable competition, in which case third parties ARE taking bets. That is all. The spring of arguments about why it is isn't entirely unethical to set matches is there for a reason. It depends on the rules.
Consider the following: You realize you could make alot more money by forfeiting your matches against your buddy when they arise. Is it unethical to ask the tourney admins if this is allowed?
Yeah, you misunderstand what you are quoting. Winnings gained by competitors through clever and/or unlawful usage of third parties taking bets. I.e. SaviOr scandal. NOT the mere act of betting through a third party.
EDIT:
Scenario: Hey, I bet on you just now. I'll throw the match and we'll split the winnings. NOT OKAY Scenario: Hey, I bet this guy is gonna win! $100 on him. OKAY
Still, clearly sweeping generalizations. If I made the same format for this tournament and allowed team-mates to forfeit matches against their team mates, all of a sudden it becomes ethical!!! WOW! This is what happens when you apply objectivism to such a complex topic. Honorable competition is following the rules. As far as I am aware and anyone in this thread knows, Morrow and co have not broached the rules.
Sure, if it clearly states in the rules that team mates (Morrow=Mouz, Sjow=Dignitas fyi) may forfeit matches against one another, that is one thing. But that is an entirely different situation and can't be applied at all. Also, I would hardly call anything you have said in this thread objective.
Thats the point. People are putting objectivist views like fixing matches is always bad when there could be a tournament format that is ok with it. As far as we know they went to the admin and asked if they would be allowed to do it. The admin said no. The counter situation highlights that the admin could have just as easily said yes to promote people forming teams.
Yes, you are right. It is possible that in some alternate dimension, this would be OK because the only difference between our universe and the other is that match fixing is allowed. I fail to see how this is relevant at all to our universe however, where match fixing is not allowed.
On December 22 2010 18:10 Boundz(DarKo) wrote: Rakaka always wants to make things seem like a huge deal and I can tell they have suceeded once again. Let's just hope this doesn't damage the two players images.
Seriously, how can you consider this ok?
First off, look at IOL's rules; winning 11 of 18 to claim the main prize. That is pretty silly when you have players/friends of the same level competing. Why not just leave some games and split the money with your buddy? They only hurt themselves and well yeah IOL too but they asked them if it was OK to do this first. I don't see the harm in figuring this out and then asking the host if it's OK to play it out this way. Either way it's not foolproof cheating or anything, it's just a way of using the pretty weird system to your advantage.
Sure, go ahead and split the prize money with your buddy, thats not really the issue here. The issue here is cheating the system, for-fitting the games. If they played all the games the best they could straight up, do what ever you want with the money afterwards, why do I care. But now they want to rig it so one of them has won before the games are played, and that doesnt only affect the tournament, but also the sponsors. Why the hell would a sponsor want to sponsor a tournament thats rigged? Look it from a bigger perspective. This can seriously hurt esport if people think this is OK.
And b.t.w, they did ask a admin first, a really biased admin it seemed, since he had no problem with it. But then when the owner of IOS got a hold of this info he said they would be banned for life if they did what they planned...
If you are stupid enough to get caught, you should really be punished.
On December 22 2010 18:13 PredY wrote: do i'm not gonna read all the pages, but what i understand is they wanted to rig the system, then they asked an admin, he said no, they backed out. is that correct? call me biased because morrow is my friend and sjow is pretty cool guy, but i don't see problem with that.
i bet naama and mana shared prizemoney from dreamhack. is that match fixing?
you guys just want to couse a sensation, wtf..
Once again, sharing prizepool is OK, however, collusion to get a bigger prize is not !
At the end, they asked the admins and did not do it. I dont think they will be banned or anything. Yet, just because they thought it was OK to do this, I've lost a lot of respect for both of these players. hopefully they will never think of matchfixing ( because yes, thats what they were planning to do) again.
How the hell do you call what these guys planned cheating? Just cuz the title says cheating/matchfixing that doesnt mean this is the case. How about if in the last 2 tournaments Sjow would just forfeit even if he didnt talk to Morrow beforehand....just out of the goodness of his heart so his friend would get a nice rig...Would that be ok? Matchfixing is when bets are involved or when a player/team loses a game for PERSONAL gain. Cheating is when you brake rules and regulations. Where does it say that a player cant forfeit a game?
On December 22 2010 17:25 decemberscalm wrote: [quote] Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this.
Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness.
And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous.
The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition
I love how RIGHT after your post is an example of a competition where it is deemed acceptable. It depends on the tournament. The tournament organizers could have just as easily sayed "Yeah, ok, you two DID win against your opponents, you can just click the surrender button, its your match." But in all seriousness, the tournament would most likely count on the higher tier prizes being advertisement and bait for bigger names while still minimizing the cost of the tournament by having lower actual prize money.
Except that post RIGHT after his is talking about an entirely different situation. Chopping a prize pool heads up = fine (in poker, or in SC). Colluding to get a "frequent-winner" prize = not fine (in poker, or in SC)
I was commenting on the sweeping generalization that was made
"The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition"
This is simply wrong. I would defiantly call the horse races honorable competition, in which case third parties ARE taking bets. That is all. The spring of arguments about why it is isn't entirely unethical to set matches is there for a reason. It depends on the rules.
Consider the following: You realize you could make alot more money by forfeiting your matches against your buddy when they arise. Is it unethical to ask the tourney admins if this is allowed?
Yeah, you misunderstand what you are quoting. Winnings gained by competitors through clever and/or unlawful usage of third parties taking bets. I.e. SaviOr scandal. NOT the mere act of betting through a third party.
EDIT:
Scenario: Hey, I bet on you just now. I'll throw the match and we'll split the winnings. NOT OKAY Scenario: Hey, I bet this guy is gonna win! $100 on him. OKAY
Still, clearly sweeping generalizations. If I made the same format for this tournament and allowed team-mates to forfeit matches against their team mates, all of a sudden it becomes ethical!!! WOW! This is what happens when you apply objectivism to such a complex topic. Honorable competition is following the rules. As far as I am aware and anyone in this thread knows, Morrow and co have not broached the rules.
Sure, if it clearly states in the rules that team mates (Morrow=Mouz, Sjow=Dignitas fyi) may forfeit matches against one another, that is one thing. But that is an entirely different situation and can't be applied at all. Also, I would hardly call anything you have said in this thread objective.
Thats the point. People are putting objectivist views like fixing matches is always bad when there could be a tournament format that is ok with it. As far as we know they went to the admin and asked if they would be allowed to do it. The admin said no. The counter situation highlights that the admin could have just as easily said yes to promote people forming teams.
Yes, you are right. It is possible that in some alternate dimension, this would be OK because the only difference between our universe and the other is that match fixing is allowed. I fail to see how this is relevant at all to our universe however, where match fixing is not allowed.
This isn't some alternate universe. These are tournaments where team mates are allowed to share prize pools.
"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.
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.
On December 22 2010 18:13 PredY wrote: do i'm not gonna read all the pages, but what i understand is they wanted to rig the system, then they asked an admin, he said no, they backed out. is that correct? call me biased because morrow is my friend and sjow is pretty cool guy, but i don't see problem with that.
i bet naama and mana shared prizemoney from dreamhack. is that match fixing?
you guys just want to couse a sensation, wtf..
You are misunderstand the situation pretty badly, sorry to say.
Read the thread; I'm not going to summarize 16 pages for you.
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.
The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition
I love how RIGHT after your post is an example of a competition where it is deemed acceptable. It depends on the tournament. The tournament organizers could have just as easily sayed "Yeah, ok, you two DID win against your opponents, you can just click the surrender button, its your match." But in all seriousness, the tournament would most likely count on the higher tier prizes being advertisement and bait for bigger names while still minimizing the cost of the tournament by having lower actual prize money.
Except that post RIGHT after his is talking about an entirely different situation. Chopping a prize pool heads up = fine (in poker, or in SC). Colluding to get a "frequent-winner" prize = not fine (in poker, or in SC)
I was commenting on the sweeping generalization that was made
"The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition"
This is simply wrong. I would defiantly call the horse races honorable competition, in which case third parties ARE taking bets. That is all. The spring of arguments about why it is isn't entirely unethical to set matches is there for a reason. It depends on the rules.
Consider the following: You realize you could make alot more money by forfeiting your matches against your buddy when they arise. Is it unethical to ask the tourney admins if this is allowed?
Yeah, you misunderstand what you are quoting. Winnings gained by competitors through clever and/or unlawful usage of third parties taking bets. I.e. SaviOr scandal. NOT the mere act of betting through a third party.
EDIT:
Scenario: Hey, I bet on you just now. I'll throw the match and we'll split the winnings. NOT OKAY Scenario: Hey, I bet this guy is gonna win! $100 on him. OKAY
Still, clearly sweeping generalizations. If I made the same format for this tournament and allowed team-mates to forfeit matches against their team mates, all of a sudden it becomes ethical!!! WOW! This is what happens when you apply objectivism to such a complex topic. Honorable competition is following the rules. As far as I am aware and anyone in this thread knows, Morrow and co have not broached the rules.
Sure, if it clearly states in the rules that team mates (Morrow=Mouz, Sjow=Dignitas fyi) may forfeit matches against one another, that is one thing. But that is an entirely different situation and can't be applied at all. Also, I would hardly call anything you have said in this thread objective.
Thats the point. People are putting objectivist views like fixing matches is always bad when there could be a tournament format that is ok with it. As far as we know they went to the admin and asked if they would be allowed to do it. The admin said no. The counter situation highlights that the admin could have just as easily said yes to promote people forming teams.
Yes, you are right. It is possible that in some alternate dimension, this would be OK because the only difference between our universe and the other is that match fixing is allowed. I fail to see how this is relevant at all to our universe however, where match fixing is not allowed.
This isn't some alternate universe. These are tournaments where team mates are allowed to share prize pools.
And yet here is where it is different:
Those rules do not apply to this tournament. Morrow and Sjow are not team mates. The prize pool is not fixed, it is intended to increase upon consistent performance, therefore it is immoral to increase it through illegitimate or otherwise unintended means rather than good performance (this is why EG members are not allowed to compete for the MSI notebook if they win Master's Cup).
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Thats an entirely different scenario. No outside gambling is taking place. They even asked the admins about it. As far as we know they weren't caught, but rather they asked. The silly format of the tournament promotes this.
Too lazy to find the post, but someone remarked on how the tournament format would be like the GSL only rewarding players who 4-0'ed their opponents. Thats utter ridiculousness.
And SERIOUSLY, chill until you know if they were going to secretively do it, everything seems just like speculation right now. The important factor is knowing if they were going to do it WITHOUT asking the tournament admins first. Otherwise thats seriously just players asking if they can make the ridiculous prize format less ridiculous.
The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition
I love how RIGHT after your post is an example of a competition where it is deemed acceptable. It depends on the tournament. The tournament organizers could have just as easily sayed "Yeah, ok, you two DID win against your opponents, you can just click the surrender button, its your match." But in all seriousness, the tournament would most likely count on the higher tier prizes being advertisement and bait for bigger names while still minimizing the cost of the tournament by having lower actual prize money.
Except that post RIGHT after his is talking about an entirely different situation. Chopping a prize pool heads up = fine (in poker, or in SC). Colluding to get a "frequent-winner" prize = not fine (in poker, or in SC)
I was commenting on the sweeping generalization that was made
"The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition"
This is simply wrong. I would defiantly call the horse races honorable competition, in which case third parties ARE taking bets. That is all. The spring of arguments about why it is isn't entirely unethical to set matches is there for a reason. It depends on the rules.
Consider the following: You realize you could make alot more money by forfeiting your matches against your buddy when they arise. Is it unethical to ask the tourney admins if this is allowed?
No, it's not unethical to ask. However, take into account the facts of this scenario. There is a $6k Grand Prize given out to one person if he happens to dominate and win 11/18 tournaments. This is far from a guaranteed prize, and I would argue very unlikely to happen legitimately.
Two players see this, and get the idea that they could guarantee winning that prize by colluding their matches against each other. At this point, there would be nothing unethical about them asking permission to do this. However, how can any rational person think there is any chance that the tournament would allow this? It's not just match-fixing, but fixing matches in order to win a prize that is not likely to be won by anybody.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I picture Sjow and Morrow as intelligent individuals. I see them as knowing they were planning on fixing matches, and I would like to believe that they would know that if they asked if they were allowed to rig the tournament in order to win that special prize, they would not be allowed to do so. Perhaps they are just morons and actually thought what they were doing was ok and would be granted permission to do it from the tournament, but I give their intelligence more credit than that.
Of course, we don't have the actual facts, and all we have are these little tidbits of information. And from the information I have put together, I feel it's much more likely that the tournament staff caught wind of what they were planning to do and asked about it, rather than them taking the initiative to go and ask the tournament if that was acceptable.
Well condemning people based off of theory crafting is never a good idea. I agree with what you say entirely. I am just skeptical at all the flak they are throwing when people don't know the facts for sure.
The one thing I disagree with is the likley hood of asking tournament organizers if they are allowed to forfeit matches against friends. In a small tournament like this they might not have anywhere near the extensive rules out. Plus, if you see a tournament structure for prizes like this, wouldn't you at least ask if it was possible to increase the prize pool by having a buddy do well too?
You guys honestly think SC2 eSport can survive with such blantant disregard for the viewers and the rest of the players? How many people would actually want to watch then?
Match fixing is never "okay" no matter, it undermines the whole competition, it becomes a farce. If the viewers arent here, then neither are the sponsors and that means you aint getting paid.
just out of the goodness of his heart so his friend would get a nice rig...Would that be ok?
I cannot believe you are even suggesting this, try to think of the actual product, the tournament they want to host, it becomes a gigantic joke as soon as someone does this.
What do you think would happen if someone did some match fixing in the NBA, UEFA or any other real sport? Fines, suspensions, scandals, and yet in eSport we should accept it becuase the guy has a golden heart?
Unbelieveable that there are people who want to defend it
No, it's not unethical to ask. However, take into account the facts of this scenario. There is a $6k Grand Prize given out to one person if he happens to dominate and win 11/18 tournaments.
Do you have link to this?
After reading Sjows post the prize doesn't sound right to me, but I'll believe it if I see it.
Personally, I'm not going to take this seriously until the tournament itself releases some kind of statement saying that matchfixing did indeed occur.
That will be quite hard seeing the tournament has not yet been played.
My bad, thought it started yesterday. But it's still doesn't change what I said really, I'm not going to take this seriously until some evidence of them actually matchfixing appears.
On December 22 2010 18:22 Impervious wrote: 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.....
What the hell?
If both work as hard as they can they improve their own chances of winning the prize. That is it. Its an individual competition. And clearly its meant to be very difficult to win the computer (possibly designed so the most likely outcome is no one gets it). Cheating to game the system at the LAN centre isn't cool. Even merely discussing the possibility of colluding is something people with low morals would do.
Its impossible to know whether or not they "asked" the LAN centre before/after it blew up into an issue, but having one of them withdraw from the tournament further solidifies their poor decision making here.
Also Sjow admitted he knows what they planned would be wrong if it was for a bigger tournament. Well newsflash, cheating or planning to cheat is still wrong regardless of the size of the tourney. Could be for $1 could be the GSL. Still scummy thing to do.
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?
It's hardly the same thing. Fixing matches in a tournament affects the other players as well. Your buddy giving you his spot for college- that involves only the two of you.
I'm really surprised about the number of people thinking collission is allright in any form, regardless of the tournament format. Collission is cheating and it doesn't matter if you're doing it to players, the audience or the tournament organisation. The idea is to play your best to win, not to fix matches to make more money than not fixing matches would bring you.
Even more surprised by the reaction of Sjow who sounds like he really doesn't see what's wrong with this and thinks it's allright because of the format!? Is he really that ignorant?
In my opinion this thread shows E-sports has a lot of growing up to do. Post a story like this on a poker form and there wouldn't even be a discussion about the fact whether collission is a form of cheating cause it's so blatantly obvious to people playing for money all the time.
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.
more like you're a below average high school student that can't get into college anyways, and is angry that the two smartest students decided to let one of them have a guarantied way into the best college that's otherwise uncertain for both of them. if you're gonna make analogies, at least think beforehand. "rofl"
On December 22 2010 18:09 VdH wrote: On December 22 2010 18:06 Kimaker wrote: This has clearly been blown out of proportion, but at the same time, come on now, spirit of competition should come first. Honor your own play, and that of those you face by always playing to your highest potential.
Honor tends to be a fool's tool nowadays in all aspects of life...
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.
On December 22 2010 18:35 VdH wrote: It's hardly the same thing. Fixing matches in a tournament affects the other players as well. Your buddy giving you his spot for college- that involves only the two of you.
It doesnt involve other players , because there wouldnt be any other players , because only morrow and sjow would be in finals . They arent blackmainling other player to quit turnament or something . Only victim would be turnament organizers , who made this stupid system for this turnament .
No, it's not unethical to ask. However, take into account the facts of this scenario. There is a $6k Grand Prize given out to one person if he happens to dominate and win 11/18 tournaments.
Do you have link to this?
After reading Sjows post the prize doesn't sound right to me, but I'll believe it if I see it.
I don't have a link from where the actual information was pulled from (probably the link in the OP?), but here's a quote from the OP
Swedish internet café holds 18 nightly events during the winter holidays. The prize payouts increase in an 11-step scale the more of the tournaments one single player wins, with the 11th win awarding a computer worth $6000.
On December 22 2010 17:32 decemberscalm wrote: [quote]I love how RIGHT after your post is an example of a competition where it is deemed acceptable. It depends on the tournament. The tournament organizers could have just as easily sayed "Yeah, ok, you two DID win against your opponents, you can just click the surrender button, its your match." But in all seriousness, the tournament would most likely count on the higher tier prizes being advertisement and bait for bigger names while still minimizing the cost of the tournament by having lower actual prize money.
Except that post RIGHT after his is talking about an entirely different situation. Chopping a prize pool heads up = fine (in poker, or in SC). Colluding to get a "frequent-winner" prize = not fine (in poker, or in SC)
I was commenting on the sweeping generalization that was made
"The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition"
This is simply wrong. I would defiantly call the horse races honorable competition, in which case third parties ARE taking bets. That is all. The spring of arguments about why it is isn't entirely unethical to set matches is there for a reason. It depends on the rules.
Consider the following: You realize you could make alot more money by forfeiting your matches against your buddy when they arise. Is it unethical to ask the tourney admins if this is allowed?
Yeah, you misunderstand what you are quoting. Winnings gained by competitors through clever and/or unlawful usage of third parties taking bets. I.e. SaviOr scandal. NOT the mere act of betting through a third party.
EDIT:
Scenario: Hey, I bet on you just now. I'll throw the match and we'll split the winnings. NOT OKAY Scenario: Hey, I bet this guy is gonna win! $100 on him. OKAY
Still, clearly sweeping generalizations. If I made the same format for this tournament and allowed team-mates to forfeit matches against their team mates, all of a sudden it becomes ethical!!! WOW! This is what happens when you apply objectivism to such a complex topic. Honorable competition is following the rules. As far as I am aware and anyone in this thread knows, Morrow and co have not broached the rules.
Sure, if it clearly states in the rules that team mates (Morrow=Mouz, Sjow=Dignitas fyi) may forfeit matches against one another, that is one thing. But that is an entirely different situation and can't be applied at all. Also, I would hardly call anything you have said in this thread objective.
Thats the point. People are putting objectivist views like fixing matches is always bad when there could be a tournament format that is ok with it. As far as we know they went to the admin and asked if they would be allowed to do it. The admin said no. The counter situation highlights that the admin could have just as easily said yes to promote people forming teams.
Yes, you are right. It is possible that in some alternate dimension, this would be OK because the only difference between our universe and the other is that match fixing is allowed. I fail to see how this is relevant at all to our universe however, where match fixing is not allowed.
This isn't some alternate universe. These are tournaments where team mates are allowed to share prize pools.
And yet here is where it is different:
Those rules do not apply to this tournament. Morrow and Sjow are not team mates. The prize pool is not fixed, it is intended to increase upon consistent performance, therefore it is immoral to increase it through illegitimate or otherwise unintended means rather than good performance (this is why EG members are not allowed to compete for the MSI notebook if they win Master's Cup).
Your entirely missing my point. The tourney admin could have just as easily said that they could forfeit to a friend to have a shot at bigger prizes. In that case it is no longer immoral. IE: No universal law saying that it is always immoral.
The bigger issue is whether or not morrow co were merely discussing the possibility or planning to do this under cover. Simply planning together to try to get the bigger prize pool and then seeing if they are allowed to do it would make them entirely in the clear. Otherwise, yeah they are being entirely unethical.
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..
WHAT.
How can people honestly think like this?
Every single form of cheating is based on the fact there is an incentive to do so. Are you really ok with a boxer throwing a match? Or a football team?
No, it's not unethical to ask. However, take into account the facts of this scenario. There is a $6k Grand Prize given out to one person if he happens to dominate and win 11/18 tournaments.
Do you have link to this?
After reading Sjows post the prize doesn't sound right to me, but I'll believe it if I see it.
Bottom prize, comp worth aprox 40k SEK, meaning around $5,6k.
Also should probably point out that the exact same structure is running for Counterstrike... And the CS-fans are ripping pretty hard at the SC2-players and community right now... Cant say i blame them when i read players trying to defend and justify this behaviour.
On December 22 2010 16:34 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I wish people would read, and then in addition to reading try to understand what they read...
I'm very glad that Sjow came in here to clear up what actually ended up happening, and my opinion of neither player has been lowered.
If anything, I think this is a result of the cafe being greedy and putting on an event which discourages competition between the best players. If they were evenly matched, and they split the tournaments 9-9, then neither would get the large prize, but if one of them forfeited only 2 or the finals of the tournaments, then one could actually attain the large prize.
The cafe put up a very good prize with the expectation that no one would realistically be able to win it. I actually find that worse than what Morrow and Sjow were planning. They simply wanted to draw more people into their cafe, make more money, and then keep the prize.
It's really a very stupid format. It's like if for the GSL you won 100,000$ 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.
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.
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Woa woa woa... if you are going to name players, atleast use their actual words and not accuse them of saying something that wasn't remotely close to what was said.
Morrow: I really need a new computer, think we could split the prize? I get the computer, you get everything else SjoW: Well, all we'd have to do is let one win once we get to the finals. ... SjoW: They're saying in the chat that it's cheating, I don't want to cheat.
I don't have screenshots, and it was last night it happened, and in swedish, so my quotes aren't 100% correct iether, but it's alot closer to the truth.
On December 22 2010 16:51 Kokujin wrote: it matters because it's a competitive environment. there was an agreement between players outside the tournament that could have changed the outcome of the tournament. the real question and the reason we are upset is not what happened but what would have happened if the public had not gotten wind of this.
same concept, using this mentality..a player should withdraw from GSL finals and split the 85k and 25k=55k each. i mean, it only affects those 2 players right? imagine how upsetting that would be
More like this, you and your teammate gets to the GSL final. Prize pool is as follows: 4-0: 100 000$ to the winner, 5 000$ to the runner up. 4-1: 50 000$ to the winner, 6 000$ to the runner up. 4-2: 20 000$ to the winner, 7 000$ to the runner up. 4-3: 10 000$ to the winner, 8 500$ to the runner up.
Why should the 2 teammates battle it out, when dominating is so much more rewarding if they decide to split the pool afterwards?
On December 22 2010 18:00 b_unnies wrote: I don't really understand the article.
So lemme get this straight, the tournament has not yet been played. Both Morrow and Sjow thinks they will both reach the finals. Regardless of who wins the finals, they will both share the prize money with each other. How the hell is that cheating or match fixing. Thats like saying when a korean wins a tournament and shares the money with his team thats match fixing?
The tournament has started, to win the grand prize, you have to win 11 out of the 18 tournaments, first one was played last night, Morrow did not participate, next one will be played tonight. (Midnight tournaments during the whole christmas holidays as I understand it). I can't remember what the prizes were, but the first 8 were fairly crap, think 9 wins gave you a small TV, 10 wins gave you a processor+mobo and 11 gave you a kickass computer.
edit: Also, if I'm not mistaken, it costs like 150kr (20$ ?) to be at the LAN. Not sure if that was for the whole 18 night stay tho.
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.
The reason why sAvior-style match fixing by gamblers is bad is not because it hurts the viewers. If the viewers don't even know about it, they in all likelihood aren't hurt at all. Who it does hurt are other gamblers, because the information disparity between those planning the match fixing and those who are not is quite large. Thus, those in the know are essentially stealing money from innocent gamblers.
Think about if sAvior had thrown his games not because he was being paid to do it by gamblers, but because he was sick, or his opponent was a good friend he wanted to see advance, or his opponent had cancer and it was his last chance to make a name of himself, or he was just bored of the game. Doesn't sound like bannable offenses does it?
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..
WHAT.
How can people honestly think like this?
Every single form of cheating is based on the fact there is an incentive to do so. Are you really ok with a boxer throwing a match? Or a football team?
It does seem strange, yes. But, basically I would've done the same if I was in their shoes. It's a stupid setup. No harm would've been done if they hadn't said anything.
I would be very interested in a poll to see whether people here would've done the same thing. I would've done it in a heart beat.
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.
On December 22 2010 18:35 VdH wrote: It's hardly the same thing. Fixing matches in a tournament affects the other players as well. Your buddy giving you his spot for college- that involves only the two of you.
How so? Fixing a match is exactly that. Predetermining the outcome. This is essentially the same as when Hwasin and Calm did it, only worse because it gets compounded on a weekly basis. They're essentially trying to bring teamwork into an individual event, which is collusion.
On top of that, the message logs and the forum responses make the situation even worse. They were trying to cover it up from fans/sponsors, and the explanations thus far have been mostly fallacious. "It's not a big tournament so it's okay." Really?
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
Woa woa woa... if you are going to name players, atleast use their actual words and not accuse them of saying something that wasn't remotely close to what was said.
Morrow: I really need a new computer, think we could split the prize? I get the computer, you get everything else SjoW: Well, all we'd have to do is let one win once we get to the finals. ... SjoW: They're saying in the chat that it's cheating, I don't want to cheat.
I don't have screenshots, and it was last night it happened, and in swedish, so my quotes aren't 100% correct iether, but it's alot closer to the truth.
On December 22 2010 16:51 Kokujin wrote: it matters because it's a competitive environment. there was an agreement between players outside the tournament that could have changed the outcome of the tournament. the real question and the reason we are upset is not what happened but what would have happened if the public had not gotten wind of this.
same concept, using this mentality..a player should withdraw from GSL finals and split the 85k and 25k=55k each. i mean, it only affects those 2 players right? imagine how upsetting that would be
More like this, you and your teammate gets to the GSL final. Prize pool is as follows: 4-0: 100 000$ to the winner, 5 000$ to the runner up. 4-1: 50 000$ to the winner, 6 000$ to the runner up. 4-2: 20 000$ to the winner, 7 000$ to the runner up. 4-3: 10 000$ to the winner, 8 500$ to the runner up.
Why should the 2 teammates battle it out, when dominating is so much more rewarding if they decide to split the pool afterwards?
On December 22 2010 18:00 b_unnies wrote: I don't really understand the article.
So lemme get this straight, the tournament has not yet been played. Both Morrow and Sjow thinks they will both reach the finals. Regardless of who wins the finals, they will both share the prize money with each other. How the hell is that cheating or match fixing. Thats like saying when a korean wins a tournament and shares the money with his team thats match fixing?
The tournament has started, to win the grand prize, you have to win 11 out of the 18 tournaments, first one was played last night, Morrow did not participate, next one will be played tonight. (Midnight tournaments during the whole christmas holidays as I understand it). I can't remember what the prizes were, but the first 8 were fairly crap, think 9 wins gave you a small TV, 10 wins gave you a processor+mobo and 11 gave you a kickass computer.
OH MY GOD THANK YOU.
More details. If your translation is correct then this is just WAY OVERBLOWN.
"Morrow: I really need a new computer, think we could split the prize? I get the computer, you get everything else SjoW: Well, all we'd have to do is let one win once we get to the finals. ... SjoW: They're saying in the chat that it's cheating, I don't want to cheat."
If its publicly discussed and they go to the organizers about it, NOTHING WRONG HAPPENED.
So much for respecting Morrow for switching to zerg from terran. Back on the dislike train, choo choo!
Do these people really need to fix matches to determine who will get the prize? Can't they donate it to the person that they want it to get and atleast give the fans a good match?
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.
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.
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.
The reason why sAvior-style match fixing by gamblers is bad is not because it hurts the viewers. If the viewers don't even know about it, they in all likelihood aren't hurt at all. Who it does hurt are other gamblers, because the information disparity between those planning the match fixing and those who are not is quite large. Thus, those in the know are essentially stealing money from innocent gamblers.
Think about if sAvior had thrown his games not because he was being paid to do it by gamblers, but because he was sick, or his opponent was a good friend he wanted to see advance, or his opponent had cancer and it was his last chance to make a name of himself, or he was just bored of the game. Doesn't sound like bannable offenses does it?
No it is not the same, this is a King of Hill style tournament where the prizes increase exponentially. Match fixing is not only unsportsmanlike but it also hurt the organisers and sponsors.
On December 22 2010 18:45 Chaosvuistje wrote: So much for respecting Morrow for switching to zerg from terran. Back on the dislike train, choo choo!
Do these people really need to fix matches to determine who will get the prize? Can't they donate it to the person that they want it to get and atleast give the fans a good match?
Did you even read anything that was in this thread at all?
On December 22 2010 18:44 VdH wrote: football teams throw matches regularly to avoid other teams in the knockout phases of competitions. They send the B-team, they play they younger players - there are many ways to do that and be *fair* about it.
This is a good point. In the US, all sports teams do a little to "throw" matches near the end of the season when they start resting regulars, or they want to train upcoming talent, or they simply want the draft pick.
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.
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.
I can't speak for the person you've quoted. But I want to make a distinction:
There are two issues. Whether it is morally right, and whether it is "legal" so to speak. For the latter case, it obviously isn't legal. What they were planning to do was wrong, in that sense. But morally, I think they weren't doing anything wrong and that the organizers should now really reconsider the format they've proposed.
Except that post RIGHT after his is talking about an entirely different situation. Chopping a prize pool heads up = fine (in poker, or in SC). Colluding to get a "frequent-winner" prize = not fine (in poker, or in SC)
I was commenting on the sweeping generalization that was made
"The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition"
This is simply wrong. I would defiantly call the horse races honorable competition, in which case third parties ARE taking bets. That is all. The spring of arguments about why it is isn't entirely unethical to set matches is there for a reason. It depends on the rules.
Consider the following: You realize you could make alot more money by forfeiting your matches against your buddy when they arise. Is it unethical to ask the tourney admins if this is allowed?
Yeah, you misunderstand what you are quoting. Winnings gained by competitors through clever and/or unlawful usage of third parties taking bets. I.e. SaviOr scandal. NOT the mere act of betting through a third party.
EDIT:
Scenario: Hey, I bet on you just now. I'll throw the match and we'll split the winnings. NOT OKAY Scenario: Hey, I bet this guy is gonna win! $100 on him. OKAY
Still, clearly sweeping generalizations. If I made the same format for this tournament and allowed team-mates to forfeit matches against their team mates, all of a sudden it becomes ethical!!! WOW! This is what happens when you apply objectivism to such a complex topic. Honorable competition is following the rules. As far as I am aware and anyone in this thread knows, Morrow and co have not broached the rules.
Sure, if it clearly states in the rules that team mates (Morrow=Mouz, Sjow=Dignitas fyi) may forfeit matches against one another, that is one thing. But that is an entirely different situation and can't be applied at all. Also, I would hardly call anything you have said in this thread objective.
Thats the point. People are putting objectivist views like fixing matches is always bad when there could be a tournament format that is ok with it. As far as we know they went to the admin and asked if they would be allowed to do it. The admin said no. The counter situation highlights that the admin could have just as easily said yes to promote people forming teams.
Yes, you are right. It is possible that in some alternate dimension, this would be OK because the only difference between our universe and the other is that match fixing is allowed. I fail to see how this is relevant at all to our universe however, where match fixing is not allowed.
This isn't some alternate universe. These are tournaments where team mates are allowed to share prize pools.
And yet here is where it is different:
Those rules do not apply to this tournament. Morrow and Sjow are not team mates. The prize pool is not fixed, it is intended to increase upon consistent performance, therefore it is immoral to increase it through illegitimate or otherwise unintended means rather than good performance (this is why EG members are not allowed to compete for the MSI notebook if they win Master's Cup).
Your entirely missing my point. The tourney admin could have just as easily said that they could forfeit to a friend to have a shot at bigger prizes. In that case it is no longer immoral. IE: No universal law saying that it is always immoral.
The bigger issue is whether or not morrow co were merely discussing the possibility or planning to do this under cover. Simply planning together to try to get the bigger prize pool and then seeing if they are allowed to do it would make them entirely in the clear. Otherwise, yeah they are being entirely unethical.
I don't see where the point stands at all, actually. Sure, the rules COULD have been different. But they're not, so why argue a moot point? Objectivism is considering a situation from all possible angles, given the angles apply to the situation. Smaller issue or no, you propose an entirely different situation that neither applies nor needs to be discussed.
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.
On December 22 2010 18:35 VdH wrote: It's hardly the same thing. Fixing matches in a tournament affects the other players as well. Your buddy giving you his spot for college- that involves only the two of you.
How so? Fixing a match is exactly that. Predetermining the outcome. This is essentially the same as when Hwasin and Calm did it, only worse because it gets compounded on a weekly basis. They're essentially trying to bring teamwork into an individual event, which is collusion.
On top of that, the message logs and the forum responses make the situation even worse. They were trying to cover it up from fans/sponsors, and the explanations thus far have been mostly fallacious. "It's not a big tournament so it's okay." Really?
The college situation isn't predetermining the outcome... If your friend lets you have his spot he will do so because he got into a better school. The process is done after the outcome has been determined. He won't just say - "you have my spot, I'll be digging ditches for the rest of my life".
On December 22 2010 18:44 VdH wrote: football teams throw matches regularly to avoid other teams in the knockout phases of competitions. They send the B-team, they play they younger players - there are many ways to do that and be *fair* about it.
This is a good point. In the US, all sports teams do a little to "throw" matches near the end of the season when they start resting regulars, or they want to train upcoming talent, or they simply want the draft pick.
Yeah. They use loopholes because that's what the setup encourages.
lol I love how they regard them as "uber top players". The only reason morrow won anything was before the reaper/terran nerfs. Since he switched over to zerg hes terrible, and now terran isnt so OP he doesnt have a leg to stand on.
As for sjow, havent really seen any of his games recently but I doubt hes much better.
On December 22 2010 18:44 VdH wrote: football teams throw matches regularly to avoid other teams in the knockout phases of competitions. They send the B-team, they play they younger players - there are many ways to do that and be *fair* about it.
Yes, and it happens in WCG group stages as well. That doesn't make it acceptable or less deceitful towards the fans.
And so the question is: should we blame this on the players (who want to win everything) or should we blame it on the setup? And try to improve it so things like this won't happen?
On December 22 2010 18:46 DND_Enkil wrote: No it is not the same, this is a King of Hill style tournament where the prizes increase exponentially. Match fixing is not only unsportsmanlike but it also hurt the organisers and sponsors.
It's not exactly the same, but it's essentially the same. SjoW and Morrow want to maximize the prize pool and split it. There isn't really a poker analogy, but say there's a tournament where if the final two players split, they each get $2m, but if they play against each other, winner gets $2.5m and the loser gets $.5m. I would not have a problem with them splitting.
I don't see how their arrangement would hurt the organizers and sponsors. Is it somehow better that SjoW isn't even playing?
On December 22 2010 18:43 domovoi wrote: It's a lot like in poker where players agree to split the remaining prize pool; happens all the time.
No, it's not at all. It would be the same if they just decided to play for the thing and split whatever they won afterwards.
Throwing matches to get a bigger pricepool has nothing to do with this and if you want to compare it to poker it's like 2 people at a table squeezing and colluding versus other players to make more money than they would on there own or when they would play normally (which is considered cheating in the poker community or in any casino in the world).
On December 22 2010 18:44 VdH wrote: football teams throw matches regularly to avoid other teams in the knockout phases of competitions. They send the B-team, they play they younger players - there are many ways to do that and be *fair* about it.
Yes, and it happens in WCG group stages as well. That doesn't make it acceptable or less deceitful towards the fans.
And so the question is: should we blame this on the players (who want to win everything) or should we blame it on the setup? And try to improve it so things like this won't happen?
On December 22 2010 18:49 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.
On a side note , imo organisers didnt want to give computer or at least leave a very small chance for someone to win it . Isnt it bad for e-sport too ? bate players with big prizes and then make worst conditiots to win them . If there was a normal format where lets say top 4 or top3 gets prizes , i doubt it would have happened.
This tournament format practically begs for the type of action Morrow and Sjow decided to do to get an edge, all ethics aside. Most pro's with a brain would do the same, but maybe not be dumb enough to speak about it in a public channel.
On December 22 2010 18:35 VdH wrote: It's hardly the same thing. Fixing matches in a tournament affects the other players as well. Your buddy giving you his spot for college- that involves only the two of you.
How so? Fixing a match is exactly that. Predetermining the outcome. This is essentially the same as when Hwasin and Calm did it, only worse because it gets compounded on a weekly basis. They're essentially trying to bring teamwork into an individual event, which is collusion.
On top of that, the message logs and the forum responses make the situation even worse. They were trying to cover it up from fans/sponsors, and the explanations thus far have been mostly fallacious. "It's not a big tournament so it's okay." Really?
The college situation isn't predetermining the outcome... If your friend lets you have his spot he will do so because he got into a better school. The process is done after the outcome has been determined. He won't just say - "you have my spot, I'll be digging ditches for the rest of my life".
Sorry, I was speaking in reference to the situation as a whole. I agree, that analogy isn't great.
On December 22 2010 18:49 N0cturnal wrote: lol I love how they regard them as "uber top players". The only reason morrow won anything was before the reaper/terran nerfs. Since he switched over to zerg hes terrible, and now terran isnt so OP he doesnt have a leg to stand on.
As for sjow, havent really seen any of his games recently but I doubt hes much better.
32 post troll rocking.
just because i have low post count doesnt mean im a troll : )
On December 22 2010 18:44 VdH wrote: football teams throw matches regularly to avoid other teams in the knockout phases of competitions. They send the B-team, they play they younger players - there are many ways to do that and be *fair* about it.
This is a good point. In the US, all sports teams do a little to "throw" matches near the end of the season when they start resting regulars, or they want to train upcoming talent, or they simply want the draft pick.
Yeah. They use loopholes because that's what the setup encourages.
The B-teamers will still try to win to get in the A-team though. It is understandable to rest your best players, if you don't really need them i think. They are in danger of getting injured, which could really hurt the team. But they don't just throw the match. They may lose, but not on purpose.
On December 22 2010 18:51 razamanaz wrote: On a side note , imo organisers didnt want to give computer or at least leave a very small chance for someone to win it . Isnt it bad for e-sport too ? bate players with big prizes and then make worst conditiots to win them . If there was a normal format where lets say top 4 or top3 gets prizes , i doubt it would have happened.
Yes, it's fucking terrible that they were doing that. But everyone seems to be overlooking it and sticking to their "moral high ground".....
On December 22 2010 18:43 domovoi wrote: It's a lot like in poker where players agree to split the remaining prize pool; happens all the time.
No, it's not at all. It would be the same if they just decided to play for the thing and split whatever they won afterwards.
Throwing matches to get a bigger pricepool has nothing to do with this and if you want to compare it to poker it's like 2 people at a table squeezing and colluding versus other players to make more money than they would on there own or when they would play normally (which is considered cheating in the poker community or in any casino in the world).
No, it's nothing like that. In the poker scenario, the other players get screwed, because they make less money than they would have. Here, nobody's getting screwed. If they both make the finals, then the other players got what they deserved.
First of all, I don't see the big deal since they both said they would not want to cheat, and both of them were talking about who would ask the Tournament Organizer if it would be ok etc. Talk about making a mountain out of a hill.
Secondly, I don't see why any match fixing would even be necessary, since this is more of a Prize Split than anything. And while prize splits might be boring to the audience, I really don't think you can do anything about it, because it should be up to the winner to do whatever he wants to with his prize; he could smash it to pieces as soon as he won it, he could give it away to his grandmother, or he could effectively "sell" it to the fellow player in the finals so that they each get 50% of the prize. The only problem with this would be that the finals would be unexciting as the players would not care enough to do their best, and as I said, not much to do about it. Hopefully the players care enough about the honor of winning so that they would show an entertaining match nevertheless, or ask them to just "bet" with a piece of the prizepool i.e. winner gets 60% and loser gets 40% or whatever.
On December 22 2010 18:44 VdH wrote: football teams throw matches regularly to avoid other teams in the knockout phases of competitions. They send the B-team, they play they younger players - there are many ways to do that and be *fair* about it.
Yes, and it happens in WCG group stages as well. That doesn't make it acceptable or less deceitful towards the fans.
And so the question is: should we blame this on the players (who want to win everything) or should we blame it on the setup? And try to improve it so things like this won't happen?
Setup, completely.
If you dont like the setup, dont join the tournament. But joining and then cheating with the argument that the setup is bad is still cheating.
On December 22 2010 18:03 decemberscalm wrote: [quote] I was commenting on the sweeping generalization that was made
"The only difference is one involves winnings from a third-party taking bets, and the other involves winnings from the tournament itself. The distinction isn't really noteworthy; neither have any place between honorable players of any competition"
This is simply wrong. I would defiantly call the horse races honorable competition, in which case third parties ARE taking bets. That is all. The spring of arguments about why it is isn't entirely unethical to set matches is there for a reason. It depends on the rules.
Consider the following: You realize you could make alot more money by forfeiting your matches against your buddy when they arise. Is it unethical to ask the tourney admins if this is allowed?
Yeah, you misunderstand what you are quoting. Winnings gained by competitors through clever and/or unlawful usage of third parties taking bets. I.e. SaviOr scandal. NOT the mere act of betting through a third party.
EDIT:
Scenario: Hey, I bet on you just now. I'll throw the match and we'll split the winnings. NOT OKAY Scenario: Hey, I bet this guy is gonna win! $100 on him. OKAY
Still, clearly sweeping generalizations. If I made the same format for this tournament and allowed team-mates to forfeit matches against their team mates, all of a sudden it becomes ethical!!! WOW! This is what happens when you apply objectivism to such a complex topic. Honorable competition is following the rules. As far as I am aware and anyone in this thread knows, Morrow and co have not broached the rules.
Sure, if it clearly states in the rules that team mates (Morrow=Mouz, Sjow=Dignitas fyi) may forfeit matches against one another, that is one thing. But that is an entirely different situation and can't be applied at all. Also, I would hardly call anything you have said in this thread objective.
Thats the point. People are putting objectivist views like fixing matches is always bad when there could be a tournament format that is ok with it. As far as we know they went to the admin and asked if they would be allowed to do it. The admin said no. The counter situation highlights that the admin could have just as easily said yes to promote people forming teams.
Yes, you are right. It is possible that in some alternate dimension, this would be OK because the only difference between our universe and the other is that match fixing is allowed. I fail to see how this is relevant at all to our universe however, where match fixing is not allowed.
This isn't some alternate universe. These are tournaments where team mates are allowed to share prize pools.
And yet here is where it is different:
Those rules do not apply to this tournament. Morrow and Sjow are not team mates. The prize pool is not fixed, it is intended to increase upon consistent performance, therefore it is immoral to increase it through illegitimate or otherwise unintended means rather than good performance (this is why EG members are not allowed to compete for the MSI notebook if they win Master's Cup).
Your entirely missing my point. The tourney admin could have just as easily said that they could forfeit to a friend to have a shot at bigger prizes. In that case it is no longer immoral. IE: No universal law saying that it is always immoral.
The bigger issue is whether or not morrow co were merely discussing the possibility or planning to do this under cover. Simply planning together to try to get the bigger prize pool and then seeing if they are allowed to do it would make them entirely in the clear. Otherwise, yeah they are being entirely unethical.
I don't see where the point stands at all, actually. Sure, the rules COULD have been different. But they're not, so why argue a moot point? Objectivism is considering a situation from all possible angles, given the angles apply to the situation. Smaller issue or no, you propose an entirely different situation that neither applies nor needs to be discussed.
It does indeed. The whole stem of this conversation was my remark about someone making broad generalizations about immorality. In this case I am referring to objectivism in the moral sense, to show how fixing matches isn't ALWAYS immoral, which many people seem to think.
On December 22 2010 18:44 VdH wrote: football teams throw matches regularly to avoid other teams in the knockout phases of competitions. They send the B-team, they play they younger players - there are many ways to do that and be *fair* about it.
Yes, and it happens in WCG group stages as well. That doesn't make it acceptable or less deceitful towards the fans.
And so the question is: should we blame this on the players (who want to win everything) or should we blame it on the setup? And try to improve it so things like this won't happen?
In most formats it's possible. You prevent it by punishing hard for it.
One key difference between this and the Colts resting Payton Manning or Stork dropping games in the group stage is that in those cases, they're doing it in order to be more competitive in the future. The Colts have a truly meaningless game and so, in order to increase Manning's performance in the playoffs, they give him rest. Stork doesn't want to face Jaedong in the finals, so he comes in #2 so that he faces him in the finals. This situation was simply agreeing who would win and get the prize.
On top of that, in these situations only one party is acting. The Colts aren't agreeing with the other team to lose, nor is Stork agreeing with White_ra and probably not even Jd that he's going to drop a game, so he doesn't face Jaedong early.
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 18:28 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?
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 18:54 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 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.
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 18:37 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 18:44 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 18:37 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".
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 18:37 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.
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 18:43 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 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 18:43 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 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:
"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 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:
"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 19:01 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.
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.
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 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.
Here's what they should do now. Both should enter the tournaments, playing as hard as they can. If after 16 games they are 8-8, then one should just drop out.
On December 22 2010 19:02 ParasitJonte wrote: 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.
This is getting more and more comical!? Now you bring in utility theory? Are you aware that two risk averse players always maximize their risk adjusted utility in case of a 50:50 win scenario, even if the prize pool is static? Sure it is more fair if one of them steps back from the tournament, if he never intended to win it, but only to make his partner win in the first place. Like this he gives the chance to a player who actually wants to compete. I would have preferred if they had both participated and tried their best, to see who actually wins. But this seems just asked too much, right?
If you want to cheat, don't be stupid enough to stream it to the whole world. Don't ask the officials if you can cheat, pleeeease?
Players will always cheat in one way or another. Sure it's immoral and everything, but you can't really stop it. So nobody cares, really.
If you get cought, you deserve every flame, BM and negative PR you get. Because you were stupid enough to actually get caught. And let's be honest here, none of us would've probably even heard of this tournament if it wasn't for this.
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.
Speaking of tournament systems that set up and even potentially reward unethical play, is anyone else worried about the GSL format as well?
The fact that there are teams like oGs that have multiple players in each group during the group stages could pose a problem. Hypothetically if there are 2 oGs players in one group and one player has already clinched qualification for the next round- don't you think the guy who clinched would give his teammate a free win when they played? I don't know if precautions have already been instated to prevent this, but that could be bad, in my opinion
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.
Doesn't make it any less unprofessional. Should athletes and sports teams be allowed to fix matches if there are no spectators (i.e football teams playing behind closed doors as punishment)?
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.
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.
I dont really care much tbh - matchfixing is only a problem so far as if you have money riding on the tournament - and since this is SC2, you really dont. There are no odds to be cheated.. Only person who loses anything of real value is the person agreeing to lose.
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.
On December 22 2010 19:02 ParasitJonte wrote: 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.
This is getting more and more comical!? Now you bring in utility theory? Are you aware that two risk averse players always maximize their risk adjusted utility in case of a 50:50 win scenario, even if the prize pool is static? Sure it is more fair if one of them steps back from the tournament, if he never intended to win it, but only to make his partner win in the first place. Like this he gives the chance to a player who actually wants to compete. I would have preferred if they had both participated and tried their best, to see who actually wins. But this seems just asked too much, right?
Yeah I actually do think it's asking too much (I don't know much about utility theory and what not so I can't comment on that).
I think this quote is the best I have seen in this entire thread:
Here's what they should do now. Both should enter the tournaments, playing as hard as they can. If after 16 games they are 8-8, then one should just drop out.
Edit: excepts it's off by one game LoL ! Should be after 14 games I guess.
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.
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.
Doesn't make it any less unprofessional. Should athletes and sports teams be allowed to fix matches if there are no spectators (i.e football teams playing behind closed doors as punishment)?
Oh, my apologies, that was directed to the quote above the one I quoted saying about how the his only complain is taking away good games from the viewers.
A response to the one I originally quoted about it being unprofressional. If its in the rules and they have a higher chance of getting a better prize, what is tainted or unprofessional about that? If its in the rules, every player whos got a buddy in the tourney would be doing the same thing in their situation and noone would criticize their professionalism.
On December 22 2010 19:21 joban wrote: Speaking of tournament systems that set up and even potentially reward unethical play, is anyone else worried about the GSL format as well?
The fact that there are teams like oGs that have multiple players in each group during the group stages could pose a problem. Hypothetically if there are 2 oGs players in one group and one player has already clinched qualification for the next round- don't you think the guy who clinched would give his teammate a free win when they played? I don't know if precautions have already been instated to prevent this, but that could be bad, in my opinion
Yeah, that does seem an issue. The solution would be to have two oGs and two Primes in a group, or however you want to structure it. Or maybe four oGs but that's a little extreme.
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.
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.
Wait, what the fuck? You best be trolling.
I don't think he was. I just think the internet hit another new low !
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.
On December 22 2010 19:18 domovoi wrote: Here's what they should do now. Both should enter the tournaments, playing as hard as they can. If after 16 games they are 8-8, then one should just drop out.
Your numbers are off. If they go 8-8 after 16, the other can win the other two and get 10 wins, but not the required 11 for the computer.
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.
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.
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 19:24 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.
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
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
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 19:05 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.
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.
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 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.
On December 22 2010 19:48 Luvz wrote: 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.
Because, effectively, the tournament organizers are cheap.
On December 22 2010 19:48 Luvz wrote: 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.
Because, effectively, the tournament organizers are cheap.
I dont see you sponsoring tournaments and a 6k computer..
I think everyone is blowing this out of proportion. They just want to share the prize, I wouldn't think they would just lie down at the start of their games and let the other player win.
On December 22 2010 19:38 dakalro wrote: 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.
You make it sound as if they have anything better to do than play StarCraft 2 anyway. If I can choose what the first place award is - 50 USD or 6k USD PC, guess what I'm going to choose. Those evil tournament organizers, giving PC's for free. How dare they.
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..
Indeed, the number of idiots is astounding.
You know what? I think everyone who participates in this tournament except SjoW and MorroW must gather together and let one guy win 11 games. Then they all share the price. Lets see if matchfixing is ok for SjoW and MorroW then. I bet they are gonna be the first one to cry like babies.
On December 22 2010 19:48 Luvz wrote: 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.
Because, effectively, the tournament organizers are cheap.
I dont see you sponsoring tournaments and a 6k computer..
I don't see me with sponsors offering me money and a 6k computer. Really, if the tournament organizers were honest, they'd just have a collection of 18 small tournaments or whatever, then one big one for the 6k computer.
On December 22 2010 19:38 dakalro wrote: 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.
So organizers should just lower the prize pool and just take away any possible prizes? Will that make you happy?
They offer a very good prize, and all you can do is complain?
They clearly state that the computer will be given away if someone can win 11 of 18 tournaments. I think everybody knows that winning 11 of 18 is a very hard task. You are acting like they pulled some kind of bait-and-switch when the prize and winning conditions are clearly stated.
The only victims here are people who are the victims of their own stupidity. If someone thought winning 11 of 18 tournaments would be easy, that is their own dumb fault.
poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
Perhaps I should sign up for the idra fanclub afterall :o!
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
I have read Sjow's posts + the article and i don't think this is really matchifixing or cheating especially if they asked the tournament about it.
By asking the tournament organizers , that also means that they are not gaming the system and ensuring that the final games are legitimate.
Now that only one of them will participate, this is basically the same as what they had planned in the beginning except that probably another finalist will face sjow or morrow in the final.
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
So you're trying to say that they should just grab the opportunity and don't give a fuck what the others are saying here or it's more of a flaw design with the system and there is nothing unethical with "matchfixing" for the prize?
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
Yeah, kind of like EG Masters. Imagine you were to compete with iNcontrol or someone else in the team. It must be hard for the audience to not think its a fixed game if they win the laptop.
Anyway, some tournaments are made up like this, this community should be able to handle it without turning to fraudulence
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
You picking all the map for EG masters laptop series is any diffrent? ;-P
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.
Oh, I understand that. Here's a post from me earlier:
On December 22 2010 18:02 Askesis wrote: What's funniest about this is that now they appear to be doing what they should have been doing all along.
If those two are clearly so much better than everybody else that both of them are pretty much a lock for the finals of every tournament, they should just have one of them play and clean up and have the other one not participate in the tournament at all. That way, they get their big prize, and in no way can be accused of match-fixing.
So the house loses the prize just like they would have anyway, but at least now they don't have a fixed final match in all 18 tournaments.
On December 22 2010 19:38 dakalro wrote: 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.
So organizers should just lower the prize pool and just take away any possible prizes? Will that make you happy?
They offer a very good prize, and all you can do is complain?
They clearly state that the computer will be given away if someone can win 11 of 18 tournaments. I think everybody knows that winning 11 of 18 is a very hard task. You are acting like they pulled some kind of bait-and-switch when the prize and winning conditions are clearly stated.
The only victims here are people who are the victims of their own stupidity. If someone thought winning 11 of 18 tournaments would be easy, that is their own dumb fault.
There is no prize pool, it was never intended to give the 4k PC away, it's there just for show, to attract the 2 pros and a ton of idiot customers. That's the entire point of it. Put on the huge fireworks show, present some huge diamond to attract the crowd, get the money and run, no actual cost for it.
It may not be bait and switch exactly but it's damn close to it, chances of someone winning 11/18 with 2 huge favorites and chance that they would lose 1-2 finals are so small it's worth the risk. How do you think casinos make money?
Think about it this way. The chance that one of them would get the PC at even skill is once every 2k+ tournaments like this .......................................................
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
You picking all the map for EG masters laptop series is any diffrent? ;-P
that makes no sense at all, but if they wanna come play on korea and choose the maps thats fine with me
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
Why would you support match fixing? Even if it has a practical purpose, say gaming a system to get a computer, why would you want to support players not playing to the best of their ability? Would you have let qxc win the laptop this past weekend if he offered you $600? I mean, if he could game the system like that, it's win/win right?
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
Yeah, kind of like EG Masters. Imagine you were to compete with iNcontrol or someone else in the team. It must be hard for the audience to not think its a fixed game if they win the laptop.
Anyway, some tournaments are made up like this, this community should be able to handle it without turning to fraudulence
As far as I know EG members do not get to compete with Idra for the laptop when winning the finals.
Simply changing the rule to "the player with most tournament wins in a year gets the pc" would have solved the issue already.
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
You picking all the map for EG masters laptop series is any diffrent? ;-P
Poor poor qxc. He's one of the few foreigners that can take games off IdrA too. . .
Anyways, it would be fun if Jinro or Haypro showed up for the tournaments after reading this and took all the prizes and the computer just because they can. =D
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
Yeah, kind of like EG Masters. Imagine you were to compete with iNcontrol or someone else in the team. It must be hard for the audience to not think its a fixed game if they win the laptop.
Anyway, some tournaments are made up like this, this community should be able to handle it without turning to fraudulence
which is probably why if an EG member wins the EG finals they do not compete with Idra for the laptop?
nice try though
Oh, i didn't know that rule, makes a bunch of sense.
In a later article, rakaka got in touch with Inferno Online's owner Anton "Budak" Budak, who had the following to say: "No throwaway games, the slightest suspicion and they'll be banned for life". He added: "I decide, and nothing unsportsmanlike is allowed".
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
I agree that the tournament setup is bad, but you are actually condoning and encouraging match-fixing?
Just because the opportunity is right there in front of them doesn't mean that they should take it. Because the structure can make cheating tempting, then it is alright to cheat?
It just amazes me that a significant amount of people don't seem to realize that they're still going ahead as planned, just with a slightly different strategy. Somehow, that new strategy doesn't seem as offensive to people.
That's why people crying "terrible!", "cheaters!" and so on can't be taken seriously. Because they're being hypocritical without even realizing it.
On December 22 2010 19:38 dakalro wrote: 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.
So organizers should just lower the prize pool and just take away any possible prizes? Will that make you happy?
They offer a very good prize, and all you can do is complain?
They clearly state that the computer will be given away if someone can win 11 of 18 tournaments. I think everybody knows that winning 11 of 18 is a very hard task. You are acting like they pulled some kind of bait-and-switch when the prize and winning conditions are clearly stated.
The only victims here are people who are the victims of their own stupidity. If someone thought winning 11 of 18 tournaments would be easy, that is their own dumb fault.
There is no prize pool, it was never intended to give the 4k PC away, it's there just for show, to attract the 2 pros and a ton of idiot customers. That's the entire point of it. Put on the huge fireworks show, present some huge diamond to attract the crowd, get the money and run, no actual cost for it.
It may not be bait and switch exactly but it's damn close to it, chances of someone winning 11/18 with 2 huge favorites and chance that they would lose 1-2 finals are so small it's worth the risk. How do you think casinos make money?
They have the setup out in the open for everyone to see, if they win 11/18 tournaments they get the PC. Pretty clear imo.
It is not like if Morrow plays and legitimatly wins 11 times he wont get the PC.
Is it a "bait"-prize? Yeah ofc, just as all King of the Hill tournaments are, they reward one player dominating others. That is the setup of KotH-tournaments/competitions. Everyone knows this! I dont see you going into Gisados KotH-stream thread and start whining about it being to hard to win the max prize and it is unfair to the players just a bait.
Setup is KotH. Dont like the setup? Dont play the tournament!
Based on their excuses they can matchfix all they want. But it's going to make me and I'd imagine a lot of others less interested and respectful of them as players. No ones interested in watching you or hearing about you earning money, they want to see Starcraft.
On December 22 2010 20:11 Tone_ wrote: Based on their excuses they can matchfix all they want. But it's going to make me and I'd imagine a lot of others less interested and respectful of them as players. No ones interested in watching you or hearing about you earning money, they want to see Starcraft.
This is why the thread title needs to be changed. The tournament hasn't even started yet. It is horribly skewed.
On December 22 2010 20:09 ParasitJonte wrote: It just amazes me that a significant amount of people don't seem to realize that they're still going ahead as planned, just with a slightly different strategy. Somehow, that new strategy doesn't seem as offensive to people.
That's why people crying "terrible!", "cheaters!" and so on can't be taken seriously. Because they're being hypocritical without even realizing it.
I belive now only one player will play in the tournament?
Do not see how that is slightly different or hypocritical.
One player winning by himself just normally is one thing. Two players working together in a 1vs1 tournament, throwing matches in order to ramp up the prize ladder is something completely different.
You could say that instead of facing Sjow in the finals now Morrow will face someone else he will just dominate and in the end it will still be 11 wins for him, but one setup is fine and well within the rules, the other is not. It is like saying it is okay for a athlete to use steriods since he would win anyways so end results would be the same.
The difference is not the end result, it is fair play.
Thats something completly different than the thing happend in korea.
There is no betting involved.
Its obviously not accectable if anything like this happens in another scenario, but both make it into the final the legit way, then why not give morrow the fucking computer if sjow doesnt need it?
Dimaga and Dimuslim did it serveral times when they faced each other in the finals. Sometimes they swapped races and I bet they shared the pricemoney. Nobody complained.
So nobody of you should really complain. The only guys allowed to complain are touramentorganizers. If they ban them for not playing 100% then its fine, because it takes away the attractiveness of their cups and finals.
On December 22 2010 20:09 ParasitJonte wrote: It just amazes me that a significant amount of people don't seem to realize that they're still going ahead as planned, just with a slightly different strategy. Somehow, that new strategy doesn't seem as offensive to people.
That's why people crying "terrible!", "cheaters!" and so on can't be taken seriously. Because they're being hypocritical without even realizing it.
Cause now this new strategy isn't matchfixing. There will not be any throw down games. If he wins by playing with other players that aren't "helping" him with wining thats ok
I'm sure that this was explained poorly somewhere, but it sounds as if this magical grand prize doesn't get delivered unless someone meets some kind messed up condition beyond being first ... ?
On December 22 2010 20:11 Tone_ wrote: Based on their excuses they can matchfix all they want. But it's going to make me and I'd imagine a lot of others less interested and respectful of them as players. No ones interested in watching you or hearing about you earning money, they want to see Starcraft.
This is why the thread title needs to be changed. The tournament hasn't even started yet. It is horribly skewed.
Well if they do this now, and don't even try to hide it from the stream(!), there's no doubt it could be just an everyday thing for them. I don't see their (sjows) answers as like they did anything wrong or even thought it was wrong.
So let's say my country removed the law for stealing, does that mean that i can now go rob every person i know? No, I still think it's morally wrong, and i don't need a law to tell me that. Saying that it's the tournaments fault is just morally questionable in my mind.
Does anyone know what the actual computer they're competing for is? I've been searching around and can't for the life of me find it, even on the IOL Page.
On December 22 2010 19:38 dakalro wrote: 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.
So organizers should just lower the prize pool and just take away any possible prizes? Will that make you happy?
They offer a very good prize, and all you can do is complain?
They clearly state that the computer will be given away if someone can win 11 of 18 tournaments. I think everybody knows that winning 11 of 18 is a very hard task. You are acting like they pulled some kind of bait-and-switch when the prize and winning conditions are clearly stated.
The only victims here are people who are the victims of their own stupidity. If someone thought winning 11 of 18 tournaments would be easy, that is their own dumb fault.
There is no prize pool, it was never intended to give the 4k PC away, it's there just for show, to attract the 2 pros and a ton of idiot customers. That's the entire point of it. Put on the huge fireworks show, present some huge diamond to attract the crowd, get the money and run, no actual cost for it.
It may not be bait and switch exactly but it's damn close to it, chances of someone winning 11/18 with 2 huge favorites and chance that they would lose 1-2 finals are so small it's worth the risk. How do you think casinos make money?
Think about it this way. The chance that one of them would get the PC at even skill is once every 2k+ tournaments like this .......................................................
First of all, you are acting like the 6k computer is the only prize, and that if you don't win 11 of the 18 tournaments, you don't get anything. This isn't true, but even if it was, SO WHAT?
That's the way they structured the tournament, that's the way they advertised it, and everybody knows what to expect. If you want to play in the tournament, do it. If you don't feel the format is worth it, then don't play in them.
Where does it come into play that players have the right to cheat the tournament because they don't like the structure? This is a tournament that they are voluntarily playing. People have this sense of entitlement when they really aren't owed a damn thing.
And casinos make money because of math. They have a slight edge in all of their games, so even though many times people will walk out of the casino winners on the night, the casino will always win in the long run. However, I'm not quite sure what that has to do with this thread, to be honest.
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
Why would you support match fixing? Even if it has a practical purpose, say gaming a system to get a computer, why would you want to support players not playing to the best of their ability? Would you have let qxc win the laptop this past weekend if he offered you $600? I mean, if he could game the system like that, it's win/win right?
Why would a player make such a suggestion before playing the match though? If he wins he'll get the laptop for free. If he loses, he can then ask if he can buy it. Nothing strange there.
This situation is a bit different, though IOL only have themselves to blame for setting up a system like this.
On December 22 2010 20:06 Subversion wrote: Adding this to OP:
In a later article, rakaka got in touch with Inferno Online's owner Anton "Budak" Budak, who had the following to say: "No throwaway games, the slightest suspicion and they'll be banned for life". He added: "I decide, and nothing unsportsmanlike is allowed".
Heh, that was just a text message convo, not exactly a serious official statement -- "slightest suspicion->banned 4 life" should give it away :D
Budak also added in the comments field: "but what a news item, hahaha starting to like rakaka" and later "it was a pr coup :D"
On December 22 2010 20:22 KonohaFlash wrote: Does anyone know what the actual computer they're competing for is? I've been searching around and can't for the life of me find it, even on the IOL Page.
Unlike other types of matchfixing I think I'm okay with this one. If they both went 100% into it and got 50-50 on the results then neither would end up getting the prize. This way they're guaranteeing that at least one of them gets the prize for all their hard work. The tournament structure is flawed in that they have to do this just to get the prize instead of making it so that whoever wins majority of the daily tournaments get the prize.
On December 22 2010 20:09 ParasitJonte wrote: It just amazes me that a significant amount of people don't seem to realize that they're still going ahead as planned, just with a slightly different strategy. Somehow, that new strategy doesn't seem as offensive to people.
That's why people crying "terrible!", "cheaters!" and so on can't be taken seriously. Because they're being hypocritical without even realizing it.
What do you want us to do? Call them cheaters because Morrow isn't playing, opening the door for Sjow to take them all? I mean, we all know what's going on, but what can we do? People are getting flamed for calling them cheaters for trying to match-fix, yet you want people to call them cheaters for Morrow not playing in the tourny?
But wouldn't the same thing also apply to every good player who is not participating in the tournament?
On December 22 2010 20:25 Mintastic wrote: Unlike other types of matchfixing I think I'm okay with this one. If they both went 100% into it and got 50-50 on the results then neither would end up getting the prize. This way they're guaranteeing that at least one of them gets the prize for all their hard work. The tournament structure is flawed in that they have to do this just to get the prize instead of making it so that whoever wins majority of the daily tournaments get the prize.
The structure isn't flawed. That's the way it is intended. Yes, they are "guaranteeing" that at least one of them gets that prize by cheating the system. THAT is the problem!
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
Wow. Blows my mind that you support match fixing to the point where its stupid not to if you can.
On December 22 2010 20:19 Defacer wrote: I'm sure that this was explained poorly somewhere, but it sounds as if this magical grand prize doesn't get delivered unless someone meets some kind messed up condition beyond being first ... ?
Each night for 18 nights there is a tournament. If you win the tournament one night you get a prize. If you win another night you go up in the prize ladder and get a better prize for the second win. And so on. So if you win the tournament 7 times you would get 7 prizes, each slightly better than the previous one.
The biggest prize is for winning 11 tournaments. This would be quite a feat.
Also that means that if two players meet in the finals 10 times and normally would go roughly 50% against each other they would both get prizes 1-5. If one players agrees to throw all final games the other player would get prizes 1-10 (worth a lot more cash than two sets of prizes ranging 1-5). That was what Morrow and Sjow wanted to do and then share the prizes between them.
This is really disappointing. I'm not sure which hurts me worse, this or the Korean scandal but it just shows that integrity is a rare thing these days, and true competition suffers because of the scandalous deeds of a few inconsiderate people.
Tournament organizers should stick to formats which can't be abused. There is a reason last group stage matches in FIFA Worlcup are at the same time (to avoid another "Shame of Gijón" - Germany and Austria both advanced if germany won 1-0 but not higher - and that is was happened, they were obviously not punished for it because it was not against any rules). The Alternative is to just allow this things officially to happen (see Formula 1).
What Morrow and Sjow did might have been morally wrong from some standpoints but if they really asked the admins before if this was okay (which the admins said it wasn't) and then decided to change their strategy to something which is inside the rules of the tournament I don't see what they did wrong. There should never be Thoughtcrime.
from what I've read, if either plays individually, without the other competing, his chances of winning are extremely high
however, if they both compete, the chances of winning are virtually nothing
an 18 tournament scheme is a very long endeavor to walk away empty handed
the two both wish to compete, and try to think of a way to do so without screwing each other they ask the tournament officials if their plan is viable, officials say no once they realize that it is unviable to do so, one drops out to let the other win
condeming them for cheating is irrational/illogical to continue with the theft metaphor, this is more along the lines of approaching someone and asking "hey is it ok if I steal from you? ... No? ... Ok, no big deal, I'll be leaving now."
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
Wow. Blows my mind that you support match fixing to the point where its stupid not to if you can.
Same here, i thought you had higher standards. Guess i was wrong.
If a tournament structure sucks you shouldn't play it. If you're better than anyone else you should crush it and win.
You shouldn't throw matches to get an advantage, that's cheating.
On December 22 2010 20:37 peachsncream wrote: I don't understand why everybody gets so upset about this... honestly it isn't a big deal.
i think you dont get it. Its not that they share winnings. they planned to are artifically boost the number of won torunaments to get better bonus prices, by forfeting in the other finals. It would be like first tournament final Morrow vs Sjow. Sjow wins. Next final would be the same (at least that is what Morrow and Sjow were thinking) and you would know the winner before thay play. Sjow would win yet again ^^
On December 22 2010 20:34 TBO wrote: Tournament organizers should stick to formats which can't be abused. There is a reason last group stage matches in FIFA Worlcup are at the same time (to avoid another "Shame of Gijón" - Germany and Austria both advanced if germany won 1-0 but not higher - and that is was happened, they were obviously not punished for it because it was not against any rules). The Alternative is to just allow this things officially to happen (see Formula 1).
What Morrow and Sjow did might have been morally wrong from some standpoints but if they really asked the admins before if this way okay (which the admins said it wasn't) and then decided to change their strategy to something which is inside the rules of the tournament I don't see what they did wrong. There should never be Thoughtcrime.
This, in a nutshell.
I wish people would just chill out instead of going on a self righteous forum quest every time a pro gamer or anybody remotely well-known doesn't satisfy their "moral standards". Internet communities nowadays. =/
What sickens me the most is how SjoW refuses to believe he's acting wrong by going through with this. After all discussions at IRC, at rakaka and here at TL he still doesn't understand that he's abusing Inferno Online's promotion by making it much easier to secure a prize which is not supposed to be easy to reach. He's also ignoring the fact that if a third skilled player would show up aiming at winning as many tournaments as possible, he wouldn't compete on the same terms as Sjow and MorroW when they agree on not giving each other a fight for it but instead lose to each other, especiall during later stages of the tournament while they give their best versus a supposed third player. Besides them having a much easier way to getting all those 11 tournament wins...
I guess MorroW didn't think what him and Sjow were doing was necessarily bad considering he actually had the balls to discuss their plan whilst streaming.
On December 22 2010 20:36 Askesis wrote: So, most importantly, did Sjow win the first tournament?
It would be funny if after "being a lock for the finals in all 18", he didn't win the first one.
Someone wrote somewhere in this thread that neither of them played in the first one.
Oh? I thought I had read that only one (Sjow) competed.
If neither competed, i think it's a bit suspicious. Why would they go from trying to cooperate to run through the easy field, and then in response have NEITHER of them play? I figured one of them dropped out in order for the other to have an easy run through the gauntlet. If both of them dropped out, then....well, I would not think they would both voluntarily sit out of this easy-field tournament for a very significant grand prize, let's put it that way.
Im a safe guy, I wouldve never let the stream run. I have to say it doesn't sound that bad after I read it. Pretty much because I can actually understand why. If someone could win a prize they wouldve just played. But there's all these restrictions to it. Being they are pro, spend a lot of time playing, they wanna make sure they can profit from playing, otherwise they might say, well its not worth my time (as indicated by one of the comments to have only 1 person play). So I feel the system is set up really poorly however if only one couldve won they shouldve just decided that only one of them was gonna play.
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
Wow. Blows my mind that you support match fixing to the point where its stupid not to if you can.
Same here, i thought you had higher standards. Guess i was wrong.
If a tournament structure sucks you shouldn't play it. If you're better than anyone else you should crush it and win.
You shouldn't throw matches to get an advantage, that's cheating.
I dont think IdrA meant to say he supported match fixing at all, i feel the same way, if you can control the outcome itd be stupid not to, esp with the way this tournament is set up.
Just because i think its stupid not to, doesnt mean i support match fixing.
I dont know if IdrA is in the same boat as me, but i dont think he meant to say he supports match fixing.
On December 22 2010 20:19 Defacer wrote: I'm sure that this was explained poorly somewhere, but it sounds as if this magical grand prize doesn't get delivered unless someone meets some kind messed up condition beyond being first ... ?
Each night for 18 nights there is a tournament. If you win the tournament one night you get a prize. If you win another night you go up in the prize ladder and get a better prize for the second win. And so on. So if you win the tournament 7 times you would get 7 prizes, each slightly better than the previous one.
The biggest prize is for winning 11 tournaments. This would be quite a feat.
Also that means that if two players meet in the finals 10 times and normally would go roughly 50% against each other they would both get prizes 1-5. If one players agrees to throw all final games the other player would get prizes 1-10 (worth a lot more cash than two sets of prizes ranging 1-5). That was what Morrow and Sjow wanted to do and then share the prizes between them.
Ah, there's the sight. I'll summarize the prices...
# of wins - Price
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: Warroirs 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€)
And it says it costs 130kr (13€) to enter the tournament, it does not clarify if that's for all 18 tournaments, or if it's for each tournament. (Normal price is 2€ per hour). So the tournament isn't free to enter iether.
edit: so in my opinion. not until you get 8 wins you get something of actual value. Price 2-4, I already have mousepad, headphones and keyboard I'm happy with and don't plan to switch, 5-7 are games I probably wouldn't play even if I got them for free.
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
Why would you support match fixing? Even if it has a practical purpose, say gaming a system to get a computer, why would you want to support players not playing to the best of their ability? Would you have let qxc win the laptop this past weekend if he offered you $600? I mean, if he could game the system like that, it's win/win right?
Why would a player make such a suggestion before playing the match though? If he wins he'll get the laptop for free. If he loses, he can then ask if he can buy it. Nothing strange there.
I was specifically referring to IdrA and the EG Master's Cup this weekend. If IdrA won the show match, no one got the laptop. If qxc won, he got a laptop. So my question still stands. If qxc offered $600 to win the $1600 (I believe that was the price) laptop, would IdrA have accepted?
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
Wow. Blows my mind that you support match fixing to the point where its stupid not to if you can.
You're raping face and helping out a friend? Who wouldn't agree to that? seriously. Are your feelings hurt cause they want to share something ?
On December 22 2010 20:43 Sorkoas wrote: What sickens me the most is how SjoW refuses to believe he's acting wrong by going through with this. After all discussions at IRC, at rakaka and here at TL he still doesn't understand that he's abusing Inferno Online's promotion by making it much easier to secure a prize which is not supposed to be easy to reach. He's also ignoring the fact that if a third skilled player would show up aiming at winning as many tournaments as possible, he wouldn't compete on the same terms as Sjow and MorroW when they agree on not giving each other a fight for it but instead lose to each other, especiall during later stages of the tournament while they give their best versus a supposed third player. Besides them having a much easier way to getting all those 11 tournament wins...
While I agree what they did/wanted to do is wrong, its dosent effect the other players (3rd)..
Dont this kind of deal happend in poker alot? Two player going heads up and just shaking hands on splitting the 1st and 2nd price equally between each other and just folding the hand ending the tournament.
TBH, who cares? The tournament format is VERY open to stuff like this, why be surprised that they want to earn money and a computer. Instead of just going away with a few bucks each they both can get alot more by just "tweaking" their play abit.
Im not surprised, nor upset. I blame the tournament, not the players.
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
Why would you support match fixing? Even if it has a practical purpose, say gaming a system to get a computer, why would you want to support players not playing to the best of their ability? Would you have let qxc win the laptop this past weekend if he offered you $600? I mean, if he could game the system like that, it's win/win right?
Why would a player make such a suggestion before playing the match though? If he wins he'll get the laptop for free. If he loses, he can then ask if he can buy it. Nothing strange there.
I was specifically referring to IdrA and the EG Master's Cup this weekend. If IdrA won the show match, no one got the laptop. If qxc won, he got a laptop. So my question still stands. If qxc offered $600 to win the $1600 (I believe that was the price) laptop, would IdrA have accepted?
No lol i mean if he did i would be very suprised that he would "risk" his carrier and other things, his Honour and pride his dignity... these are worth a shit lot more then 600 dollars buddy... Well to some of us anyway
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
Why would you support match fixing? Even if it has a practical purpose, say gaming a system to get a computer, why would you want to support players not playing to the best of their ability? Would you have let qxc win the laptop this past weekend if he offered you $600? I mean, if he could game the system like that, it's win/win right?
Why would a player make such a suggestion before playing the match though? If he wins he'll get the laptop for free. If he loses, he can then ask if he can buy it. Nothing strange there.
I was specifically referring to IdrA and the EG Master's Cup this weekend. If IdrA won the show match, no one got the laptop. If qxc won, he got a laptop. So my question still stands. If qxc offered $600 to win the $1600 (I believe that was the price) laptop, would IdrA have accepted?
It's not fixing, its just splitting the prize. Bit like when you get to final table at poker and you agree to split the pot. It's a thread full of nothings. What a waste of time
After reading (the whole thread) I'd started to write another post explaining how the LAN/tournament is set up, how the players' scheme would be beneficial, and how it was kindof a moot point now that they've decided against it...
...but no one would read that. I don't even know what page this response will show up on. Quite a few spiteful posters on here, openly calling these players "scum" and all that.
EDIT: The hypothetical situation where qxc offers IdrA $$ in exchange for the laptop is laughable because IdrA throwing that game would likely have far-reaching repercussions regarding his sponsorship and his personal image. (Askesis...lol. Just lol.)
On December 22 2010 20:43 Sorkoas wrote: What sickens me the most is how SjoW refuses to believe he's acting wrong by going through with this. After all discussions at IRC, at rakaka and here at TL he still doesn't understand that he's abusing Inferno Online's promotion by making it much easier to secure a prize which is not supposed to be easy to reach. He's also ignoring the fact that if a third skilled player would show up aiming at winning as many tournaments as possible, he wouldn't compete on the same terms as Sjow and MorroW when they agree on not giving each other a fight for it but instead lose to each other, especiall during later stages of the tournament while they give their best versus a supposed third player. Besides them having a much easier way to getting all those 11 tournament wins...
While I agree what they did/wanted to do is wrong, its dosent effect the other players (3rd)..
Sure it does - if I wanted to win this thing I would have to defeat both Morrow and Sjow. They themselves don't have to really "beat" each other.
Hope they get punished. If they aren't kicked out of that weekly tournament stuff it would be a damn shame.
Match fixing, cheating and so on. It all has to be punished hard and oh boy does that shit make me angry. Everyone who supports this or doesn't consider this to be any harmful at all needs a brain surgery.
Of course that all depends on whether this is true but it seems to be the case 100%.
On December 22 2010 20:53 Na_Dann_Ma_GoGo wrote: Hope they get punished. If they aren't kicked out of that weekly tournament stuff it would be a damn shame.
Match fixing, cheating and so on. It all has to be punished hard and oh boy does that shit make me angry. Everyone who supports this or doesn't consider this to be any harmful at all needs a brain surgery.
Of course that all depends on whether this is true but it seems to be the case 100%.
Your wrong... they havent been match fixing get your facts right....
Yes they were talking about it but thats hardly the same as doing it.
On December 22 2010 20:50 Eka wrote: Dont this kind of deal happend in poker alot? Two player going heads up and just shaking hands on splitting the 1st and 2nd price equally between each other and just folding the hand ending the tournament.
TBH, who cares? The tournament format is VERY open to stuff like this, why be surprised that they want to earn money and a computer. Instead of just going away with a few bucks each they both can get alot more by just "tweaking" their play abit.
Im not surprised, nor upset. I blame the tournament, not the players.
No, this thing does not happen in poker regularly. It's strictly prohibited.
So I mean, how can we be mad at burglars either? Why be surprised that they want to acquire money, televisions, and a computer, instead of working minimum wage for a few bucks? They can get a lot more by just "tweaking" their employment a bit,
See what I did there?
It's not the thieves fault! It's the homeowners's fault for having valuables in the house!
On December 22 2010 20:43 Sorkoas wrote: What sickens me the most is how SjoW refuses to believe he's acting wrong by going through with this. After all discussions at IRC, at rakaka and here at TL he still doesn't understand that he's abusing Inferno Online's promotion by making it much easier to secure a prize which is not supposed to be easy to reach. He's also ignoring the fact that if a third skilled player would show up aiming at winning as many tournaments as possible, he wouldn't compete on the same terms as Sjow and MorroW when they agree on not giving each other a fight for it but instead lose to each other, especiall during later stages of the tournament while they give their best versus a supposed third player. Besides them having a much easier way to getting all those 11 tournament wins...
While I agree what they did/wanted to do is wrong, its dosent effect the other players (3rd)..
Sure it does - if I wanted to win this thing I would have to defeat both Morrow and Sjow. They themselves don't have to really "beat" each other.
no, because regardless of whether they match fix or not, no one is going to beat them. if they match fix, youre 3rd, if they dont match fix, youre 3rd.
On December 22 2010 20:43 Sorkoas wrote: What sickens me the most is how SjoW refuses to believe he's acting wrong by going through with this. After all discussions at IRC, at rakaka and here at TL he still doesn't understand that he's abusing Inferno Online's promotion by making it much easier to secure a prize which is not supposed to be easy to reach. He's also ignoring the fact that if a third skilled player would show up aiming at winning as many tournaments as possible, he wouldn't compete on the same terms as Sjow and MorroW when they agree on not giving each other a fight for it but instead lose to each other, especiall during later stages of the tournament while they give their best versus a supposed third player. Besides them having a much easier way to getting all those 11 tournament wins...
While I agree what they did/wanted to do is wrong, its dosent effect the other players (3rd)..
Sure it does - if I want to win this thing I have to defeat both Morrow and Sjow. They themselves don't have to really "beat" each other.
Exactly more cry babies attacking the comradeship of top players that deserve reward for their work, ie beating challengers.
On December 22 2010 20:48 alexpnd wrote: You're raping face and helping out a friend? Who wouldn't agree to that? seriously. Are your feelings hurt cause they want to share something ?
No my feelings arent hurt. I just know if I watch a sport I want to know theres 2 teams/persons actually competing.
If theres any doubt about the legitimacy of the sport and the integrity of the competition it has serious effects. You will lose fans. You will lose sponsors. It stunts the growth of the sport.
And yes I am absolutely aware this is "just one tournament and its not like its the GSL" but thats besides the point. If you start condoning it then it can pop up in any context and you have a tradition of rigging the sport.
To talk about helping a friend is completely bizarre. Its in fact not taking it seriously as a sport. Its just something that you and your buddies do then.
On December 22 2010 20:52 ste0731 wrote: It's not fixing, its just splitting the prize. Bit like when you get to final table at poker and you agree to split the pot. It's a thread full of nothings. What a waste of time
It is fixing, it's not just splitting the prize. It's nothing like when you get to final table at poker and you agree to split the pot. A post full of nothing. What a waste of time.
On December 22 2010 20:36 Askesis wrote: So, most importantly, did Sjow win the first tournament?
It would be funny if after "being a lock for the finals in all 18", he didn't win the first one.
Someone wrote somewhere in this thread that neither of them played in the first one.
Oh? I thought I had read that only one (Sjow) competed.
If neither competed, i think it's a bit suspicious. Why would they go from trying to cooperate to run through the easy field, and then in response have NEITHER of them play? I figured one of them dropped out in order for the other to have an easy run through the gauntlet. If both of them dropped out, then....well, I would not think they would both voluntarily sit out of this easy-field tournament for a very significant grand prize, let's put it that way.
I tried to find the post I was talking about but I found a lot of contradicting posts, and since neither has any sources I have no idea what's true.
This never would have happend if Sjow posted his confession, it would all merely be groundless accusation given the lack of strong evidence. I think people are being too harsh. He says he has no evil intentions. You can't just lump him with your average matchfixer. He also has a good point: the injustice of matchfixing is originated from the conflicting interests of the audience.
Also whoever designed the tournament this way should stop thinking off his ass. The prize ladder is pretty much an extra incentive for matchfixing.
Lesson to be learnt, if your gonna do something pragmatic, keep it as secret as you can and don't be so complacent as to show it on stream or public areas (which is not that hard to do).
On December 22 2010 20:36 Askesis wrote: So, most importantly, did Sjow win the first tournament?
It would be funny if after "being a lock for the finals in all 18", he didn't win the first one.
Someone wrote somewhere in this thread that neither of them played in the first one.
Oh? I thought I had read that only one (Sjow) competed.
If neither competed, i think it's a bit suspicious. Why would they go from trying to cooperate to run through the easy field, and then in response have NEITHER of them play? I figured one of them dropped out in order for the other to have an easy run through the gauntlet. If both of them dropped out, then....well, I would not think they would both voluntarily sit out of this easy-field tournament for a very significant grand prize, let's put it that way.
I tried to find the post I was talking about but I found a lot of contradicting posts, and since neither has any sources I have no idea what's true.
Yea, the post I was referring to was one of Sjow's replies, now posted in the OP.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play
On December 22 2010 20:56 Askesis wrote: It's not the thieves fault! It's the homeowners's fault for having valuables in the house!
Many of the comments here are indeed going in this direction..."wtf stupid tournament host for making a system that encourages matchfixing"
"wtf stupid pretty girl walking around alone in a skirt in a park in the evening" "wtf stupid rich man walking around alone in an expensive suit with an expensive watch alone on the street"
I seriously have to stop reading this thread, so many comments that make me nearly throw up in the literal way.
On December 22 2010 21:00 ace246 wrote: This never would have happend if Sjow posted his confession, it would all merely be groundless accusation given the lack of strong evidence. I think people are being too harsh. He says he has no evil intentions. You can't just lump him with your average matchfixer. He also has a good point: the injustice of matchfixing is originated from the conflicting interests of the audience.
Matchfixing ruins the sport, period. If there's no guarantee that players are competing honestly then there's no motivation to watch.
And so what if this is a tournament where there won't be an audience or whatever. If these two top players are willing to matchfix even once, then how are you supposed to be sure they won't go ahead and matchfix in a bigger tournament. There's just no way of condoning it. Matchfixing should never be done under any circumstance ever.
On December 22 2010 20:50 Eka wrote: Dont this kind of deal happend in poker alot? Two player going heads up and just shaking hands on splitting the 1st and 2nd price equally between each other and just folding the hand ending the tournament.
TBH, who cares? The tournament format is VERY open to stuff like this, why be surprised that they want to earn money and a computer. Instead of just going away with a few bucks each they both can get alot more by just "tweaking" their play abit.
Im not surprised, nor upset. I blame the tournament, not the players.
No, this thing does not happen in poker regularly. It's strictly prohibited.
Yes it does, to the extent that there's an automated procedure for it in PokerStars:
Deal Making Deal making is allowed in PokerStars tournaments, unless otherwise specified in the tournament lobby. If all remaining players in a tournament agree to split the prize money according to a formula of their choosing, PokerStars will accept this agreement, transfer the funds upon completion of the event, and send transfer receipts to all parties to the agreement. If all players remaining wish to make a deal, please email support@pokerstars.com with the subject line: ‘URGENT Tournament # (insert tournament number) chop’ and a PokerStars staff member will come to the table to ensure a smoothly arranged deal. PokerStars cannot guarantee that a staff member will arrive in a timely fashion although every effort will be made to avoid delays. All players must indicate their willingness to take part in a deal negotiation before PokerStars will pause the tournament clock.
On December 22 2010 20:43 Sorkoas wrote: What sickens me the most is how SjoW refuses to believe he's acting wrong by going through with this. After all discussions at IRC, at rakaka and here at TL he still doesn't understand that he's abusing Inferno Online's promotion by making it much easier to secure a prize which is not supposed to be easy to reach. He's also ignoring the fact that if a third skilled player would show up aiming at winning as many tournaments as possible, he wouldn't compete on the same terms as Sjow and MorroW when they agree on not giving each other a fight for it but instead lose to each other, especiall during later stages of the tournament while they give their best versus a supposed third player. Besides them having a much easier way to getting all those 11 tournament wins...
While I agree what they did/wanted to do is wrong, its dosent effect the other players (3rd)..
Of course it does. Let's say MorroW and SjoW get to play each other in the semi finals then it's a free way to the final for one of them while the players in the other semi final actually have to win to reach the final and compete for the grand prize. This affects all tourneys when the one they decide is going to get to win against the other has a much easier way to win each single tournament.
On December 22 2010 20:43 Sorkoas wrote: What sickens me the most is how SjoW refuses to believe he's acting wrong by going through with this. After all discussions at IRC, at rakaka and here at TL he still doesn't understand that he's abusing Inferno Online's promotion by making it much easier to secure a prize which is not supposed to be easy to reach. He's also ignoring the fact that if a third skilled player would show up aiming at winning as many tournaments as possible, he wouldn't compete on the same terms as Sjow and MorroW when they agree on not giving each other a fight for it but instead lose to each other, especiall during later stages of the tournament while they give their best versus a supposed third player. Besides them having a much easier way to getting all those 11 tournament wins...
While I agree what they did/wanted to do is wrong, its dosent effect the other players (3rd)..
Sure it does - if I wanted to win this thing I would have to defeat both Morrow and Sjow. They themselves don't have to really "beat" each other.
no, because regardless of whether they match fix or not, no one is going to beat them. if they match fix, youre 3rd, if they dont match fix, youre 3rd.
You got it wrong. MorroW and SjoW wouldn't have to be favorites. I meant a thrird player at their level showing up not the third best player who will play. But they are still of course not giving the other players the same chance as they have, as was mentioned above.
On December 22 2010 20:48 alexpnd wrote: You're raping face and helping out a friend? Who wouldn't agree to that? seriously. Are your feelings hurt cause they want to share something ?
No my feelings arent hurt. I just know if I watch a sport I want to know theres 2 teams/persons actually competing.
If theres any doubt about the legitimacy of the sport and the integrity of the competition it has serious effects. You will lose fans. You will lose sponsors. It stunts the growth of the sport.
And yes I am absolutely aware this is "just one tournament and its not like its the GSL" but thats besides the point. If you start condoning it then it can pop up in any context and you have a tradition of rigging the sport.
To talk about helping a friend is completely bizarre. Its in fact not taking it seriously as a sport. Its just something that you and your buddies do then.
I agree with the want of legitimacy in a tournament. However helping a friend is bizarre? Strange world. It's all about priorities. If you have a tournament in the bag why not. I still see no problem. Anyways I'm done here, with any decent tournament this won't be happening. The format will be superior and the rules cold and clean for match fixing.
On December 22 2010 20:50 Eka wrote: Dont this kind of deal happend in poker alot? Two player going heads up and just shaking hands on splitting the 1st and 2nd price equally between each other and just folding the hand ending the tournament.
TBH, who cares? The tournament format is VERY open to stuff like this, why be surprised that they want to earn money and a computer. Instead of just going away with a few bucks each they both can get alot more by just "tweaking" their play abit.
Im not surprised, nor upset. I blame the tournament, not the players.
No, this thing does not happen in poker regularly. It's strictly prohibited.
Wtf are you on about, every online casino/live casino allow people to split prizes if all agree. It's in every rulebook thats its fine.
On December 22 2010 20:43 Sorkoas wrote: What sickens me the most is how SjoW refuses to believe he's acting wrong by going through with this. After all discussions at IRC, at rakaka and here at TL he still doesn't understand that he's abusing Inferno Online's promotion by making it much easier to secure a prize which is not supposed to be easy to reach. He's also ignoring the fact that if a third skilled player would show up aiming at winning as many tournaments as possible, he wouldn't compete on the same terms as Sjow and MorroW when they agree on not giving each other a fight for it but instead lose to each other, especiall during later stages of the tournament while they give their best versus a supposed third player. Besides them having a much easier way to getting all those 11 tournament wins...
While I agree what they did/wanted to do is wrong, its dosent effect the other players (3rd)..
Sure it does - if I wanted to win this thing I would have to defeat both Morrow and Sjow. They themselves don't have to really "beat" each other.
no, because regardless of whether they match fix or not, no one is going to beat them. if they match fix, youre 3rd, if they dont match fix, youre 3rd.
If they do not stick together the chances of a third winning the price is small, if they do the chance is virtually non-existent. Just as an example (Morrow: 5, Sjow:5, new strong player: 8) The "new strong player" needs to beat the sum of both instead of both indivudally. Seems to me to be a very obvious disadvantage to other players. It's clear that lowering the chances of other players was not the intended goal of the cooperation. But this is one more reason why it is absolutely not ok.
EDIT: Ok, i just realized that the overall winner may not be determined that way - if it's only about the 'size' of your prize, i don't see a disadvantage to other players. (Which still does not make it ok because then the organizer is the one which is abused).
But i agree that the tournament format is stupid, and because of it players are encouraged to think about abuse. If they were to dish out a price pool, they should simply give it according to some overall rank. Awarding special prices based on 'exceptional' performance will always invite abuse.(Which does not make the organizers at fault for the players abusing it, but they are the ones who make the abuse possible.)
On December 22 2010 20:56 Askesis wrote: It's not the thieves fault! It's the homeowners's fault for having valuables in the house!
Many of the comments here are indeed going in this direction..."wtf stupid tournament host for making a system that encourages matchfixing"
"wtf stupid pretty girl walking around alone in a skirt in a park in the evening" "wtf stupid rich man walking around alone in an expensive suit with an expensive watch alone on the street"
I seriously have to stop reading this thread, so many comments that make me nearly throw up in the literal way.
If it wouldn't have been so damn hard to find the site and the prices, I'd say the arrangers were borderline on false advertisement. Having a price that is nigh impossible to win (but not advertising about the last part).
A grocery in my town got sued for having a huge sign that said "CHEAPEST IN TOWN!" (with veeeery small print underneat: "On 5 select items each week").
So foul play on both ends. Considering the tournament costs money to enter.
This is cheating, how are people fine with this? I dont care if the prize was a million $, they still cheated by matchfixing. I would say they are on the same level as maphackers, cheating is cheating. Lost all respect for both of them.
How hard is it not to cheat? Goddamn people are stupid
On December 22 2010 20:43 Sorkoas wrote: What sickens me the most is how SjoW refuses to believe he's acting wrong by going through with this. After all discussions at IRC, at rakaka and here at TL he still doesn't understand that he's abusing Inferno Online's promotion by making it much easier to secure a prize which is not supposed to be easy to reach. He's also ignoring the fact that if a third skilled player would show up aiming at winning as many tournaments as possible, he wouldn't compete on the same terms as Sjow and MorroW when they agree on not giving each other a fight for it but instead lose to each other, especiall during later stages of the tournament while they give their best versus a supposed third player. Besides them having a much easier way to getting all those 11 tournament wins...
While I agree what they did/wanted to do is wrong, its dosent effect the other players (3rd)..
Of course it does. Let's say MorroW and SjoW get to play each other in the semi finals then it's a free way to the final for one of them while the players in the other semi final actually have to win to reach the final and compete for the grand prize. This affects all tourneys when the one they decide is going to get to win against the other has a much easier way to win each single tournament.
On December 22 2010 20:43 Sorkoas wrote: What sickens me the most is how SjoW refuses to believe he's acting wrong by going through with this. After all discussions at IRC, at rakaka and here at TL he still doesn't understand that he's abusing Inferno Online's promotion by making it much easier to secure a prize which is not supposed to be easy to reach. He's also ignoring the fact that if a third skilled player would show up aiming at winning as many tournaments as possible, he wouldn't compete on the same terms as Sjow and MorroW when they agree on not giving each other a fight for it but instead lose to each other, especiall during later stages of the tournament while they give their best versus a supposed third player. Besides them having a much easier way to getting all those 11 tournament wins...
While I agree what they did/wanted to do is wrong, its dosent effect the other players (3rd)..
Sure it does - if I wanted to win this thing I would have to defeat both Morrow and Sjow. They themselves don't have to really "beat" each other.
no, because regardless of whether they match fix or not, no one is going to beat them. if they match fix, youre 3rd, if they dont match fix, youre 3rd.
You got it wrong. MorroW and SjoW wouldn't have to be favorites. I meant a thrird player at their level showing up not the third best player who will play. But they are still of course not giving the other players the same chance as they have, as was mentioned above.
On December 22 2010 21:14 Deadlyfish wrote: This is cheating, how are people fine with this? I dont care if the prize was a million $, they still cheated by matchfixing. I would say they are on the same level as maphackers, cheating is cheating. Lost all respect for both of them.
Well, for one thing it never happened. It's a hypothetical match fix they didnt go trough with,
On December 22 2010 17:19 CanucksJC wrote: Meanwhile in Korea, Savior: Hey Luxury, I betted $1,000 on you to lose tonight, so you should throw away the game. Luxury: Only if I get half share. Savior: Ok, deal.
Now this, SjoW: Hey Morrow, one of us gets a computer if we fix matches, so let's do it. Morrow: Only if you throw the games and I get computer. SjoW: Ok, pay me back later.
What's so different? I don't even understand how some people are actually defending these assholes. Competition is a competition, and they tried to fix it, now everyone knows, so they drop the plan. Pathetic.
thanks, already thought that tl.net users lost their brain somewhere
This is kind of amusing because I was there watching Morrow's stream when he asked us if we could read the chat properly. What an inocuous sounding question at the time. I don't get why Sjow would even particpate in such a deal anyway. Isn't Morrow like a notch below Sjow's skill level atm?
I think people are being too harsh. He says he has no evil intentions. You can't just lump him with your average matchfixer. He also has a good point: the injustice of matchfixing is originated from the conflicting interests of the audience.
Intentions means precisely squat. I don't care what they "intended" to do; I care about what they did.
Match fixing is wrong. Whether it's in a game nobody will see, or a game seen by millions across the world. It cheapens and denigrates the game. It turns a legitimate sport into a pile of crap. It is wrong, period.
Wtf are you on about, every online casino/live casino allow people to split prizes if all agree. It's in every rulebook thats its fine.
Then that's fine. Because it's within the rules. Unless the rules specifically allow this, it is cheating.
If both players want to play with maphacks, that doesn't mean they can.
On December 22 2010 20:56 Askesis wrote: It's not the thieves fault! It's the homeowners's fault for having valuables in the house!
Many of the comments here are indeed going in this direction..."wtf stupid tournament host for making a system that encourages matchfixing"
"wtf stupid pretty girl walking around alone in a skirt in a park in the evening" "wtf stupid rich man walking around alone in an expensive suit with an expensive watch alone on the street"
I seriously have to stop reading this thread, so many comments that make me nearly throw up in the literal way.
If it wouldn't have been so damn hard to find the site and the prices, I'd say the arrangers were borderline on false advertisement. Having a price that is nigh impossible to win (but not advertising about the last part).
A grocery in my town got sued for having a huge sign that said "CHEAPEST IN TOWN!" (with veeeery small print underneat: "On 5 select items each week").
So foul play on both ends. Considering the tournament costs money to enter.
Eh? Have you seen any advertisement? And google is your friend: inferno online First link that comes up. First page when you click that has the full setup explained.
I think people are being too harsh. He says he has no evil intentions. You can't just lump him with your average matchfixer. He also has a good point: the injustice of matchfixing is originated from the conflicting interests of the audience.
Intentions means precisely squat. I don't care what they "intended" to do; I care about what they did.
Match fixing is wrong. Whether it's in a game nobody will see, or a game seen by millions across the world. It cheapens and denigrates the game. It turns a legitimate sport into a pile of crap. It is wrong, period.
Wtf are you on about, every online casino/live casino allow people to split prizes if all agree. It's in every rulebook thats its fine.
Then that's fine. Because it's within the rules. Unless the rules specifically allow this, it is cheating.
If both players want to play with maphacks, that doesn't mean they can.
If you disregard the intentions (which you shouldn't completely) you will notice that the didn't do anything at all because they just talked about it and then asked an admin if it was inside the rules...
On December 22 2010 20:50 Eka wrote: Dont this kind of deal happend in poker alot? Two player going heads up and just shaking hands on splitting the 1st and 2nd price equally between each other and just folding the hand ending the tournament.
TBH, who cares? The tournament format is VERY open to stuff like this, why be surprised that they want to earn money and a computer. Instead of just going away with a few bucks each they both can get alot more by just "tweaking" their play abit.
Im not surprised, nor upset. I blame the tournament, not the players.
No, this thing does not happen in poker regularly. It's strictly prohibited.
Wtf are you on about, every online casino/live casino allow people to split prizes if all agree. It's in every rulebook thats its fine.
Dude, read the thread. It's not the same.
It would be the same if they just played and won whatever they are entitled to and decide to split there winnings afterwards. What they are doing is inflating the pricepool by throwing matches and gaining an unfair advantage because of working together. This is called collusion and has nothing to do with splitting the pricepool or deal making and collusion is forbidden on every poker site and in every casino.
On December 22 2010 20:50 Eka wrote: Dont this kind of deal happend in poker alot? Two player going heads up and just shaking hands on splitting the 1st and 2nd price equally between each other and just folding the hand ending the tournament.
TBH, who cares? The tournament format is VERY open to stuff like this, why be surprised that they want to earn money and a computer. Instead of just going away with a few bucks each they both can get alot more by just "tweaking" their play abit.
Im not surprised, nor upset. I blame the tournament, not the players.
No, this thing does not happen in poker regularly. It's strictly prohibited.
Wtf are you on about, every online casino/live casino allow people to split prizes if all agree. It's in every rulebook thats its fine.
prize splitting in poker is extremely common. A split is common in many places actually... Its when theres an alterior motive behind throwing matches, IE intentionally losing a match when people betting on the match make money. Except when we are talking about splits no one actually throws the match, it just kinda ends in a draw or they play out for the title but split the prize pool.
when i first read this thread i was like uhh... but now its like uhhh, that format for a tournament seems really stupid, as if they both play to win, neither of them will win...
On December 22 2010 21:20 djengizz wrote:
It would be the same if they just played and won whatever they are entitled to and decide to split there winnings afterwards. What they are doing is inflating the pricepool by throwing matches and gaining an unfair advantage because of working together. This is called collusion and has nothing to do with splitting the pricepool or deal making and collusion is forbidden on every poker site and in every casino.
Not entirely true if they both played and split afterwards no one would win the grand prize, which is why the format is kinda silly.
On December 22 2010 20:50 Eka wrote: Dont this kind of deal happend in poker alot? Two player going heads up and just shaking hands on splitting the 1st and 2nd price equally between each other and just folding the hand ending the tournament.
TBH, who cares? The tournament format is VERY open to stuff like this, why be surprised that they want to earn money and a computer. Instead of just going away with a few bucks each they both can get alot more by just "tweaking" their play abit.
Im not surprised, nor upset. I blame the tournament, not the players.
No, this thing does not happen in poker regularly. It's strictly prohibited.
Yes it does, to the extent that there's an automated procedure for it in PokerStars:
Deal Making Deal making is allowed in PokerStars tournaments, unless otherwise specified in the tournament lobby. If all remaining players in a tournament agree to split the prize money according to a formula of their choosing, PokerStars will accept this agreement, transfer the funds upon completion of the event, and send transfer receipts to all parties to the agreement. If all players remaining wish to make a deal, please email support@pokerstars.com with the subject line: ‘URGENT Tournament # (insert tournament number) chop’ and a PokerStars staff member will come to the table to ensure a smoothly arranged deal. PokerStars cannot guarantee that a staff member will arrive in a timely fashion although every effort will be made to avoid delays. All players must indicate their willingness to take part in a deal negotiation before PokerStars will pause the tournament clock.
Except that situation is not similar to what is happening here. In that scenario, the prize pool is a set amount. All the players who have a claim to some of that prize pool can come to a chopping arrangement. No argument with that.
However, in this case, the total prizes being awarded is not a set amount. The amount of money that a competitor wins is determined by his placement in a series of tournaments. If a player wins more than one tournament, he gets an additional bonus to simply winning first place in that tournament. So, it's actually more like Tilt's Daily Doubles.
Conveniently, Full Tilt has a rule explicitly forbidding deals in those tournaments:
Because Daily Double prizes are awarded based on a player's finishing position in both tournaments, deal-making is expressly prohibited in these events. If players are found to have made a deal, they will forfeit their share of the jackpot, and the prize will be awarded to the next eligible player(s).
On December 22 2010 21:11 noD wrote: If I understand right they just said let´s split prizes since one of us will win, is there any problem with it?
Well there is since the prize for tournament win is increased with number of tournaments won. So one player was going to deliberately lose a final set so the other one would rack up tournament wins and get better price for each next won tournament.
On December 22 2010 21:14 Deadlyfish wrote: This is cheating, how are people fine with this? I dont care if the prize was a million $, they still cheated by matchfixing. I would say they are on the same level as maphackers, cheating is cheating. Lost all respect for both of them.
Well, for one thing it never happened. It's a hypothetical match fix they didnt go trough with,
Oh man, Sjow's reponse to this whole "scandal" just reminds me of why Defense attorneys prefer their client to just keep their mouth shut. I think Sjow's comments just hurt his image in the community more than it helped him. -________-
Of course there is nothing wrong with prize splitting where both players get a draw and the prize is split evenly. The catch is that you can't do that in this tournament so all of these shenanigans go in the matchfixing category.
On December 22 2010 20:43 Sorkoas wrote: What sickens me the most is how SjoW refuses to believe he's acting wrong by going through with this. After all discussions at IRC, at rakaka and here at TL he still doesn't understand that he's abusing Inferno Online's promotion by making it much easier to secure a prize which is not supposed to be easy to reach. He's also ignoring the fact that if a third skilled player would show up aiming at winning as many tournaments as possible, he wouldn't compete on the same terms as Sjow and MorroW when they agree on not giving each other a fight for it but instead lose to each other, especiall during later stages of the tournament while they give their best versus a supposed third player. Besides them having a much easier way to getting all those 11 tournament wins...
While I agree what they did/wanted to do is wrong, its dosent effect the other players (3rd)..
Of course it does. Let's say MorroW and SjoW get to play each other in the semi finals then it's a free way to the final for one of them while the players in the other semi final actually have to win to reach the final and compete for the grand prize. This affects all tourneys when the one they decide is going to get to win against the other has a much easier way to win each single tournament.
On December 22 2010 20:43 Sorkoas wrote: What sickens me the most is how SjoW refuses to believe he's acting wrong by going through with this. After all discussions at IRC, at rakaka and here at TL he still doesn't understand that he's abusing Inferno Online's promotion by making it much easier to secure a prize which is not supposed to be easy to reach. He's also ignoring the fact that if a third skilled player would show up aiming at winning as many tournaments as possible, he wouldn't compete on the same terms as Sjow and MorroW when they agree on not giving each other a fight for it but instead lose to each other, especiall during later stages of the tournament while they give their best versus a supposed third player. Besides them having a much easier way to getting all those 11 tournament wins...
While I agree what they did/wanted to do is wrong, its dosent effect the other players (3rd)..
Sure it does - if I wanted to win this thing I would have to defeat both Morrow and Sjow. They themselves don't have to really "beat" each other.
no, because regardless of whether they match fix or not, no one is going to beat them. if they match fix, youre 3rd, if they dont match fix, youre 3rd.
You got it wrong. MorroW and SjoW wouldn't have to be favorites. I meant a thrird player at their level showing up not the third best player who will play. But they are still of course not giving the other players the same chance as they have, as was mentioned above.
For the first they aint going to meet in the semi's do to seeding and even if they were and gave the win to one of them that would not make it harder for the 3. guy to win the tournament.
On December 22 2010 20:50 Eka wrote: Dont this kind of deal happend in poker alot? Two player going heads up and just shaking hands on splitting the 1st and 2nd price equally between each other and just folding the hand ending the tournament.
TBH, who cares? The tournament format is VERY open to stuff like this, why be surprised that they want to earn money and a computer. Instead of just going away with a few bucks each they both can get alot more by just "tweaking" their play abit.
Im not surprised, nor upset. I blame the tournament, not the players.
No, this thing does not happen in poker regularly. It's strictly prohibited.
Wtf are you on about, every online casino/live casino allow people to split prizes if all agree. It's in every rulebook thats its fine.
First of all, not every online and live casino allow chops. Many, even most, do, yes.. But certainly not all of them. My regular card room actually does not allow chops. And most places do not have a policy stating that it is allowed; they simply just don't care that you do it. Please don't spew incorrect information.
And second, it's completely different. I've posted it multiple times now (just again a minute ago, go check it out), so I'm not going to spell it out again.
On December 22 2010 21:12 alexpnd wrote: I agree with the want of legitimacy in a tournament. However helping a friend is bizarre? Strange world. It's all about priorities. If you have a tournament in the bag why not. I still see no problem.
You can't have both of those at once. Either its a real competition or a buddy system.
On December 22 2010 21:00 ace246 wrote: This never would have happend if Sjow posted his confession, it would all merely be groundless accusation given the lack of strong evidence. I think people are being too harsh. He says he has no evil intentions. You can't just lump him with your average matchfixer. He also has a good point: the injustice of matchfixing is originated from the conflicting interests of the audience.
Matchfixing ruins the sport, period. If there's no guarantee that players are competing honestly then there's no motivation to watch.
And so what if this is a tournament where there won't be an audience or whatever. If these two top players are willing to matchfix even once, then how are you supposed to be sure they won't go ahead and matchfix in a bigger tournament. There's just no way of condoning it. Matchfixing should never be done under any circumstance ever.
Dude, their plan only takes affect if they actually make it to the finals for all or at least the majority of the 18 tornaments. How are we supposed to be sure they won't go ahead and matchfix in a bigger tournament? Well, Sjow did say that he thought it wouldn't be much of a big deal since there is no audience. Big tourneys have big numbers of audience.
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? :/
It's about the stance on match-fixing I criticize here. It doesnt matter how bad the tournament system is. It doesnt matter if they are going to do it or not. Even if it was allowed by the tournament admins. Match fixing, dropping games on purpose, completely throws over the purpose of a tournament and is a pathetic display of competitive sportsmanship by the players involved.
And to not even have the brains to do this in secret and then basically go "we're the best over here, so where's the problem?"...
On December 22 2010 21:14 Deadlyfish wrote: This is cheating, how are people fine with this? I dont care if the prize was a million $, they still cheated by matchfixing. I would say they are on the same level as maphackers, cheating is cheating. Lost all respect for both of them.
Well, for one thing it never happened. It's a hypothetical match fix they didnt go trough with,
So what...........
They got caught, therefore it's ok?
They asked if they could do it, got a "no" and then didn't do it. Or do you have some new evidence other than speculation stating otherwise?
On December 22 2010 19:57 IdrA wrote: poor tournament design to set up the prize structure that way and if they're that much better than everyone else competing that they can control the outcomes itd be stupid of them not to
Why would you support match fixing? Even if it has a practical purpose, say gaming a system to get a computer, why would you want to support players not playing to the best of their ability? Would you have let qxc win the laptop this past weekend if he offered you $600? I mean, if he could game the system like that, it's win/win right?
Why would a player make such a suggestion before playing the match though? If he wins he'll get the laptop for free. If he loses, he can then ask if he can buy it. Nothing strange there.
I was specifically referring to IdrA and the EG Master's Cup this weekend. If IdrA won the show match, no one got the laptop. If qxc won, he got a laptop. So my question still stands. If qxc offered $600 to win the $1600 (I believe that was the price) laptop, would IdrA have accepted?
My bad, I thought the idea was that the winner, regardless, would get the laptop.
These two aren't exactly criminal masterminds are they?
I don't think they are particularly devious I just think they are kind of dumb. If they didn't want to get in eachothers way in the tournament one of them shouldn't have entered. Conversely if one wins over the one he could just ship the prize to him rather than manipulate the outcome of the games and look like a shady competitor that people may not want anything to do with in the future.
Mostly I am just shocked at how stupid Morrow is. Why even bring that up on your stream? What is wrong with this kid
In a later article, rakaka got in touch with Inferno Online's owner Anton "Budak" Budak, who had the following to say: "No throwaway games, the slightest suspicion and they'll be banned for life". He added: "I decide, and nothing unsportsmanlike is allowed
This is exactly what I was hoping to hear. There is no possible excuse for trying to match fix games, no matter how hard you try to explain yourself. It's wrong.
On December 22 2010 20:43 Sorkoas wrote: What sickens me the most is how SjoW refuses to believe he's acting wrong by going through with this. After all discussions at IRC, at rakaka and here at TL he still doesn't understand that he's abusing Inferno Online's promotion by making it much easier to secure a prize which is not supposed to be easy to reach. He's also ignoring the fact that if a third skilled player would show up aiming at winning as many tournaments as possible, he wouldn't compete on the same terms as Sjow and MorroW when they agree on not giving each other a fight for it but instead lose to each other, especiall during later stages of the tournament while they give their best versus a supposed third player. Besides them having a much easier way to getting all those 11 tournament wins...
While I agree what they did/wanted to do is wrong, its dosent effect the other players (3rd)..
Of course it does. Let's say MorroW and SjoW get to play each other in the semi finals then it's a free way to the final for one of them while the players in the other semi final actually have to win to reach the final and compete for the grand prize. This affects all tourneys when the one they decide is going to get to win against the other has a much easier way to win each single tournament.
On December 22 2010 20:56 L3g3nd_ wrote:
On December 22 2010 20:53 sleepingdog wrote:
On December 22 2010 20:49 TaKemE wrote:
On December 22 2010 20:43 Sorkoas wrote: What sickens me the most is how SjoW refuses to believe he's acting wrong by going through with this. After all discussions at IRC, at rakaka and here at TL he still doesn't understand that he's abusing Inferno Online's promotion by making it much easier to secure a prize which is not supposed to be easy to reach. He's also ignoring the fact that if a third skilled player would show up aiming at winning as many tournaments as possible, he wouldn't compete on the same terms as Sjow and MorroW when they agree on not giving each other a fight for it but instead lose to each other, especiall during later stages of the tournament while they give their best versus a supposed third player. Besides them having a much easier way to getting all those 11 tournament wins...
While I agree what they did/wanted to do is wrong, its dosent effect the other players (3rd)..
Sure it does - if I wanted to win this thing I would have to defeat both Morrow and Sjow. They themselves don't have to really "beat" each other.
no, because regardless of whether they match fix or not, no one is going to beat them. if they match fix, youre 3rd, if they dont match fix, youre 3rd.
You got it wrong. MorroW and SjoW wouldn't have to be favorites. I meant a thrird player at their level showing up not the third best player who will play. But they are still of course not giving the other players the same chance as they have, as was mentioned above.
For the first they aint going to meet in the semi's do to seeding and even if they were and gave the win to one of them that would not make it harder for the 3. guy to win the tournament.
Wtf, of course it's harder just by looking at my example stated above. And why does seeding have anything to do with this? Even if they are not playing each other until the final it will be a free win at some point, whcih the other players won't get. And also if it's a fact that they would never get to play each other before the very last round because of some seeding I'd like to see some source for it, because that makes it sound like this is not just planned to be fixed by the players but they also got some admin helping them out.
It would be the same if they just played and won whatever they are entitled to and decide to split there winnings afterwards. What they are doing is inflating the pricepool by throwing matches and gaining an unfair advantage because of working together. This is called collusion and has nothing to do with splitting the pricepool or deal making and collusion is forbidden on every poker site and in every casino.
Not entirely true if they both played and split afterwards no one would win the grand prize, which is why the format is kinda silly.
There would still be a chance if one of the two is better and can claim 11 victories over the other. If there's no chance in hell of this happening and these players recognise this they should just decide for themselves if it's worth their effort or not. If not, don't play the tournament.
Manipulating results to achieve this is not the way to go regardless whether it's a stupid format or not. It's like saying it's allright to steal from your boss because he doesn't pay you enough...
On December 22 2010 18:21 Choirdrunk wrote: Guys, IdrA long ago noted that MorroW gamed the system in SCBW and, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Sjow have a history of cheating? This recent event isn't hurting their reputation, this IS their reputation.
An integral component to esports is competition. Competition spawns interest which spawns eyeballs which spawns various sponsorships. There aren't a throng of people out there watching SCII just so Morrow can get a new computer, they are watching it because they love the mix of analytical ability, practiced maneuvers, nerves, apm and luck that go into every match.
Morrow and Sjow conspired to do away with everything the public loves about SCII and, after they got caught, they "asked officials." Based on this incident alone, I'd give them a pass. When you couple it with their history, I'd be happy to never have to watch them in another tournament again.
SjoW does not have a history with cheating. Stop making shit up to suit your own arguments.
On December 22 2010 21:14 Deadlyfish wrote: This is cheating, how are people fine with this? I dont care if the prize was a million $, they still cheated by matchfixing. I would say they are on the same level as maphackers, cheating is cheating. Lost all respect for both of them.
Well, for one thing it never happened. It's a hypothetical match fix they didnt go trough with,
So what...........
They got caught, therefore it's ok?
They asked if they could do it, got a "no" and then didn't do it. Or do you have some new evidence other than speculation stating otherwise?
I dont care if they asked first, i just dont like that they even thought about doing it. If i asked someone if i could maphack and they said no, then it was np?
I just dont like that they even thought about doing it, i dont really care if they asked if they could do it.
Can't believe all this talk about "they have the tournament in the bag anyway what does it matter?"
So now if there's some superior players in a tournament that are expected to win it's fine if they fix their matches? Bullshit. Upsets do happen. Anyone who's been following BW lately knows that even absolute Gods can fall to nobody's if the circumstances are right (see: Flash in MSL).
It would be the same if they just played and won whatever they are entitled to and decide to split there winnings afterwards. What they are doing is inflating the pricepool by throwing matches and gaining an unfair advantage because of working together. This is called collusion and has nothing to do with splitting the pricepool or deal making and collusion is forbidden on every poker site and in every casino.
Not entirely true if they both played and split afterwards no one would win the grand prize, which is why the format is kinda silly.
There would still be a chance if one of the two is better and can claim 11 victories over the other. If there's no chance in hell of this happening and these players recognise this they should just decide for themselves if it's worth their effort or not. If not, don't play the tournament.
Manipulating results to achieve this is not the way to go regardless whether it's a stupid format or not. It's like saying it's allright to steal from your boss because he doesn't pay you enough...
or they can do what they did and decide only one of them will play....
it's rakakaka.se
no one in here can be sure they didn't just mean to do this thing they eventually decided upon and keep the "match fixing" thing (to split the good prize) if allowed, which they weren't so they didn't.
I'm afraid someone seriously trying to scam their way around would keep it a bit more down low.
I dont think this is realy bad, its like in poker if the players decide they can split the prize money and stop playing and if they get a bigger prize why not, their first concederations should be for themselfs not fans...
Ok just read everything, it´s no big deal at all, they would just gg [enter] f10 + n if they met each other, what is the problem, if they arent trying to put a fake show it doesnt matter at all for me ...
On December 22 2010 20:09 ParasitJonte wrote: It just amazes me that a significant amount of people don't seem to realize that they're still going ahead as planned, just with a slightly different strategy. Somehow, that new strategy doesn't seem as offensive to people.
That's why people crying "terrible!", "cheaters!" and so on can't be taken seriously. Because they're being hypocritical without even realizing it.
What do you want us to do? Call them cheaters because Morrow isn't playing, opening the door for Sjow to take them all? I mean, we all know what's going on, but what can we do? People are getting flamed for calling them cheaters for trying to match-fix, yet you want people to call them cheaters for Morrow not playing in the tourny?
But wouldn't the same thing also apply to every good player who is not participating in the tournament?
Yeah. That's exactly what I want you to do. To realize that from a moral standpoint what they're doing now isn't any different.
Where to place the blame, then? The organizers. Of course I realize as well that matchfixing is wrong in general. But in this specific scenario it's really, really, really hard for me to sit here and judge Morrow and SjoW for doing something that most people would've done. I feel that they are effectively being forced by the setup to act like this. And that's sad.
well yea its not completly moral, the whole fairplay and play the best you can, but its not like they are placing bets on it,if he gets a bigger prize for loosing why not do it, who gives a #&% if its not what would happen in a perfect world
they have no injust influence over any of the matches except the one match where they face each other, if they are good enough friends that they agree to share the prizes then I say good on them
this is not like the match fixing that went on in BW as they aren't under contract based on their performance in proleague or anything like that....
Hmm, idk if this is true or not, but i even joked around about splitting the prizes for that tournament with morrow myself. Its gonna be like 5 gold league players, some bronze and then MorroW basically and SjoW. AFAIK it is not going to be streamed at all and honestly. One of them is going to win either way so i dont get why this is such a big deal. Its just a small little thing at a net cafe.
On December 22 2010 15:02 ShootingStars wrote: please tell me how match fixing is cheating, like map hacking thanks TWO players in an agreement. unlike maphacking
the key word is AGREEMENT. if both players agree, then its fine. its just like map choosing. both players agree to play on LOST TEMPLE,
Can we agree that you're an idiot?
Not an insult, just an agreement.
Somehow I smell troll, why the hell would you chat about this while streaming?
OK they actually were serious about it and somehow made it sound right in their heads... I don't get it...
On December 22 2010 21:14 Deadlyfish wrote: This is cheating, how are people fine with this? I dont care if the prize was a million $, they still cheated by matchfixing. I would say they are on the same level as maphackers, cheating is cheating. Lost all respect for both of them.
Well, for one thing it never happened. It's a hypothetical match fix they didnt go trough with,
So what...........
They got caught, therefore it's ok?
They asked if they could do it, got a "no" and then didn't do it. Or do you have some new evidence other than speculation stating otherwise?
I dont care if they asked first, i just dont like that they even thought about doing it. If i asked someone if i could maphack and they said no, then it was np?
I just dont like that they even thought about doing it, i dont really care if they asked if they could do it.
asking if something very common in plenty of sports and games is ok is not exactly the same as asking if something 100% banned everywhere is ok now is it? Have you ever played MTG online? if there is a tourny, you should never try to watch replay of the finals, because it lasts 10 seconds! one guy concedes, and they share the prize
now, since its really ok to assume that it might be allowed, because its allowed in many other sports/games, asking if its ok "here" is not bad and should never be regarded as bad, because there is no mention of it in the rules
even if they did it and it wasnt prohibited by the rules, there is nothing bad about it... them asking about it is actualy very positive thing, since they didnt have to, it would be on tournament organisiers to take the blame and change the rules afterwards
unless you think that doing something that was prefectly legal at the time, but 10 years later is illegal should get you arrested... but if you do, you are retarded
edit: so mad props to them for being moral and more fair than they needed to be at expanse of their own well being
On December 22 2010 19:38 dakalro wrote: 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.
So organizers should just lower the prize pool and just take away any possible prizes? Will that make you happy?
They offer a very good prize, and all you can do is complain?
They clearly state that the computer will be given away if someone can win 11 of 18 tournaments. I think everybody knows that winning 11 of 18 is a very hard task. You are acting like they pulled some kind of bait-and-switch when the prize and winning conditions are clearly stated.
The only victims here are people who are the victims of their own stupidity. If someone thought winning 11 of 18 tournaments would be easy, that is their own dumb fault.
There is no prize pool, it was never intended to give the 4k PC away, it's there just for show, to attract the 2 pros and a ton of idiot customers. That's the entire point of it. Put on the huge fireworks show, present some huge diamond to attract the crowd, get the money and run, no actual cost for it.
It may not be bait and switch exactly but it's damn close to it, chances of someone winning 11/18 with 2 huge favorites and chance that they would lose 1-2 finals are so small it's worth the risk. How do you think casinos make money?
Think about it this way. The chance that one of them would get the PC at even skill is once every 2k+ tournaments like this .......................................................
First of all, you are acting like the 6k computer is the only prize, and that if you don't win 11 of the 18 tournaments, you don't get anything. This isn't true, but even if it was, SO WHAT?
That's the way they structured the tournament, that's the way they advertised it, and everybody knows what to expect. If you want to play in the tournament, do it. If you don't feel the format is worth it, then don't play in them.
Where does it come into play that players have the right to cheat the tournament because they don't like the structure? This is a tournament that they are voluntarily playing. People have this sense of entitlement when they really aren't owed a damn thing.
And casinos make money because of math. They have a slight edge in all of their games, so even though many times people will walk out of the casino winners on the night, the casino will always win in the long run. However, I'm not quite sure what that has to do with this thread, to be honest.
This is about math also, exactly like in a casino. They'd have to make tournaments like this for hundreds of years for a chance to actually give out the grand prize ONCE to be high enough. WTH, do you actually think one internet cafe/chain would actually put up $6k in prizes when most tournaments are for <$500 ...
It's 2k total for 18 tournament rounds + 4k for the PC from what I understood ... you do the math and check the logic.
On December 22 2010 15:02 ShootingStars wrote: please tell me how match fixing is cheating, like map hacking thanks TWO players in an agreement. unlike maphacking
the key word is AGREEMENT. if both players agree, then its fine. its just like map choosing. both players agree to play on LOST TEMPLE,
Can we agree that you're an idiot?
Not an insult, just an agreement.
Somehow I smell troll, why the hell would you chat about this while streaming?
cause they didnt think people would make such a big deal out of it ?
Yeah. That's exactly what I want you to do. To realize that from a moral standpoint what they're doing now isn't any different.
It is different. Actually, it's so different that if you don't see it yourself it's impossible to explain the difference. Mostly because the implication is that you don't want to see it.
I don't get your problem. The format is stupid, because if both get 9 wins, nobody gets a computer. So it is more than completly normal to resort to this kind of things. And they're HONEST about it. What is the deal ?
They'll never do that to a normal «The winner takes it all» tournament.
I can't believe anyone is claiming this is ok. I mean, if they got to the final and one of them then just tells the organizers "I'm forfeiting this game as previously agreed upon with my opponent before the tournament," then sure. That's fine. I don't think anyone really thinks that's what they were going to do. They were just going to make sure the same person always won. The reason they were dong that rather than the first option is that they knew on some level that this would be unacceptable to the organizers/spectators. That makes it cheating.
I've been involved in other competitive activities before, and in my experience corruption generally happens because people are stupid, not because they're ill-intentioned. They think it's "good strategy" or "just helping a friend" or whatever. The only way you can stop this self-justification is to make a very strong norm in the community that it's totally unacceptable. Step 1 to doing that is banning players who have been caught (attempting) to do this before from your tournament(s). Step 2 is never to make an idiotic payout system like this where cooperation can increase the total payout two players get. There are many formats (including single/double elimination) where you can't benefit from this stuff, and tournaments should stick to those formats.
Way too many dumb people on TL. We all want E-Sport to grow, but when an organization invest money into a tournament they cannot even count on fair sportsmanship. If I would as a company invest money into a 17 day tournament. And the(top-)players would screw me over like this. I would cancel my tournament and NEVER put a penny into e-sports again.
And to all the people who think that the tournament set-up is to blame. You are morons.
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.
On December 22 2010 21:14 Deadlyfish wrote: This is cheating, how are people fine with this? I dont care if the prize was a million $, they still cheated by matchfixing. I would say they are on the same level as maphackers, cheating is cheating. Lost all respect for both of them.
Well, for one thing it never happened. It's a hypothetical match fix they didnt go trough with,
So what...........
They got caught, therefore it's ok?
They asked if they could do it, got a "no" and then didn't do it. Or do you have some new evidence other than speculation stating otherwise?
I dont care if they asked first, i just dont like that they even thought about doing it. If i asked someone if i could maphack and they said no, then it was np?
I just dont like that they even thought about doing it, i dont really care if they asked if they could do it.
asking if something very common in plenty of sports and games is ok is not exactly the same as asking if something 100% banned everywhere is ok now is it? Have you ever played MTG online? if there is a tourny, you should never try to watch replay of the finals, because it lasts 10 seconds! one guy concedes, and they share the prize
now, since its really ok to assume that it might be allowed, because its allowed in many other sports/games, asking if its ok "here" is not bad and should never be regarded as bad, because there is no mention of it in the rules
even if they did it and it wasnt prohibited by the rules, there is nothing bad about it... them asking about it is actualy very positive thing, since they didnt have to, it would be on tournament organisiers to take the blame and change the rules afterwards
unless you think that doing something that was prefectly legal at the time, but 10 years later is illegal should get you arrested... but if you do, you are retarded
It's obviously not allowed for them to just forfeit and give the prize to one of them. How stupid do you have to be to think that?
"ok we'll have a tournament but if you dont wanna play just all agree on who gets $6k."
Wait, that makes no sense.
They knew they were cheating a little bit. If they didnt then i really dont know what to say.
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 ?
On December 22 2010 21:31 floor exercise wrote: These two aren't exactly criminal masterminds are they?
I don't think they are particularly devious I just think they are kind of dumb. If they didn't want to get in eachothers way in the tournament one of them shouldn't have entered. Conversely if one wins over the one he could just ship the prize to him rather than manipulate the outcome of the games and look like a shady competitor that people may not want anything to do with in the future.
Mostly I am just shocked at how stupid Morrow is. Why even bring that up on your stream? What is wrong with this kid
And that's exactly what they did (bolded part). MorroW didn't enter since the first way they suggested wasn't allowed.
Wich in turn makes it very likely that SjoW will win 11 tournaments, and at thesame time, halving the ammount of big competition so that some unknown player has twice the chance of winning a tournament.
On December 22 2010 21:14 Deadlyfish wrote: This is cheating, how are people fine with this? I dont care if the prize was a million $, they still cheated by matchfixing. I would say they are on the same level as maphackers, cheating is cheating. Lost all respect for both of them.
Well, for one thing it never happened. It's a hypothetical match fix they didnt go trough with,
So what...........
They got caught, therefore it's ok?
They asked if they could do it, got a "no" and then didn't do it. Or do you have some new evidence other than speculation stating otherwise?
I dont care if they asked first, i just dont like that they even thought about doing it. If i asked someone if i could maphack and they said no, then it was np?
I just dont like that they even thought about doing it, i dont really care if they asked if they could do it.
asking if something very common in plenty of sports and games is ok is not exactly the same as asking if something 100% banned everywhere is ok now is it? Have you ever played MTG online? if there is a tourny, you should never try to watch replay of the finals, because it lasts 10 seconds! one guy concedes, and they share the prize
now, since its really ok to assume that it might be allowed, because its allowed in many other sports/games, asking if its ok "here" is not bad and should never be regarded as bad, because there is no mention of it in the rules
even if they did it and it wasnt prohibited by the rules, there is nothing bad about it... them asking about it is actualy very positive thing, since they didnt have to, it would be on tournament organisiers to take the blame and change the rules afterwards
unless you think that doing something that was prefectly legal at the time, but 10 years later is illegal should get you arrested... but if you do, you are retarded
It's obviously not allowed for them to just forfeit and give the prize to one of them. How stupid do you have to be to think that?
"ok we'll have a tournament but if you dont wanna play just all agree on who gets $6k."
Wait, that makes no sense.
They knew they were cheating a little bit. If they didnt then i really dont know what to say.
how is it cheating to throw a game ?? so if you just dont feel like playing a certain day, be it for wahtever reson, you should get punnished for it ?? its not like they signed a contract with the tournament that they will play their best in all the games
This is extremely common practice in some other tournaments and I don't see anything wrong with it. In SSBM back when I played competitively, I've split prices with the other finalist like 4 times without actually playing the finals. I think it's really nice and no one really loses anything, it's like having 2 winners.
I believe that the SC scene just overreacts to the korean Scandal, this really didn't feel like anything bad in my opinion. The only reason would be ruining coverage, but if there was none, then I don't really understand.
EDIT: Btw it makes sense to do it that way if they wouldn't get anything if each won like half the finals and so on. Also, if there is some sort of coverage like streams etc, just ignore my post since that wouldn't hold true.
Oh btw and there's been people throwing games in WCG for forever and people don't make such a huge deal like banning Stork or whatever. I really think people overreact once again.
On December 22 2010 19:38 dakalro wrote: 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.
So organizers should just lower the prize pool and just take away any possible prizes? Will that make you happy?
They offer a very good prize, and all you can do is complain?
They clearly state that the computer will be given away if someone can win 11 of 18 tournaments. I think everybody knows that winning 11 of 18 is a very hard task. You are acting like they pulled some kind of bait-and-switch when the prize and winning conditions are clearly stated.
The only victims here are people who are the victims of their own stupidity. If someone thought winning 11 of 18 tournaments would be easy, that is their own dumb fault.
There is no prize pool, it was never intended to give the 4k PC away, it's there just for show, to attract the 2 pros and a ton of idiot customers. That's the entire point of it. Put on the huge fireworks show, present some huge diamond to attract the crowd, get the money and run, no actual cost for it.
It may not be bait and switch exactly but it's damn close to it, chances of someone winning 11/18 with 2 huge favorites and chance that they would lose 1-2 finals are so small it's worth the risk. How do you think casinos make money?
Think about it this way. The chance that one of them would get the PC at even skill is once every 2k+ tournaments like this .......................................................
First of all, you are acting like the 6k computer is the only prize, and that if you don't win 11 of the 18 tournaments, you don't get anything. This isn't true, but even if it was, SO WHAT?
That's the way they structured the tournament, that's the way they advertised it, and everybody knows what to expect. If you want to play in the tournament, do it. If you don't feel the format is worth it, then don't play in them.
Where does it come into play that players have the right to cheat the tournament because they don't like the structure? This is a tournament that they are voluntarily playing. People have this sense of entitlement when they really aren't owed a damn thing.
And casinos make money because of math. They have a slight edge in all of their games, so even though many times people will walk out of the casino winners on the night, the casino will always win in the long run. However, I'm not quite sure what that has to do with this thread, to be honest.
This is about math also, exactly like in a casino. They'd have to make tournaments like this for hundreds of years for a chance to actually give out the grand prize ONCE to be high enough. WTH, do you actually think one internet cafe/chain would actually put up $6k in prizes when most tournaments are for <$500 ...
It's 2k total for 18 tournament rounds + 4k for the PC from what I understood ... you do the math and check the logic.
I understand everything you are saying, but I fail to see the problem.
They state the facts, the structure, everything clearly. It's not like they are hiding thinks in small print on the back of the card. Everything is stated clearly. It's not as if the flyer says "GIVING AWAY 6k COMPUTER!!" and then when they get there they are like "lol yea, if you win 11 tournaments".
They are not misleading in any way. It's up for the players to decide if it's an event that they wish to enter. They don't have the right to take it upon themselves to game the system however they see fit.
On December 22 2010 21:14 Deadlyfish wrote: This is cheating, how are people fine with this? I dont care if the prize was a million $, they still cheated by matchfixing. I would say they are on the same level as maphackers, cheating is cheating. Lost all respect for both of them.
Well, for one thing it never happened. It's a hypothetical match fix they didnt go trough with,
So what...........
They got caught, therefore it's ok?
They asked if they could do it, got a "no" and then didn't do it. Or do you have some new evidence other than speculation stating otherwise?
I dont care if they asked first, i just dont like that they even thought about doing it. If i asked someone if i could maphack and they said no, then it was np?
I just dont like that they even thought about doing it, i dont really care if they asked if they could do it.
asking if something very common in plenty of sports and games is ok is not exactly the same as asking if something 100% banned everywhere is ok now is it? Have you ever played MTG online? if there is a tourny, you should never try to watch replay of the finals, because it lasts 10 seconds! one guy concedes, and they share the prize
now, since its really ok to assume that it might be allowed, because its allowed in many other sports/games, asking if its ok "here" is not bad and should never be regarded as bad, because there is no mention of it in the rules
even if they did it and it wasnt prohibited by the rules, there is nothing bad about it... them asking about it is actualy very positive thing, since they didnt have to, it would be on tournament organisiers to take the blame and change the rules afterwards
unless you think that doing something that was prefectly legal at the time, but 10 years later is illegal should get you arrested... but if you do, you are retarded
It's obviously not allowed for them to just forfeit and give the prize to one of them. How stupid do you have to be to think that?
"ok we'll have a tournament but if you dont wanna play just all agree on who gets $6k."
Wait, that makes no sense.
They knew they were cheating a little bit. If they didnt then i really dont know what to say.
it is perfectly obvious and allowed in MANY MANY other games and sports to do so, why do you think that its obviously not allowed in here if its not prohibited by the rules? why are you pulling stuff out of your ass? i congratulate them for being too honest for their own good cause they really didnt have to ask about it
On December 22 2010 21:14 Deadlyfish wrote: This is cheating, how are people fine with this? I dont care if the prize was a million $, they still cheated by matchfixing. I would say they are on the same level as maphackers, cheating is cheating. Lost all respect for both of them.
Well, for one thing it never happened. It's a hypothetical match fix they didnt go trough with,
So what...........
They got caught, therefore it's ok?
They asked if they could do it, got a "no" and then didn't do it. Or do you have some new evidence other than speculation stating otherwise?
I dont care if they asked first, i just dont like that they even thought about doing it. If i asked someone if i could maphack and they said no, then it was np?
I just dont like that they even thought about doing it, i dont really care if they asked if they could do it.
asking if something very common in plenty of sports and games is ok is not exactly the same as asking if something 100% banned everywhere is ok now is it? Have you ever played MTG online? if there is a tourny, you should never try to watch replay of the finals, because it lasts 10 seconds! one guy concedes, and they share the prize
now, since its really ok to assume that it might be allowed, because its allowed in many other sports/games, asking if its ok "here" is not bad and should never be regarded as bad, because there is no mention of it in the rules
even if they did it and it wasnt prohibited by the rules, there is nothing bad about it... them asking about it is actualy very positive thing, since they didnt have to, it would be on tournament organisiers to take the blame and change the rules afterwards
unless you think that doing something that was prefectly legal at the time, but 10 years later is illegal should get you arrested... but if you do, you are retarded
It's obviously not allowed for them to just forfeit and give the prize to one of them. How stupid do you have to be to think that?
"ok we'll have a tournament but if you dont wanna play just all agree on who gets $6k."
Wait, that makes no sense.
They knew they were cheating a little bit. If they didnt then i really dont know what to say.
how is it cheating to throw a game ?? so if you just dont feel like playing a certain day, be it for wahtever reson, you should get punnished for it ?? its not like they signed a contract with the tournament that they will play their best in all the games
I cant believe that people dont understand this.
Lets say i am sponsored by a company who expects me to do my best and win, and my fans are cheering for me aswell. If i then just agree with someone else that i will lose so he gets the prize, without telling anyone else, then that is cheating.
If you dont feel like playing then that is fine. Because you dont arrange it.
Like lets say in the GSL finals that 1 guy decided to lose and then they would both split the prize pool. That would be fine according to you? Like 1 guy just gg's immediately in 5 games and then they share the prize. np?
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.
On December 22 2010 22:02 Shikyo wrote: In SSBM back when I played competitively, I've split prices with the other finalist like 4 times without actually playing the finals. I think it's really nice and no one really loses anything, it's like having 2 winners.
This thread really brings out the worst out of people
Again to everybody out there:
This is NOT....repeat this is NOT about splitting up the prize-money of a SINGLE event. The tournament host decided to give away a computer in case somebody manages to win 11 times out of 18. The tournament host OWNS the frickin computer it is his choice to either give it away or not. Now he decided to give it to a person who manages to WIN 11 tournaments. It's not like the winner of a single event gets 10 grand the loser nothing and both decide to split it up. It's amazing how people manage to not understand this very simple thing.
I see no problem with this, they both asked the turnament admins because the system in place is retarded and now because of feedback only one of them will be playing.
Morrow is not cheating by not participating lol ;>
The title and op is misleading, that is why people that generally don´t read anything are raging It should be something like 'Morrow and Sjow agreed with forfeiting their matches so they split prizes'
they dont feel like they were doing anything wrong, imo the only reason they vaguely tried to hide it is cause they knew idiots would go on self righteous rants concerning a non-issue
the jobs of these players is to maximize their profits through their profession they tried to think of the optimal way of doing this, questioned the officials as to the legality of the theoretical situation, then acted according to the answer
there was no matchfixing, when told it was an illegal move one of them stepped out of the tournament as it would be pointless to spend his work time in a profitless endeavor
the only reason the officials themselves are condemning the players is to give rise to the scandal, gain approval in the community, and gain a ton of free publicity I doubt they were originally going to punish the players for asking a question
What really disappoints me though is rakaka.se, posting a large banner screaming: "Thrown games in the swedish SC2-elite" and then "BUSTED!" with big red capital letters.
"BANTHEM4LIFE.jpg", seriously? What happened to journalistic neutrality? The whole article reeks with spite. They talk about the hot-headed Morrow, and their plans to rig the tournament and also takes the chance of poking at the tournament admin Maven who approved the upcoming throw match.
They apparently talked to Maven via battle.net (WoW), but they didn't give Sjow or MorroW any chance to give their side of the story. The news article was posted 20:41, I'm pretty sure one, if not both players were on battle.net by then.
They did talk to the head of Dignitas ODEE though. Who said he couldn't comment until he heard from his players. Was that an attempt to give both parties a chance to comment and thereby smooth some of the extreme bias over? What the hell would he know about an internal swedish agreement?
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.
Indeed.
Rakaka should post an official apology to both the slander against sjow and morrow and for the unprofessional journalism presented to their readers.
Let's say it's day 18 and you are in the finals with your friend. Your friend has won 10 tournaments. If you win, you'd get a €25 gift certificate. If your friend wins, he'd get a computer worth €4000 (and a €25 gift certificate).
Like someone said before me, it's an clear case of the prisoners dilemma. In that scenario, I would seriously be ashamed if i won the last game instead of my friend.
I don't get it. So basically, if Morrow lost to Sjow, he wouldn't get the PC. That's why Sjow isn't participating? What would Sjow lose if he won the tourney lol ? Or did Morrow 'pay' Sjow with his other prizes so Sjow wouldn't participate?
I guess this just comes down to fundamental differences in how we view competition and professional sports. If you think it's alright for a tournament system to be abused because there are some holes, i guess you are of the pragmatist sort. If you think doing so will tarnish the spirit of competition and professionalism, i guess you are more of an idealist. Either way there's no absolute right and wrong, just different views. My point is, arguing about which is right will get us no where. It's just better to agree to disagree and part ways amicably.
On December 22 2010 22:10 Cor Aut Mors wrote: they dont feel like they were doing anything wrong, imo the only reason they vaguely tried to hide it is cause they knew idiots would go on self righteous rants concerning a non-issue
the jobs of these players is to maximize their profits through their profession they tried to think of the optimal way of doing this, questioned the officials as to the legality of the theoretical situation, then acted according to the answer
there was no matchfixing, when told it was an illegal move one of them stepped out of the tournament as it would be pointless to spend his work time in a profitless endeavor
the only reason the officials themselves are condemning the players is to give rise to the scandal, gain approval in the community, and gain a ton of free publicity I doubt they were originally going to punish the players for asking a question
How do you have so much inside information on this situation?
How do you you know exactly what happened, how they and the tournament staff got in contact about this situation, and the opinions of the players and the tournament staff?
On December 22 2010 22:02 Shikyo wrote: In SSBM back when I played competitively, I've split prices with the other finalist like 4 times without actually playing the finals. I think it's really nice and no one really loses anything, it's like having 2 winners.
This thread really brings out the worst out of people
Again to everybody out there:
This is NOT....repeat this is NOT about splitting up the prize-money of a SINGLE event. The tournament host decided to give away a computer in case somebody manages to win 11 times out of 18. The tournament host OWNS the frickin computer it is his choice to either give it away or not. Now he decided to give it to a person who manages to WIN 11 tournaments. It's not like the winner of a single event gets 10 grand the loser nothing and both decide to split it up. It's amazing how people manage to not understand this very simple thing.
Civilized societies have a word for this: fraud.
Huh? Worst out of people?
If the tournament system is so incredibly stupid that one person needs to win multiple tournaments, and even with a half-half split no one wins anything, it makes perfect sense that when both you and your friend make it to the finals, you'll let the same person win every time. I don't think there's anything wrong with that(assuming no coverage), and it wouldn't be a big deal in most other competitive games. SC scene just overreacts to this stuff, to me it's perfectly logical.
I'm going to leave one post on this and one alone.
This kind of bullshit harms the reputation of eSports and sets the cause of getting it taken seriously by sponsors, spectators and the world as a whole back.
This same thing happened at the i41 finals. The two finalists agreed to split the pot, went random, played lazy games because there was no competitive drive there and made a mockery of the tournament. They did this for £5000, a larger prize than this laptop. The fact that there was not more of a stink thrown about it is ridiculous. There is a reason prizes are tiered, to ensure there is a strong incentive to play to the best of your ability in order to win the larger prize.
If you are not willing to play in the spirit of the tournament, do not play at all. I personally find this behaviour extremely distasteful and harmful to the scene as a whole. The fact that people are siding with the players on this issue rather than the sponsors just goes to show how little people really understand about the synergy between sponsors and players, required to create a successful eSports scene. The behaviour of both players is deplorable, particularly in the language they used, it is embarrassing. It is good that one of them stepped out of the tournament but the fact that some people don't see the problem with this behaviour is mindboggling and shows a fairly clear bias towards the players, which has no rational basis.
I don't get it. So basically, if Morrow lost to Sjow, he wouldn't get the PC. That's why Sjow isn't participating? What would Sjow lose if he won the tourney lol ? Or did Morrow 'pay' Sjow with his other prizes so Sjow wouldn't participate?
basically, if they both play, neither can win if one plays, he will win big and if neither plays, no one wins again the basic prisoners dilemma
so they tried to think of a way around it, so that both can profit and compete, were told no so sjowe just left, knowing it wouldnt profit him to play with morrow competing and now both are being flamed for it
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.
yet it is in many other games, sports and tournaments? how is it so obviosly not allowed in sc? sure i understand if you are nr1 for sure, and if you lose your friend will be nr2 and you will both go thru the group, and some 3rd guy wont have a chance to go thru... but if my friend beat some guy, i beat some guy, we meet knockout phase, why cant i forfeit the game at MY OWN expanse to help some other player? if the tournament dragged on and i dont have time, i can forfeit and let someone go thru AT MY own expanse and clearly within the rules! how and why is that bad? i just dont get it... is there some higher unwritten god given rule where you are not allowed to do something that wont hurt anyone but yourself, and will actually help someone else???
and plz dont say i will hurt sponsors and tournament organisers, cause its just not thru... they created and allowed me to do so by putting themselves into lose-lose situation! if i go within the rules and let someone else win, they lose because they have to give the computer... yet if i decide not to participate, because participating will only hurt myself and my friend, they lose one big name in the tournament! its not profesionals duty to satisfy organisers and sponsors... they will usualy do whats best for them and within the rules! its on organiser to make sure to make rules that put both them and pro into win-win situation, so pros will come and organiers will profit from that, not to make rules to either turn away pros or lose more money on prizes and for pro is either lose money on prize or not play at all... retarded organisers and retarded people who blame pros for trying to be pro and maximise their gain in legal way
On December 22 2010 22:02 Shikyo wrote: In SSBM back when I played competitively, I've split prices with the other finalist like 4 times without actually playing the finals. I think it's really nice and no one really loses anything, it's like having 2 winners.
This thread really brings out the worst out of people
Again to everybody out there:
This is NOT....repeat this is NOT about splitting up the prize-money of a SINGLE event. The tournament host decided to give away a computer in case somebody manages to win 11 times out of 18. The tournament host OWNS the frickin computer it is his choice to either give it away or not. Now he decided to give it to a person who manages to WIN 11 tournaments. It's not like the winner of a single event gets 10 grand the loser nothing and both decide to split it up. It's amazing how people manage to not understand this very simple thing.
Civilized societies have a word for this: fraud.
Huh? Worst out of people?
If the tournament system is so incredibly stupid that one person needs to win multiple tournaments, it makes perfect sense that when both you and your friend make it to the finals, you'll let the same person win every time. I don't think there's anything wrong with that(assuming no coverage), and it wouldn't be a big deal in most other competitive games. SC scene just overreacts to this stuff, to me it's perfectly logical.
Now go ahead and call the IAAF "incredibly stupid" for making a system where one person that wins multiple events gets a special jackpot. Would be perfectly ok if the best athletes agreed to let one win all the events and split up the big pot afterwards, wouldn't it?
Yeah. That's exactly what I want you to do. To realize that from a moral standpoint what they're doing now isn't any different.
It is different. Actually, it's so different that if you don't see it yourself it's impossible to explain the difference. Mostly because the implication is that you don't want to see it.
Don't know what that is meant to imply. But I don't care about these two players at all. I mean, I have no bias toward them; I don't know them or anything. This is just my opinion.
They're still colluding, cooperating, helping eachother in order to maximize their profits. They're just doing it using a kind of loophole. And there are several such loopholes that could be used. The other one being that one player only plays in 7 tournaments and leave the rest to the other player. That would actually be the best idea because then they would get all the other prizes as well. Now they will just get a computer.
If you can't put the difference into words then why should I listen to you?
On December 22 2010 22:10 noD wrote: The title and op is misleading, that is why people that generally don´t read anything are raging It should be something like 'Morrow and Sjow agreed with forfeiting their matches so they split prizes'
Who's the one who doesn't read anything? They aren't splitting a prize they would collectively win anyway. They're talking about fixing things so that they can get a special bonus prize that the tournament only wanted to give out if someone was able to beat everyone else consistently. They also aren't forfeiting. The fact that they're worried about whether what they're saying can be read on the stream makes it pretty clear that they weren't going to be upfront and refuse to play the games - they were just going to pretend the same person always won. The thread title is totally accurate.
Funny how this suprises everyone. One reason why I never full respected Morrow is that he's just a Combat-Ex in disguise.
Fixed games/free wins in BW. Why should SC2 be any different?
I feel ashamed by both these players actions no matter the reason or "excuses" they have. Fixing anything, for any reason no matter the benefit, is wrong and should no be tolerated at all.
lol at Morrow not turning off his stream...guess hes hurting for views or something...
On December 22 2010 22:02 Shikyo wrote: In SSBM back when I played competitively, I've split prices with the other finalist like 4 times without actually playing the finals. I think it's really nice and no one really loses anything, it's like having 2 winners.
This thread really brings out the worst out of people
Again to everybody out there:
This is NOT....repeat this is NOT about splitting up the prize-money of a SINGLE event. The tournament host decided to give away a computer in case somebody manages to win 11 times out of 18. The tournament host OWNS the frickin computer it is his choice to either give it away or not. Now he decided to give it to a person who manages to WIN 11 tournaments. It's not like the winner of a single event gets 10 grand the loser nothing and both decide to split it up. It's amazing how people manage to not understand this very simple thing.
Civilized societies have a word for this: fraud.
Huh? Worst out of people?
If the tournament system is so incredibly stupid that one person needs to win multiple tournaments, it makes perfect sense that when both you and your friend make it to the finals, you'll let the same person win every time. I don't think there's anything wrong with that(assuming no coverage), and it wouldn't be a big deal in most other competitive games. SC scene just overreacts to this stuff, to me it's perfectly logical.
Now go ahead and call the IAAF "incredibly stupid" for making a system where one person that wins multiple events gets a special jackpot. Would be perfectly ok if the best athletes agreed to let one win all the events and split up the big pot afterwards, wouldn't it?
No, because there's coverage. I think I covered this... If there's some sort of coverage you can't do these kinds of things for obvious reasons. If there is a stream or something similiar of the tournament, then feel free to ignore all my posts because coverage makes it so that you shouldn't do these kind of things.
How do you have so much inside information on this situation?
How do you you know exactly what happened, how they and the tournament staff got in contact about this situation, and the opinions of the players and the tournament staff?
your right I dont and some is specualtion but is has been stated on here earlier that the players did approach the officials prior to the tournament regarding their plan and, we were shown that sjowe did not see anything wrong with what they were trying to do
and that, originally, on WoW the official of the tournament didnt completely disregard the idea and didnt call for immediate banishment
ya the feelings of each are specualtions by me, but based on the information given, it seems pretty accurate
This is wrong on so many levels. The bottom line is a competitor should always be competing. Always. This isn't a profession people should be choosing to make money, this is a profession for people who love competing, and want to always give the best performance possible. If you're in this only to make money then you're in the wrong field.
Ugh. Well, Morrow and Sjow are blackened by this whole shenanigain. I understand the whole "the tournament was set up poorly" argument, but it's still definitely cheating.
On December 22 2010 22:02 Shikyo wrote: In SSBM back when I played competitively, I've split prices with the other finalist like 4 times without actually playing the finals. I think it's really nice and no one really loses anything, it's like having 2 winners.
This thread really brings out the worst out of people
Again to everybody out there:
This is NOT....repeat this is NOT about splitting up the prize-money of a SINGLE event. The tournament host decided to give away a computer in case somebody manages to win 11 times out of 18. The tournament host OWNS the frickin computer it is his choice to either give it away or not. Now he decided to give it to a person who manages to WIN 11 tournaments. It's not like the winner of a single event gets 10 grand the loser nothing and both decide to split it up. It's amazing how people manage to not understand this very simple thing.
Civilized societies have a word for this: fraud.
Huh? Worst out of people?
If the tournament system is so incredibly stupid that one person needs to win multiple tournaments, it makes perfect sense that when both you and your friend make it to the finals, you'll let the same person win every time. I don't think there's anything wrong with that(assuming no coverage), and it wouldn't be a big deal in most other competitive games. SC scene just overreacts to this stuff, to me it's perfectly logical.
Now go ahead and call the IAAF "incredibly stupid" for making a system where one person that wins multiple events gets a special jackpot. Would be perfectly ok if the best athletes agreed to let one win all the events and split up the big pot afterwards, wouldn't it?
No, because there's coverage. I think I covered this... If there's some sort of coverage you can't do these kinds of things for obvious reasons. If there is a stream or something similiar of the tournament, then feel free to ignore all my posts because coverage makes it so that you shouldn't do these kind of things.
This is ridiculous.
Why on earth do you think are you "allowed" to scam a sponsor just because nobody watches? It's the money of the tournament host/sponsor (his frickin property), he can decide how he wants to give it away, or if at all. If he wants to make absurd rules, fine, it's his money, he can do whatever he wants with it. If he states that the special jackpot goes to the player who wins most games by 6-pooling, it's his damn right. You, on the other hand, are not forced to participate if you don't like it.
Audience has nothing to do with this...like...at all.
the only reason the officials themselves are condemning the players is to give rise to the scandal, gain approval in the community, and gain a ton of free publicity I doubt they were originally going to punish the players for asking a question
Just want to point out that as far as i know the officials have not in any way condemed they players. The owner Budak made a statement that matchfixing was not allowed and players doing it would get banned when asked about it by Rakaka.se but he did not say anything at all about MoRRoW os Sjow. More like he was clarifying the rules for everyone.
On December 22 2010 22:18 TotalBiscuit wrote: I'm going to leave one post on this and one alone.
This kind of bullshit harms the reputation of eSports and sets the cause of getting it taken seriously by sponsors, spectators and the world as a whole back.
This same thing happened at the i41 finals. The two finalists agreed to split the pot, went random, played lazy games because there was no competitive drive there and made a mockery of the tournament. They did this for £5000, a larger prize than this laptop. The fact that there was not more of a stink thrown about it is ridiculous. There is a reason prizes are tiered, to ensure there is a strong incentive to play to the best of your ability in order to win the larger prize.
If you are not willing to play in the spirit of the tournament, do not play at all. I personally find this behaviour extremely distasteful and harmful to the scene as a whole. The fact that people are siding with the players on this issue rather than the sponsors just goes to show how little people really understand about the synergy between sponsors and players, required to create a successful eSports scene. The behaviour of both players is deplorable, particularly in the language they used, it is embarrassing. It is good that one of them stepped out of the tournament but the fact that some people don't see the problem with this behaviour is mindboggling and shows a fairly clear bias towards the players, which has no rational basis.
Well put. The thing that really gets to me is how so many of the people in the thread are siding with the players. Perhaps it's just the early sample size, but the proportion is alarming so far.
Just want to point out that as far as i know the officials have not in any way condemed they players. The owner Budak made a statement that matchfixing was not allowed and players doing it would get banned when asked about it by Rakaka.se but he did not say anything at all about MoRRoW os Sjow. More like he was clarifying the rules for everyone.
mmkay im wrong about that, jumped the gun a little
the only reason the officials themselves are condemning the players is to give rise to the scandal, gain approval in the community, and gain a ton of free publicity I doubt they were originally going to punish the players for asking a question
Just want to point out that as far as i know the officials have not in any way condemed they players. The owner Budak made a statement that matchfixing was not allowed and players doing it would get banned when asked about it by Rakaka.se but he did not say anything at all about MoRRoW os Sjow. More like he was clarifying the rules for everyone.
Rakaka.se interpreted Budaks statement with:
Sjorrow-gate! They may get banned for life. EXTRA! Sjorrow-gate is condemned by Anton Budak.
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)
On December 22 2010 22:02 Shikyo wrote: In SSBM back when I played competitively, I've split prices with the other finalist like 4 times without actually playing the finals. I think it's really nice and no one really loses anything, it's like having 2 winners.
This thread really brings out the worst out of people
Again to everybody out there:
This is NOT....repeat this is NOT about splitting up the prize-money of a SINGLE event. The tournament host decided to give away a computer in case somebody manages to win 11 times out of 18. The tournament host OWNS the frickin computer it is his choice to either give it away or not. Now he decided to give it to a person who manages to WIN 11 tournaments. It's not like the winner of a single event gets 10 grand the loser nothing and both decide to split it up. It's amazing how people manage to not understand this very simple thing.
Civilized societies have a word for this: fraud.
Huh? Worst out of people?
If the tournament system is so incredibly stupid that one person needs to win multiple tournaments, it makes perfect sense that when both you and your friend make it to the finals, you'll let the same person win every time. I don't think there's anything wrong with that(assuming no coverage), and it wouldn't be a big deal in most other competitive games. SC scene just overreacts to this stuff, to me it's perfectly logical.
Now go ahead and call the IAAF "incredibly stupid" for making a system where one person that wins multiple events gets a special jackpot. Would be perfectly ok if the best athletes agreed to let one win all the events and split up the big pot afterwards, wouldn't it?
No, because there's coverage. I think I covered this... If there's some sort of coverage you can't do these kinds of things for obvious reasons. If there is a stream or something similiar of the tournament, then feel free to ignore all my posts because coverage makes it so that you shouldn't do these kind of things.
This is ridiculous.
Why on earth do you think are you "allowed" to scam a sponsor just because nobody watches? It's the money of the tournament host/sponsor (his frickin property), he can decide how he wants to give it away, or if at all. If he wants to make absurd rules, fine, it's his money, he can do whatever he wants with it. If he states that the special jackpot goes to the player who wins most games by 6-pooling, it's his damn right. You, on the other hand, are not forced to participate if you don't like it.
Audience has nothing to do with this...like...at all.
because sponsor and organizers made it possible and legal? why is that so hard to understand? players dont have any obligation towards the sponsors, tournament organizer has, and they came up with the faulty system that will hurt both sponsors and players... so you can stop jumping on players for doing what they are supposed to do in situation like that! and that is not to go against your own well being to please someone who didnt give you anything, and you dont owe them anything! sponsors profit from good players being there by getting more coverage, organizers profit from getting more sponsors because there are more good players, and players profit from more sponsors by getting more prizes... and organizers decided to put players into spot where they have to choose between their own well being and organizers + sponsors well being... and you blame players for choosing the right way????
the only reason the officials themselves are condemning the players is to give rise to the scandal, gain approval in the community, and gain a ton of free publicity I doubt they were originally going to punish the players for asking a question
Just want to point out that as far as i know the officials have not in any way condemed they players. The owner Budak made a statement that matchfixing was not allowed and players doing it would get banned when asked about it by Rakaka.se but he did not say anything at all about MoRRoW os Sjow. More like he was clarifying the rules for everyone.
Rakaka.se interpreted Budaks statement with:
Sjorrow-gate! They may get banned for life. EXTRA! Sjorrow-gate is condemned by Anton Budak.
Well yeah, that are the headlines... But honestly, how many times have you seen aftonbladet use totally ridiulous headlines aswell? It is there to attract attention and make people click it, if you read the article after clicking it paints a different picture than the headline. It is pretty common for all news-media, i dont exactly like it but having some insight in the buisness that is how it pretty much has to be done if you want to be competetive and attract readers.
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)
Well this way would be way better. The other could always say that something come up and withdrew from rest of tourney series.
It's still a bit disrespectfull but that would be way better.
And about no spectators. You believe they cleared the whole place for the players to play? There would always be bystanders (not to mention cs players) their friends and fans watching and cheering.
How do you have so much inside information on this situation?
How do you you know exactly what happened, how they and the tournament staff got in contact about this situation, and the opinions of the players and the tournament staff?
your right I dont and some is specualtion but is has been stated on here earlier that the players did approach the officials prior to the tournament regarding their plan and, we were shown that sjowe did not see anything wrong with what they were trying to do
and that, originally, on WoW the official of the tournament didnt completely disregard the idea and didnt call for immediate banishment
ya the feelings of each are specualtions by me, but based on the information given, it seems pretty accurate
It was stated by Sjow in this thread that they and the tournament staff talked about the situation. It was not clear if they went and asked the tournament staff if they could do it (as if there were any chance they would allow it?), or if the tournament staff approached them about it. All the statements saying they went directly to them and asked came from people not involved in the situation.
On December 22 2010 22:34 genai wrote: sponsors profit from good players being there by getting more coverage
Exactly - and sponsors won't profit if the players make a mockery of events.
I won't write any more on this, TotalBiscuit has said everything that needs to be said. It's embarassing to see how narrow-minded huge parts of the esports-scene still are that they fail to realize how much stuff like this hurts the whole concept of competitive e-sports. Not simply on a "moral" level but on a "monetary" level.
Do you really think any sponsor who reads this stuff will think "hey, cool stuff this SC2, I'll put my money into it to get good promotion for my products". Really?
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: Warroirs 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€)
The more you win, the better the prize. If both of them made it to the final, they were going to throw the match, so one guy gets all the wins. It's unfair for other competitors, unfair for the tournament organizers, and unfair for the fans.
On December 22 2010 22:02 Shikyo wrote: In SSBM back when I played competitively, I've split prices with the other finalist like 4 times without actually playing the finals. I think it's really nice and no one really loses anything, it's like having 2 winners.
This thread really brings out the worst out of people
Again to everybody out there:
This is NOT....repeat this is NOT about splitting up the prize-money of a SINGLE event. The tournament host decided to give away a computer in case somebody manages to win 11 times out of 18. The tournament host OWNS the frickin computer it is his choice to either give it away or not. Now he decided to give it to a person who manages to WIN 11 tournaments. It's not like the winner of a single event gets 10 grand the loser nothing and both decide to split it up. It's amazing how people manage to not understand this very simple thing.
Civilized societies have a word for this: fraud.
Huh? Worst out of people?
If the tournament system is so incredibly stupid that one person needs to win multiple tournaments, it makes perfect sense that when both you and your friend make it to the finals, you'll let the same person win every time. I don't think there's anything wrong with that(assuming no coverage), and it wouldn't be a big deal in most other competitive games. SC scene just overreacts to this stuff, to me it's perfectly logical.
Now go ahead and call the IAAF "incredibly stupid" for making a system where one person that wins multiple events gets a special jackpot. Would be perfectly ok if the best athletes agreed to let one win all the events and split up the big pot afterwards, wouldn't it?
No, because there's coverage. I think I covered this... If there's some sort of coverage you can't do these kinds of things for obvious reasons. If there is a stream or something similiar of the tournament, then feel free to ignore all my posts because coverage makes it so that you shouldn't do these kind of things.
This is ridiculous.
Why on earth do you think are you "allowed" to scam a sponsor just because nobody watches? It's the money of the tournament host/sponsor (his frickin property), he can decide how he wants to give it away, or if at all. If he wants to make absurd rules, fine, it's his money, he can do whatever he wants with it. If he states that the special jackpot goes to the player who wins most games by 6-pooling, it's his damn right. You, on the other hand, are not forced to participate if you don't like it.
Audience has nothing to do with this...like...at all.
because sponsor and organizers made it possible and legal? why is that so hard to understand?
On December 22 2010 22:18 TotalBiscuit wrote: I'm going to leave one post on this and one alone.
This kind of bullshit harms the reputation of eSports and sets the cause of getting it taken seriously by sponsors, spectators and the world as a whole back.
This same thing happened at the i41 finals. The two finalists agreed to split the pot, went random, played lazy games because there was no competitive drive there and made a mockery of the tournament. They did this for £5000, a larger prize than this laptop. The fact that there was not more of a stink thrown about it is ridiculous. There is a reason prizes are tiered, to ensure there is a strong incentive to play to the best of your ability in order to win the larger prize.
If you are not willing to play in the spirit of the tournament, do not play at all. I personally find this behaviour extremely distasteful and harmful to the scene as a whole. The fact that people are siding with the players on this issue rather than the sponsors just goes to show how little people really understand about the synergy between sponsors and players, required to create a successful eSports scene. The behaviour of both players is deplorable, particularly in the language they used, it is embarrassing. It is good that one of them stepped out of the tournament but the fact that some people don't see the problem with this behaviour is mindboggling and shows a fairly clear bias towards the players, which has no rational basis.
Well put. The thing that really gets to me is how so many of the people in the thread are siding with the players. Perhaps it's just the early sample size, but the proportion is alarming so far.
The reason I'm siding with the players is because of the information I've been given. This quote right here pretty much covers what my take is:
On December 22 2010 22:13 VoirDire wrote: Let's say it's day 18 and you are in the finals with your friend. Your friend has won 10 tournaments. If you win, you'd get a €25 gift certificate. If your friend wins, he'd get a computer worth €4000 (and a €25 gift certificate).
Like someone said before me, it's an clear case of the prisoners dilemma. In that scenario, I would seriously be ashamed if i won the last game instead of my friend.
According to this the incentive is not to win as TotalBiscuit is saying, it's to lose. Why would I prize-block my friend for nothing?
It was stated by Sjow in this thread that they and the tournament staff talked about the situation. It was not clear if they went and asked the tournament staff if they could do it (as if there were any chance they would allow it?), or if the tournament staff approached them about it. All the statements saying they went directly to them and asked came from people not involved in the situation.
the tournament might allow it if they dont, one top player leaves and theres less recognition for the tournament itself
your probably right about the rest, im just goin based on what the rest of the forum says and tried to make a counterpoint towards all those raving mad about the situation
truth is, we dont know the truth and it is way to early to banish them
On December 22 2010 22:31 VoirDire wrote: Rakaka.se interpreted Budaks statement with:
Sjorrow-gate! They may get banned for life. EXTRA! Sjorrow-gate is condemned by Anton Budak.
Well yeah, that are the headlines... But honestly, how many times have you seen aftonbladet use totally ridiulous headlines aswell? It is there to attract attention and make people click it, if you read the article after clicking it paints a different picture than the headline. It is pretty common for all news-media, i dont exactly like it but having some insight in the buisness that is how it pretty much has to be done if you want to be competetive and attract readers.
My point is that rakaka.se (and aftonbladet btw) are shitty sources of news. They don't report news, they invent news and blow small things into giant proportions using sensationalism. I have some insight in news reporting myself, that's why I get so upset.
You don't have to do that to attract readers. Just look at teamliquid.
On December 22 2010 22:18 TotalBiscuit wrote: I'm going to leave one post on this and one alone.
This kind of bullshit harms the reputation of eSports and sets the cause of getting it taken seriously by sponsors, spectators and the world as a whole back.
This same thing happened at the i41 finals. The two finalists agreed to split the pot, went random, played lazy games because there was no competitive drive there and made a mockery of the tournament. They did this for £5000, a larger prize than this laptop. The fact that there was not more of a stink thrown about it is ridiculous. There is a reason prizes are tiered, to ensure there is a strong incentive to play to the best of your ability in order to win the larger prize.
If you are not willing to play in the spirit of the tournament, do not play at all. I personally find this behaviour extremely distasteful and harmful to the scene as a whole. The fact that people are siding with the players on this issue rather than the sponsors just goes to show how little people really understand about the synergy between sponsors and players, required to create a successful eSports scene. The behaviour of both players is deplorable, particularly in the language they used, it is embarrassing. It is good that one of them stepped out of the tournament but the fact that some people don't see the problem with this behaviour is mindboggling and shows a fairly clear bias towards the players, which has no rational basis.
Well put. The thing that really gets to me is how so many of the people in the thread are siding with the players. Perhaps it's just the early sample size, but the proportion is alarming so far.
The reason I'm siding with the players is because of the information I've been given. This quote right here pretty much covers what my take is:
On December 22 2010 22:13 VoirDire wrote: Let's say it's day 18 and you are in the finals with your friend. Your friend has won 10 tournaments. If you win, you'd get a €25 gift certificate. If your friend wins, he'd get a computer worth €4000 (and a €25 gift certificate).
Like someone said before me, it's an clear case of the prisoners dilemma. In that scenario, I would seriously be ashamed if i won the last game instead of my friend.
According to this the incentive is not to win as TotalBiscuit is saying, it's to lose. Why would I prize-block my friend for nothing?
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.
On December 22 2010 22:34 genai wrote: sponsors profit from good players being there by getting more coverage
Exactly - and sponsors won't profit if the players make a mockery of events.
I won't write any more on this, TotalBiscuit has said everything that needs to be said. It's embarassing to see how narrow-minded huge parts of the esports-scene still are that they fail to realize how much stuff like this hurts the whole concept of competitive e-sports. Not simply on a "moral" level but on a "monetary" level.
Do you really think any sponsor who reads this stuff will think of "hey, cool stuff this SC2, I'll put my money into it to get good promotion for my products". Really?
again, its not on players to please the sponsor... its organizers duty to their sponsors... its organizers duty to attract more good players to benefit their sponsors, and therefor get more sponsors! yet they come up with the system that makes players not play or "cheat", as people put it... and then you blame players for trying to both play and not hurt themselves (all within the rules)...
yea, damn those players for not hurting themselves so some other guys can benefit from them! brilliant idea!!! so again... organizers made players choose between themselves and sponsors/organizer! choices for players: 1. hurt myself and hurt organizer + sponsor but help friend (not play at all) 2. hurt myself, hurt my friend, but help sponsors and organizers (just play) 3. help myself, help friend, hurt sponsors and organizers (earn yourself the right to NOT win by getting to the finals and then forfeiting... if you cant defeat me to get to the finals, you didnt earn the right to win or lose it... so other players are not getting hurt, if i win 9 and my friend 9 or i win 10 and my frined 8 or i win all 18, its all the same to the 3rd guy that never got to the finals)
choice is obvious to me... 3 if possible (they found out it isnt), then 1... and never 2! so not really players fault at all
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: Warroirs 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€)
The more you win, the better the prize. If both of them made it to the final, they were going to throw the match, so one guy gets all the wins. It's unfair for other competitors, unfair for the tournament organizers, and unfair for the fans.
I don't understand how that's unfair at all. They would clearly need to be the top players in order to make it that far, so it's as if one guy is saying to the other, here take the PC I don't need it. It's not as though the officials are the ones fixing a match, it's the players themselves, and if they have the skill to be able to fix it in the first place, then they should be allowed to. If someone has an issue with it, win the tournament? It was already mentioned that the tournament won't be broadcasted in front of a big audience, so there's no letdown with a "faked" match being played.
the only big deal here is that they were stupid enough to think people couldn't read their stream. its like two guys planning a heist over facebook status.
spare me the details look at the action. and sjow, i liked you i thought! And if it was all fine, why did they even worry about if someone could read the stream. because its dishonest and wrong. You guys get laddered all day on stream, what makes you think that you'll roll this tourney? meh lame
On December 22 2010 19:38 dakalro wrote: 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.
So organizers should just lower the prize pool and just take away any possible prizes? Will that make you happy?
They offer a very good prize, and all you can do is complain?
They clearly state that the computer will be given away if someone can win 11 of 18 tournaments. I think everybody knows that winning 11 of 18 is a very hard task. You are acting like they pulled some kind of bait-and-switch when the prize and winning conditions are clearly stated.
The only victims here are people who are the victims of their own stupidity. If someone thought winning 11 of 18 tournaments would be easy, that is their own dumb fault.
There is no prize pool, it was never intended to give the 4k PC away, it's there just for show, to attract the 2 pros and a ton of idiot customers. That's the entire point of it. Put on the huge fireworks show, present some huge diamond to attract the crowd, get the money and run, no actual cost for it.
It may not be bait and switch exactly but it's damn close to it, chances of someone winning 11/18 with 2 huge favorites and chance that they would lose 1-2 finals are so small it's worth the risk. How do you think casinos make money?
Think about it this way. The chance that one of them would get the PC at even skill is once every 2k+ tournaments like this .......................................................
First of all, you are acting like the 6k computer is the only prize, and that if you don't win 11 of the 18 tournaments, you don't get anything. This isn't true, but even if it was, SO WHAT?
That's the way they structured the tournament, that's the way they advertised it, and everybody knows what to expect. If you want to play in the tournament, do it. If you don't feel the format is worth it, then don't play in them.
Where does it come into play that players have the right to cheat the tournament because they don't like the structure? This is a tournament that they are voluntarily playing. People have this sense of entitlement when they really aren't owed a damn thing.
And casinos make money because of math. They have a slight edge in all of their games, so even though many times people will walk out of the casino winners on the night, the casino will always win in the long run. However, I'm not quite sure what that has to do with this thread, to be honest.
This is about math also, exactly like in a casino. They'd have to make tournaments like this for hundreds of years for a chance to actually give out the grand prize ONCE to be high enough. WTH, do you actually think one internet cafe/chain would actually put up $6k in prizes when most tournaments are for <$500 ...
It's 2k total for 18 tournament rounds + 4k for the PC from what I understood ... you do the math and check the logic.
I understand everything you are saying, but I fail to see the problem.
They state the facts, the structure, everything clearly. It's not like they are hiding thinks in small print on the back of the card. Everything is stated clearly. It's not as if the flyer says "GIVING AWAY 6k COMPUTER!!" and then when they get there they are like "lol yea, if you win 11 tournaments".
They are not misleading in any way. It's up for the players to decide if it's an event that they wish to enter. They don't have the right to take it upon themselves to game the system however they see fit.
My problem is with the other participants' perception of the prizes and tournament. A large majority of the people that will see an announcement of this will not realize what the prizes really are and how things will actually turn out. It feels essentially like false advertisement. Imagine this, big poster, 6K in prizes, 2 big SC2 names, they get tons of customers paying to be there those nights (this is an in house event after all, publicity to get customers to play there on winter nights and make $$$). Then you get to the reality, it's actually 2K prizes, 1 big name because the rules made it not worth for both of them to be there. I just really hate lying about products and misrepresenting some ideas image, feels like one of the dirtiest things someone could do for money, like those damned snake oil cures everything salesmen.
I know there is a chance someone some day will win it but it is so small that you are actually better off playing poker in a casino with the dealer knowing your hand.
On December 22 2010 22:40 TheBanana wrote: Why would I prize-block my friend for nothing?
Lol, this is getting more and more ridiculous.
Friendship shouldn't be a factor in any competitive scene. If your friend isn't good enough to win as many times as is needed to collect a bonus prize his skill is prize-blocking him, not his friendship.
Wow reading this thread disgusts me. I thought that the majority of people here on TL would condemn such a thing instead of blaming it on the organizers. I guess there just isn't any place left for people who like good sportmanship and fair gaming.
On December 22 2010 22:40 TheBanana wrote: Why would I prize-block my friend for nothing?
Lol, this is getting more and more ridiculous.
Friendship shouldn't be a factor in any competitive scene. If your friend isn't good enough to win as many times as is needed to collect a bonus prize his skill is prize-blocking him, not his friendship.
if i prize block my friend, i dont get anything more out of it... if i dont prize block my friend, i get the same amount, but my friend gets more... so yea, no incentive to be competitive, quite the opposite, players doing the best they can from the cards they are given by the organizer, good job players... if you want different outcome, give them different cards
Good sportsmanship, When it's specifically organized to get free publicity and direct income for the organizers with minimum investment? Hah, this feels more like kespa than helpful promotion of the game.
I think this is a good reason for why prizes should be guaranteed in tournaments. The way I read is that in order for someone to win the big prize, they need to win 11/15 tournaments or else no one wins the prize. That is just a bad format. Make sure the grand prize is always awarded to someone.
Of course, if it's a KOTH or like EG/MSI's laptop tourney, then those are fine with conditions to win prizes. I'm speaking mostly about a system where they reward the first player only if he beats his opponents by a certain amount.
Why are people defending the players? You say its on the tournament organizers to please the sponsors but you seem to be forgetting that the players are on a professional team with sponsors, do you think they want to see their players throw games just to help their friend on a different team?
On December 22 2010 22:40 TheBanana wrote: Why would I prize-block my friend for nothing?
Lol, this is getting more and more ridiculous.
Friendship shouldn't be a factor in any competitive scene. If your friend isn't good enough to win as many times as is needed to collect a bonus prize his skill is prize-blocking him, not his friendship.
According to the premise he evidently is good enough, and also the incentive you have in the scenario is not to compete due to the structure. Give it some thought, don't just blurt out stuff.
People do this all the time in Magic the Gathering and Yugioh games, letting their friend win because even if they win they won't make top 32/top 8 because of tie breakers, and its not punished as long as both players consent and there was no bribery of any form (can't ask your friend for cards or cash for the scoop)
That sad, morrow is a retard for not closing his stream even after sjow asked him to.
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.
Morrow a top player? When you say top player do you mean a player who got lucky when by using a completely broken unit at the start of the game? Because that's what he is. You have a horrible attitude to matchfixing.
I don't really understand why he's doing this for Morrow; if Morrow can't afford to buy his own computer perhaps he should get better at the game or try getting a job.
kind of discouraging to read this thread and think of how easily this can happen, and how often, and the fact that big names can(and apparently do) do it. I hope this doesn't become common. I remember when WC3's Grubby was caught cheating by looking at a replay of a game they had to save and restart.. I couldn't look at him the same for awhile.
On December 22 2010 22:40 TheBanana wrote: Why would I prize-block my friend for nothing?
Lol, this is getting more and more ridiculous.
Friendship shouldn't be a factor in any competitive scene. If your friend isn't good enough to win as many times as is needed to collect a bonus prize his skill is prize-blocking him, not his friendship.
According to the premise he evidently is good enough, and also the incentive you have in the scenario is not to compete due to the structure. Give it some thought, don't just blurt out stuff.
He gave it some thought. That's why he's right... Try giving your own post some thought. According to the premise he is good enough *only if his friend throws the match to him*. Yes, the incentive is not to compete in the tournament at all. Yes, this is a dumb prize structure. No, that fails to change the fact that this is totally unacceptable behavior.
On December 22 2010 22:40 TheBanana wrote: Why would I prize-block my friend for nothing?
Lol, this is getting more and more ridiculous.
Friendship shouldn't be a factor in any competitive scene. If your friend isn't good enough to win as many times as is needed to collect a bonus prize his skill is prize-blocking him, not his friendship.
if i prize block my friend, i dont get anything more out of it... if i dont prize block my friend, i get the same amount, but my friend gets more... so yea, no incentive to be competitive, quite the opposite, players doing the best they can from the cards they are given by the organizer, good job players... if you want different outcome, give them different cards
If you're able to prize-block him that means he's simply not good enough to win the prize, otherwise he can just crush you and collect the prize. In other words he doesn't deserve the prize even if it's a rediculous format.
Manipulating matches to get him a prize anyway (which he doesn't deserve based on his skill) is cheating. What you're saying is: if i can't have it than i'll make sure someone that i choose gets it. That's not the idea of a competitive tournament.
On December 22 2010 22:40 TheBanana wrote: Why would I prize-block my friend for nothing?
Lol, this is getting more and more ridiculous.
Friendship shouldn't be a factor in any competitive scene. If your friend isn't good enough to win as many times as is needed to collect a bonus prize his skill is prize-blocking him, not his friendship.
if i prize block my friend, i dont get anything more out of it... if i dont prize block my friend, i get the same amount, but my friend gets more... so yea, no incentive to be competitive, quite the opposite, players doing the best they can from the cards they are given by the organizer, good job players... if you want different outcome, give them different cards
If you're able to prize-block him that means he's simply not good enough to win the prize, otherwise he can just crush you and collect the prize. In other words he doesn't deserve the prize even if it's a rediculous format.
Manipulating matches to get him a prize anyway (which he doesn't deserve based on his skill) is cheating. What you're saying is: if i can't have it than i'll make sure someone that i choose gets it. That's not the idea of a competitive tournament.
On December 22 2010 22:40 TheBanana wrote: Why would I prize-block my friend for nothing?
Lol, this is getting more and more ridiculous.
Friendship shouldn't be a factor in any competitive scene. If your friend isn't good enough to win as many times as is needed to collect a bonus prize his skill is prize-blocking him, not his friendship.
if i prize block my friend, i dont get anything more out of it... if i dont prize block my friend, i get the same amount, but my friend gets more... so yea, no incentive to be competitive, quite the opposite, players doing the best they can from the cards they are given by the organizer, good job players... if you want different outcome, give them different cards
But by stepping aside you are cheating the organiser/sponsor. I can understand wanting to do it, but if you are a proffesional player act proffesional.
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
I personally don't blame them... it's a stupid tournament setup and it encourages this kind of "cheating". I could easily see myself doing the same thing in their spot. perhaps not while streaming tho.
On December 22 2010 22:40 TheBanana wrote: Why would I prize-block my friend for nothing?
Lol, this is getting more and more ridiculous.
Friendship shouldn't be a factor in any competitive scene. If your friend isn't good enough to win as many times as is needed to collect a bonus prize his skill is prize-blocking him, not his friendship.
According to the premise he evidently is good enough, and also the incentive you have in the scenario is not to compete due to the structure. Give it some thought, don't just blurt out stuff.
He gave it some thought. That's why he's right... Try giving your own post some thought. According to the premise he is good enough *only if his friend throws the match to him*. Yes, the incentive is not to compete in the tournament at all. Yes, this is a dumb prize structure. No, that fails to change the fact that this is totally unacceptable behavior.
"*only if his friend throws the match to him*" simply not true. The given premise says he is the best player and the second best player loses his incentive to even try to compete with him. In the next sentence you're even agreeing with the point I was trying to make.
On December 22 2010 23:03 cromat wrote: People do this all the time in Magic the Gathering and Yugioh games, letting their friend win because even if they win they won't make top 32/top 8 because of tie breakers, and its not punished as long as both players consent and there was no bribery of any form (can't ask your friend for cards or cash for the scoop)
That sad, morrow is a retard for not closing his stream even after sjow asked him to.
This was my initial thought. It makes a lot of sense with how the tournament is structured. This was a very common and accepted practice in MtG tournaments. The tournament organizers disapproved so they stopped. I don't see the problem.
Whats the difference between doing this, and one person just intentionally throwing a game without telling anyone he would do it? You can't stop that kind of thing no matter what. I one and ONLY reason I care is because I am a spectator, and it makes good games a lot less likely if people are throwing matches.
I mean, I totally understand why people are upset, I almost feel like I should be upset myself, but I honestly just don't feel myself getting all worked up over this.
Seems like everyone here is just picking a side and then sticking 100% to it. Personally I think all those involved is a little bit at fault here. What they were planning was not cheating but it was potentially dishonest and definitely disrespectful to the tournament. On the other hand the tournament setup is pretty underhanded as well, only handing out the real prize under certain conditions, disincentivizing competition.
In the end everyone looks a bit dirty, but nothing actually happened, noone actually cheated, just a bad taste in your mouth.
if they are seriously match-fixing what they could do .. is agree to have some giant 4 hour game where every mineral is mined.... and if people think its real the game will be celebrated for years and years.. and each player will increase their "fame level" and stature in the community.
professional wrestlers that pull this off eventually become "championship contenders".
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 22:13 VoirDire wrote: Let's say it's day 18 and you are in the finals with your friend. Your friend has won 10 tournaments. If you win, you'd get a €25 gift certificate. If your friend wins, he'd get a computer worth €4000 (and a €25 gift certificate).
Like someone said before me, it's an clear case of the prisoners dilemma. In that scenario, I would seriously be ashamed if i won the last game instead of my friend.
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.
On December 22 2010 23:03 cromat wrote: People do this all the time in Magic the Gathering and Yugioh games, letting their friend win because even if they win they won't make top 32/top 8 because of tie breakers, and its not punished as long as both players consent and there was no bribery of any form (can't ask your friend for cards or cash for the scoop)
That sad, morrow is a retard for not closing his stream even after sjow asked him to.
This was my initial thought. It makes a lot of sense with how the tournament is structured. This was a very common and accepted practice in MtG tournaments. The tournament organizers disapproved so they stopped. I don't see the problem.
Well to boil it down, the reason for such a big tournament would be to get alot of recognition. And if every final in the tournament is staged the audience wont come to watch. This kind of behavior is disastrous for the tournament scene imo, and rumors will spread.
Everytime morrow or sjow has a bad day and loses now, the tournament will be plagued with rumors of corruption, even if they dont even have a gain to lose (like the ogstop loss to cool in gsl1).
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.
On December 22 2010 23:33 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow this is so disappointing.
this...100 times.
Are they already banned from their teams? From my point of view it is getting more and more worse after all this prizes and money. I was already disapointed than in TSL Cheaters were caught...these guys are really good players...they dont need to be like this...
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...
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.
Good post. Everyone should read this, as the whole situation has been blown out of proportion.
On December 22 2010 23:33 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow this is so disappointing.
this...100 times.
Are they already banned from their teams? From my point of view it is getting more and more worse after all this prizes and money. I was already disapointed than in TSL Cheaters were caught...these guys are really good players...they dont need to be like this...
banned !?!? for not braking any rules, why the fuck would they be banned, they dont give a #%& that you are dissapointed while getting a 4000$ computer for not playing one game that they dont have to since they arent under a contract to play their best every game seriously progamers already dont make any money and they find a way to get a bigger prize without braking the rules and they should be banned, seriously wtf ?
Seems to me that the root of the problem is that nobody seems to bother reading the threads beyond the first page. Not even the last couple of pages. There was no cheating. The leak was after they talked to organizers to ask if it was ok to do what they were chatting about. They were told no so only 1 participates in the tournament. The entire chat most likely took place quite some time before that tournament even started. Just idiotic reporting to get more sensationalism out of the timing of the release of the leak. The article creator would make a great tabloid reporter, and receives the same respect.
banned !?!? for not braking any rules, why the fuck would they be banned, they dont give a #%& that you are dissapointed while getting a 4000$ computer for not playing one game that they dont have to since they arent under a contract to play their best every game seriously progamers already dont make any money and they find a way to get a bigger prize without braking the rules and they should be banned, seriously wtf ?
yeah seriously..if they dont to play that out...that is not a real competition to me..and E Sports is at least for me about Competition
This is disgusting but for some reason I am not surprised this is coming from morrow. He is taking a shit on his fans, his sponsors, as well as the people running the tournament.
Basically everyone he needs to survive as a pro gamer. Fucking stupid.
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.
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 23:43 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.
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?
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 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 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 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.
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 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 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.
Everyone keeps saying "They asked the tournament staff if it was ok and were told no, so they didn't do it. No problem." I would totally agree that this doesn't sound like it's a problem at all.
However, what it actually sounds like to me was happening was that they were making plans to do something that they knew was unacceptable. If they really saw nothing wrong with it, they wouldn't have worried about what they were said being seen. They were then caught planning to cheat. Their response was "What? this? we were just talking about maybe doing this." And then they went to the tournament staff and said "Are we allowed to cheat?" and the tournament staff said no, so they decided not to.
Is there any reason to believe that they were actually planning to ask the tournament staff permission to do this before they were caught? If so, then I for one am willing to entirely forget the whole thing.... but that really doesn't sound like it was their plan. And unless that was, all of this "they asked the organizers" and "they didn't actually do it" stuff is totally irrelevant.
On December 23 2010 00:15 SmoKim wrote: 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.
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!!
hmm there has to be something wrong with that:
ipp says: "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."
and the op says: "As if this wasn't enough, Rakaka have received reports that one of the admins of Inferno Online's SC2-tournament, the well known Swedish SC2-commentator and tournament admin Marcel "Maven" Mattsson, has given his "approval" for the planed throwaway game."
On December 23 2010 00:31 aristarchus wrote: Everyone keeps saying "They asked the tournament staff if it was ok and were told no, so they didn't do it. No problem." I would totally agree that this doesn't sound like it's a problem at all.
However, what it actually sounds like to me was happening was that they were making plans to do something that they knew was unacceptable. If they really saw nothing wrong with it, they wouldn't have worried about what they were said being seen. They were then caught planning to cheat. Their response was "What? this? we were just talking about maybe doing this." And then they went to the tournament staff and said "Are we allowed to cheat?" and the tournament staff said no, so they decided not to.
Is there any reason to believe that they were actually planning to ask the tournament staff permission to do this before they were caught? If so, then I for one am willing to entirely forget the whole thing.... but that really doesn't sound like it was their plan. And unless that was, all of this "they asked the organizers" and "they didn't actually do it" stuff is totally irrelevant.
why is this cheating ?? its getting a bigger prize by not playing your best, or not playing at all
On December 23 2010 00:31 aristarchus wrote: Everyone keeps saying "They asked the tournament staff if it was ok and were told no, so they didn't do it. No problem." I would totally agree that this doesn't sound like it's a problem at all.
However, what it actually sounds like to me was happening was that they were making plans to do something that they knew was unacceptable. If they really saw nothing wrong with it, they wouldn't have worried about what they were said being seen. They were then caught planning to cheat. Their response was "What? this? we were just talking about maybe doing this." And then they went to the tournament staff and said "Are we allowed to cheat?" and the tournament staff said no, so they decided not to.
Is there any reason to believe that they were actually planning to ask the tournament staff permission to do this before they were caught? If so, then I for one am willing to entirely forget the whole thing.... but that really doesn't sound like it was their plan. And unless that was, all of this "they asked the organizers" and "they didn't actually do it" stuff is totally irrelevant.
why is this cheating ?? its getting a bigger prize by not playing your best, or not playing at all
Because the point behind the bigger prize is for someone to earn it by going undefeated.
Yes, it's a system that can be gamed very easily, but that is clearly not what the tournament hosts intended when they designed the tournament this way.
If GSL had a win streak bonus or something, would you think it's acceptable for people to throw games so that someone could get it? Do you think that's why something like that would be implemented?
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.
That's exactly what one of them is doing, and benefits from doing so compared to winning it all in tough competition.
On December 22 2010 22:18 TotalBiscuit wrote: I'm going to leave one post on this and one alone.
This kind of bullshit harms the reputation of eSports and sets the cause of getting it taken seriously by sponsors, spectators and the world as a whole back.
This same thing happened at the i41 finals. The two finalists agreed to split the pot, went random, played lazy games because there was no competitive drive there and made a mockery of the tournament. They did this for £5000, a larger prize than this laptop. The fact that there was not more of a stink thrown about it is ridiculous. There is a reason prizes are tiered, to ensure there is a strong incentive to play to the best of your ability in order to win the larger prize.
If you are not willing to play in the spirit of the tournament, do not play at all. I personally find this behaviour extremely distasteful and harmful to the scene as a whole. The fact that people are siding with the players on this issue rather than the sponsors just goes to show how little people really understand about the synergy between sponsors and players, required to create a successful eSports scene. The behaviour of both players is deplorable, particularly in the language they used, it is embarrassing. It is good that one of them stepped out of the tournament but the fact that some people don't see the problem with this behaviour is mindboggling and shows a fairly clear bias towards the players, which has no rational basis.
I agree with you. And it is even worse then this. One of them stepped out but they are still sharing the prize. One stepping one is so they can win the 11 win prize, not because they are ashamed of what they tried to do. If they were both would step out of the tournament.
On December 23 2010 00:23 Armsved wrote: This isnt poker boys, you cannot split.
The comparison to poker is interesting, as the poker scene also consists of people that know each other who like to make various arrangements with each other outside the game. Like side-bets, percentage of price money sharing, agreements to go all-in before the flop in heads up battles, the standing agreement to take out the shorter stack players first in a final table, sleeper and straddle bets, pot splitting, rabbit hunt bets etc.
The tournament holders in poker does various things to stop this. In some places (although noteably not in Vegas) straddle and sleeper bets are disallowed. Former bw pro Elky got disqualified from the 2008 World Championship of Online Poker for agreeing to go all-in before the flop with another player.
Players and sponsors/tournaments have always fought over how the game should be played. They both are dependent on each other,and they both try to maximize their profit from each other. It's the way of any professional scene.
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? ....Match Fixing? Don’t Worry, tahts BW....
there is nothing wrong with "worrying" about match fixing or having a healthy level of skepticism. I'll be skeptical of any result if there is evidence that points in that direction. If it can happen with BW it can happen in SC2... in fact it probably already has happened in SC2... no one has been caught.
in their talk with each other .. one asks the other if the character on the screen are too blurry to be seen by others... so at least one intended to hide their communication...
if they intended to go straight to the admins and propose a choreographed result why worry about hiding it?
On December 23 2010 00:31 aristarchus wrote: Everyone keeps saying "They asked the tournament staff if it was ok and were told no, so they didn't do it. No problem." I would totally agree that this doesn't sound like it's a problem at all.
However, what it actually sounds like to me was happening was that they were making plans to do something that they knew was unacceptable. If they really saw nothing wrong with it, they wouldn't have worried about what they were said being seen. They were then caught planning to cheat. Their response was "What? this? we were just talking about maybe doing this." And then they went to the tournament staff and said "Are we allowed to cheat?" and the tournament staff said no, so they decided not to.
Is there any reason to believe that they were actually planning to ask the tournament staff permission to do this before they were caught? If so, then I for one am willing to entirely forget the whole thing.... but that really doesn't sound like it was their plan. And unless that was, all of this "they asked the organizers" and "they didn't actually do it" stuff is totally irrelevant.
why is this cheating ?? its getting a bigger prize by not playing your best, or not playing at all
No, you don't get a bigger prize for not playing your best. You get paid off to not play your best. It's the same as getting paid to lose in any sport.
On December 23 2010 00:25 Dante08 wrote: 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.
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.
That's exactly what one of them is doing, and benefits from doing so compared to winning it all in tough competition.
We KNOW for a fact that they checked with the admins first. They did NOT ask the admins later on once being caught " in the act " to " clear their hands ".
The ONLY thing you can accuse them for is that they wanted to do this. Other than that they have done nothing. And in my personal opinion thats not even anything wrong considering the stupid format of the tournament. But even though they wanted to do it, they checked to see if it was OK first.
SjoW, on the chat: "I don't want to cheat"
And the only reason anyone thinks they matchfixed or did anything bad in the first place is because of that retarded rakkaka article.
Jesus tittyfucking christ.
As for why they would want to hide their conversation - look at this thread for why.
On December 23 2010 00:15 SmoKim wrote: 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.
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!!
hmm there has to be something wrong with that:
ipp says: "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."
and the op says: "As if this wasn't enough, Rakaka have received reports that one of the admins of Inferno Online's SC2-tournament, the well known Swedish SC2-commentator and tournament admin Marcel "Maven" Mattsson, has given his "approval" for the planed throwaway game."
so one says "no" the other one "yes" -_-;.
The tournament admin Maven said they couldn't do anything about it as it wasn't strictly against the rules. Inferno Online's owner said no matchfixing allowed.
Rakaka is in the middle of everything and incites all parties against each other like Jerry Springer.
On December 23 2010 00:45 vOdToasT wrote: How can people be so god damned fucking stupid?
We KNOW for a fact that they checked with the admins first. They did NOT ask the admins later on once being caught " in the act " to " clear their hands ".
The ONLY thing you can accuse them for is that they wanted to do this. Other than that they have done nothing. And in my personal opinion thats not even anything wrong considering the stupid format of the tournament. But even though they wanted to do it, they checked to see if it was OK first.
SjoW, on the chat: "I don't want to cheat"
And the only reason anyone thinks they matchfixed or did anything bad in the first place is because of that retarded rakkaka article.
Jesus tittyfucking christ.
As for why they would want to hide their conversation - look at this thread for why.
No they did not ask "the admins" they asked one admin who obviously didn't have the authority to allow this because they made one drop out.
On December 23 2010 00:45 vOdToasT wrote: How can people be so god damned fucking stupid?
We KNOW for a fact that they checked with the admins first. They did NOT ask the admins later on once being caught " in the act " to " clear their hands ".
The ONLY thing you can accuse them for is that they wanted to do this. Other than that they have done nothing. And in my personal opinion thats not even anything wrong considering the stupid format of the tournament. But even though they wanted to do it, they checked to see if it was OK first.
SjoW, on the chat: "I don't want to cheat"
And the only reason anyone thinks they matchfixed or did anything bad in the first place is because of that retarded rakkaka article.
Jesus tittyfucking christ.
As for why they would want to hide their conversation - look at this thread for why.
Put this in the OP too.
What "map fixers" would ask the admins first if it was ok?
On December 23 2010 00:31 aristarchus wrote: Everyone keeps saying "They asked the tournament staff if it was ok and were told no, so they didn't do it. No problem." I would totally agree that this doesn't sound like it's a problem at all.
However, what it actually sounds like to me was happening was that they were making plans to do something that they knew was unacceptable. If they really saw nothing wrong with it, they wouldn't have worried about what they were said being seen. They were then caught planning to cheat. Their response was "What? this? we were just talking about maybe doing this." And then they went to the tournament staff and said "Are we allowed to cheat?" and the tournament staff said no, so they decided not to.
Is there any reason to believe that they were actually planning to ask the tournament staff permission to do this before they were caught? If so, then I for one am willing to entirely forget the whole thing.... but that really doesn't sound like it was their plan. And unless that was, all of this "they asked the organizers" and "they didn't actually do it" stuff is totally irrelevant.
why is this cheating ?? its getting a bigger prize by not playing your best, or not playing at all
Because the point behind the bigger prize is for someone to earn it by going undefeated.
Yes, it's a system that can be gamed very easily, but that is clearly not what the tournament hosts intended when they designed the tournament this way.
If GSL had a win streak bonus or something, would you think it's acceptable for people to throw games so that someone could get it? Do you think that's why something like that would be implemented?
This... I don't know why this is a discussion. It's fine if one of them drops and split the cash (if the winner wants to give his cash away)... but if they are both competing in the tournament... they both should be trying. You guys would be losing your sh*t IF Jinro threw his matches because he thought MC had a better chance at winning GSL. You can try to look at a different perspectives but it's still unethical and sad to see. All of this is heresay so it's fun to jump to conclusions... Either way, they are doing everything legit so get over it.
Not really against any rules, but still it just seems dirty. This just leaves a bad taste in my mouth knowing that some people do this or want to do this. Definitely lost some respect for Morrow and Sjow.
On December 23 2010 00:31 aristarchus wrote: Everyone keeps saying "They asked the tournament staff if it was ok and were told no, so they didn't do it. No problem." I would totally agree that this doesn't sound like it's a problem at all.
However, what it actually sounds like to me was happening was that they were making plans to do something that they knew was unacceptable. If they really saw nothing wrong with it, they wouldn't have worried about what they were said being seen. They were then caught planning to cheat. Their response was "What? this? we were just talking about maybe doing this." And then they went to the tournament staff and said "Are we allowed to cheat?" and the tournament staff said no, so they decided not to.
Is there any reason to believe that they were actually planning to ask the tournament staff permission to do this before they were caught? If so, then I for one am willing to entirely forget the whole thing.... but that really doesn't sound like it was their plan. And unless that was, all of this "they asked the organizers" and "they didn't actually do it" stuff is totally irrelevant.
I was watching Morrow's stream at the time and Morrow said something like "Make sure it's ok, I don't want to cheat". I can't remember the exact words since I didn't know what they were talking about at the time (and thus didn't care that much), but I strongly remember "I don't want to cheat", so I don't think they were "caught".
EDIT: Seeing vOdToasT's post, maybe it was SjoW who said it. At least one of them did
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.
That's exactly what one of them is doing, and benefits from doing so compared to winning it all in tough competition.
Yeah, after they got caught.
Achiving the exact same result. Except one of them doesn't have to pay the tournament entry fees this way. So it's even more profitable for them. Yet, this is considered ok?
On December 23 2010 00:31 aristarchus wrote: Everyone keeps saying "They asked the tournament staff if it was ok and were told no, so they didn't do it. No problem." I would totally agree that this doesn't sound like it's a problem at all.
However, what it actually sounds like to me was happening was that they were making plans to do something that they knew was unacceptable. If they really saw nothing wrong with it, they wouldn't have worried about what they were said being seen. They were then caught planning to cheat. Their response was "What? this? we were just talking about maybe doing this." And then they went to the tournament staff and said "Are we allowed to cheat?" and the tournament staff said no, so they decided not to.
Is there any reason to believe that they were actually planning to ask the tournament staff permission to do this before they were caught? If so, then I for one am willing to entirely forget the whole thing.... but that really doesn't sound like it was their plan. And unless that was, all of this "they asked the organizers" and "they didn't actually do it" stuff is totally irrelevant.
I was watching Morrow's stream at the time and Morrow said something like "Make sure it's ok, I don't want to cheat". I can't remember the exact words since I didn't know what they were talking about at the time (and thus didn't care that much), but I strongly remember "I don't want to cheat", so I don't think they were "caught".
EDIT: Seeing vOdToasT's post, maybe it was SjoW who said it. At least one of them did
Yea, it was show, I was discussing the event on vent for some time, and when I decided to join the stream, my first comment on vent was "Someone named Jeffrey is whispering MorroW something about not wanting to cheat." To wich I got the response "Yea, Jeffrey is SjoW."
Regardless of what their intentions were(to abuse the system), the damage is done. A black mark is left on both of them and it's not going to go away. They've certainly lost my respect, anyway.
On December 22 2010 22:18 TotalBiscuit wrote: I'm going to leave one post on this and one alone.
This kind of bullshit harms the reputation of eSports and sets the cause of getting it taken seriously by sponsors, spectators and the world as a whole back.
This same thing happened at the i41 finals. The two finalists agreed to split the pot, went random, played lazy games because there was no competitive drive there and made a mockery of the tournament. They did this for £5000, a larger prize than this laptop. The fact that there was not more of a stink thrown about it is ridiculous. There is a reason prizes are tiered, to ensure there is a strong incentive to play to the best of your ability in order to win the larger prize.
If you are not willing to play in the spirit of the tournament, do not play at all. I personally find this behaviour extremely distasteful and harmful to the scene as a whole. The fact that people are siding with the players on this issue rather than the sponsors just goes to show how little people really understand about the synergy between sponsors and players, required to create a successful eSports scene. The behaviour of both players is deplorable, particularly in the language they used, it is embarrassing. It is good that one of them stepped out of the tournament but the fact that some people don't see the problem with this behaviour is mindboggling and shows a fairly clear bias towards the players, which has no rational basis.
On December 23 2010 00:45 vOdToasT wrote: How can people be so god damned fucking stupid?
We KNOW for a fact that they checked with the admins first. They did NOT ask the admins later on once being caught " in the act " to " clear their hands ".
The ONLY thing you can accuse them for is that they wanted to do this. Other than that they have done nothing. And in my personal opinion thats not even anything wrong considering the stupid format of the tournament. But even though they wanted to do it, they checked to see if it was OK first.
SjoW, on the chat: "I don't want to cheat"
And the only reason anyone thinks they matchfixed or did anything bad in the first place is because of that retarded rakkaka article.
Jesus tittyfucking christ.
As for why they would want to hide their conversation - look at this thread for why.
No they did not ask "the admins" they asked one admin who obviously didn't have the authority to allow this because they made one drop out.
They logically asked the tournament manager. Rakaka.se then texted the owner of Inferno Online on his cell phone (Presumably, the message was something like this "omg we have breaking news, matchfixing, cheating, haxx!!") He then answered "no throw away games. If we suspect anyhing they will get banned for life". Rakaka then reports EXTRA! IO condemns their behavior like they've actually did something yet.
The whole thing has been blown out of proportion by the sensationalist online newspaper rakaka.se.
I'll quote one of my previous posts:
On December 22 2010 22:12 VoirDire wrote: What really disappoints me though is rakaka.se, posting a large banner screaming: "Thrown games in the swedish SC2-elite" and then "BUSTED!" with big red capital letters.
"BANTHEM4LIFE.jpg", seriously? What happened to journalistic neutrality? The whole article reeks with spite. They talk about the hot-headed Morrow, and their plans to rig the tournament and also takes the chance of poking at the tournament admin Maven who approved the upcoming throw match.
They apparently talked to Maven via battle.net (WoW), but they didn't give Sjow or MorroW any chance to give their side of the story. The news article was posted 20:41, I'm pretty sure one, if not both players were on battle.net by then.
They did talk to the head of Dignitas ODEE though. Who said he couldn't comment until he heard from his players. Was that an attempt to give both parties a chance to comment and thereby smooth some of the extreme bias over? What the hell would he know about an internal swedish agreement?
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.
Indeed.
Rakaka should post an official apology to both the slander against sjow and morrow and for the unprofessional journalism presented to their readers.
Ofcourse they were caught, and ofcourse they knew it was cheating.. I'm sure they aren't that stupid.. then again spewing that on stream is pretty fail.. In the end anytime you purposely lose or win with a friend or team-mate to get more money or prizes its CHEATING.
Okay, just to clear some things up. The tournament requires you to win the "nattgibb" 11 times to get access to the grand prize so there is not a 100% chance that the computer worth 6000$ will be handed out. So if MorroW and SjoW reaches the finals 11 times there is not a verry high chance of anyone winning 100% of the finals which means that the chance of a grand prize being handed out is verry small, meaning that there will not be much to split between the two players.
However if MorroW decides to forfeit/play horrific all of the 11 finals the chance of SjoW getting the computer will go from verry small to certain.
Shorter version: This is not something about placing first one time but winning many times to get the grandprize so cooperation yields more than the prefomance of one individual.
This and the fact that matchfixing should never be tolerated in any sport, is why it should be treated not as cheating perhaps but abusing the system?
I wouldn't call these guys douchbags just yet, atleast not untill the whole story emerges.
sure, financially it's a no brainer, but it's still collusion. 100% not discussable. it's abusing the system in a way it's not meant to be abused, and both of them should be banned from the tournament from that.
every poker player in here probably understands better why this is a really bad thing to do by morrow or sjow. I won't explain it in any depth though, since I need to pack my stuff now and leave in about 5 min.
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.
That's exactly what one of them is doing, and benefits from doing so compared to winning it all in tough competition.
Yeah, after they got caught.
Achiving the exact same result. Except one of them doesn't have to pay the tournament entry fees this way. So it's even more profitable for them. Yet, this is considered ok?
No it is not the exact same result. There is one more spot in the tournament for someone who actually wants to compete.
I don't think it's much of a big deal, especially if they asked the tournament organizers. There are well documented cases of it being done in MTG with Wizards of the Coast sanctioning it. The players did concede matches to lock up high levels of pro player club or to get a friend into the top 8 of a major tournament (Pro Tour or Grand Prix), and perhaps enough to justify them at least exploring the option by talking to the admins.
I was watching the stream at the time, and there was no talk about throwing away games or not playing with their full potential. 90% of the talk was about if both were going to play in the tournament or if just one of them should. This has been blown way, way out of proportion. Stop feeding the drama trolls.
On December 23 2010 00:54 butchji wrote: Why do you care?
Because we care about esports and its development. If you dont care, dont post.
It's not like it's GSL...
Where do you put the boundary between "care" and "not care" tournaments?
I have a lot of respect for "smaller" ventures who run tournaments and sponsor a pcrice pool of any kind. They do this for the community, for you, for me, for everyone who likes to play SC. Why do you think it is ok to shit them? Because they dont offer 86.000 cash?
What surprises me is how everyone is spweing "omg cheating!" left and right, when the party spesifically ASKED if they could do it. Cheating is only if you know the rules and willingly decide to break them anyway.
I'm not seeing how they got "caught" either..the admins they asked gave them an "answer". I really thought Team Liquid was a better community than this.
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.
So they only went to the admins after they got caught talking about it, that makes everything ok. I mean they were only planning on throwing the matches, right? That's not against the spirit of competition at all, oh no, not at all.
There was never a fixed match, you are right, cause they got caught talking about it!! Don't blame the tournament format, no one is forcing either of these players to go, if they can't win the fucking prize without cheating, too fucking bad, get more skill I guess?
I'm glad atleast one site have the balls to report something fishy. Rakaka have never been shy to publish rumors, and in fact most of what they publish is/becomes true. Many sites fear that if they write something negative about a player or a team they'll never get an interview, hence we never get to know the real story most of the time.
Funny thing is rakaka always get alot of shit from teams and players in (and outside) sweden because of their ability to always dig up stuff like this, but you all forget how important it is to have an independent(somewhat anyway) source of news, especially in a "world" where you look up to players like morrow and sjow. Who is going to make sure it's fair play? The media ofc. You can't just find out about a thing like this and not publish.
Theres nothing wrong with this. If you don't want pro players cleaning out your tournaments then don't allow them. With this set up theres no other thing to do really.
On December 23 2010 01:09 Piy wrote: Theres nothing wrong with this. If you don't want pro players cleaning out your tournaments then don't allow them. With this set up theres no other thing to do really.
No problem with this at all.
So you saying that this is a normal behaviour by pro players? I always thought that they like to compete...
On December 23 2010 01:09 Piy wrote: Theres nothing wrong with this. If you don't want pro players cleaning out your tournaments then don't allow them. With this set up theres no other thing to do really.
No problem with this at all.
ofcourse theres something wrong with it.. its cheating.. it has nothing todo with pros cleaning out the division it has to do with there matches being fixed when they play against eachother.
If winning 11 out of the 18 finals is the only way to get the nice computer, this seems like a pretty logical conclusion two top players would come to. I'd say this is more a flaw in the tournament/prize setup than with the players
On December 23 2010 01:16 Pinith wrote: If winning 11 out of the 18 finals is the only way to get the nice computer, this seems like a pretty logical conclusion two top players would come to. I'd say this is more a flaw in the tournament/prize setup than with the players
No.
Its part of the tournament that you have to be that good to win the computer.
Like GSL ´, MLG etc would say, you only win money if you dont lose a single game. It would be stupid, but if you dont like it, dont play in it. Accept the rules/prices or dont play
On December 23 2010 00:54 butchji wrote: Why do you care?
Because we care about esports and its development. If you dont care, dont post.
It's not like it's GSL...
Yeah good logic, and because of people like you it might never be. Foreign tournaments are taking off and getting bigger and better sponsors. If people are trying to "Abuse" the system then this will never work as respected companies will not sponsor such events. If you don't care about that happening then you obviously don't care about esports or the game and if that is true I don't see why you are posting here.
On December 23 2010 01:16 Pinith wrote: If winning 11 out of the 18 finals is the only way to get the nice computer, this seems like a pretty logical conclusion two top players would come to. I'd say this is more a flaw in the tournament/prize setup than with the players
My first thought would be to train extra hard to make sure i could go 11-7 vs the other guy in the finals (that's what this special prize is all about btw) ...
On December 23 2010 01:09 Piy wrote: Theres nothing wrong with this. If you don't want pro players cleaning out your tournaments then don't allow them. With this set up theres no other thing to do really.
No problem with this at all.
What's wrong with people like you? Seriously, if you don't like the rules, don't participate in the tournament, If you want the price, win it with your skill, not by fucking cheating.
WTF this thread is hilarious, how can you possible support match fixing? And after reading sjows "statements" i'm starting to question if he has ever heard of sportsmanship, or what the hell he is thinking he's doing.
Seriously hope they'll get banned from every tournament from now on, this is a huge blow and makes me furious. There are people willing to support the scene, make tournaments / leagues, offer nice prizes, and there are "pros" who just want to make easy cash? If i were a sponsor who were new to the scene and would consider sponsoring something, and read stuff like this, i would consider it twice if i should do it. And after reading this thread, i would seriously come to the conclusion, that i wouldn't ever sponsor anything, cause the community accepts, even endorse this bullshit.
On December 22 2010 23:27 Crovea wrote: I personally don't blame them... it's a stupid tournament setup and it encourages this kind of "cheating". I could easily see myself doing the same thing in their spot. perhaps not while streaming tho.
I can't believe there are people thinking like this, with this line of reasoning you could say the BW players cheated because their situation (small salaries, 12h work shifts...) encouraged cheating. The fact is if this went through, you would have players dropping games on purpose and making a mockery of the whole tournament, e-scene and their fans. It's not cheating, it's match fixing - the same thing we saw in BW case.
I don't care if they are friends, or in the same team, and not wanting to block the other guy from getting the prize, whatever, you should always play 100% to win.
Imagine HuK and Jinro playing finals of a big foreign tournament, and Jinro letting HuK win so he would get an invite into Code A.
Update: In the comment section of the news article on rakaka, Anton Budak, owner of Inferno Online, comments his decision about "No throwaway games, the slightest suspicion and they'll be banned for life" like his:
On December 23 2010 01:17 hallihg wrote: They went to the admins after they were caught planning this.
People who say that there is nothing wrong with this, match fixing, either because
1) it isnt banned in the rules 2) the fixing hadn't taken place 3) it happens in a small tournament 4) the setup of the tournament offers this
are immoral and unethical. eSPORTS will never make it as a public SPORT because you people like you.
This disgusts me and MorroW especially, a ESL winner, should quit Mouz and apologize.
No they went to the admin and asked if this was ok, and the admin (a friend of theirs) said it was ok. This was later overruled by the owner of the net café.
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.
What they were doing wasn't really cheating honestly. They know they could win every tournament, either one of them. You try to be a pro gamer, you make barely any money. The super smash guys got a "scandal" about the top two players (personally), being kicked out of MLG for a possible sandbagging event. It was just rumored, not even proven, and they still banned them from MLG Dallas. The fact is, all of the top players split their money with each other, because without each other, they wouldn't have made it to the top, that's how smash has worked.
What they were doing wasn't cheating, they were just hoping that they could come up with a way (since they knew they would always be the top 2 at every tournament) that they wouldn't eliminate each other from getting the best prize.
its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
Let me see if I understand this. A tournament is set up so there is a bonus prize if you win 11/18 but this prize is not given out if a player only wins 10/18 but still won the tournament. That seems like a poor idea for a prize since it encourages there only being 1 incredibly good player, but having 2 good players have close matches is discouraged.
On December 23 2010 01:16 Pinith wrote: If winning 11 out of the 18 finals is the only way to get the nice computer, this seems like a pretty logical conclusion two top players would come to. I'd say this is more a flaw in the tournament/prize setup than with the players
No.
Its part of the tournament that you have to be that good to win the computer.
Like GSL ´, MLG etc would say, you only win money if you dont lose a single game. It would be stupid, but if you dont like it, dont play in it. Accept the rules/prices or dont play
GSL is exactly the example I'd use of a better tournament setup. There is a fixed prize pool split up amongst all players. The prize pool doesn't shrink if players have harder matches or based on some other arbitrary rulings. Giving out a smaller prize pool for better games is a bad tournament setup.
On December 23 2010 01:08 busbarn wrote: I'm glad atleast one site have the balls to report something fishy. Rakaka have never been shy to publish rumors, and in fact most of what they publish is/becomes true. Many sites fear that if they write something negative about a player or a team they'll never get an interview, hence we never get to know the real story most of the time.
Funny thing is rakaka always get alot of shit from teams and players in (and outside) sweden because of their ability to always dig up stuff like this, but you all forget how important it is to have an independent(somewhat anyway) source of news, especially in a "world" where you look up to players like morrow and sjow. Who is going to make sure it's fair play? The media ofc. You can't just find out about a thing like this and not publish.
Kind of like how Aftonbladet takes something innocent, takes a small portion of that, blows that waaaay out of proportion (leaving most of the vital information out) and repeats it over several days. If you tell a lie enough times, people will think it's the truth.
Few days ago there was a huge article about how violent video games affect kids in a bad way, and scientists had proved it. And at the bottom of the article, they urged the readers to mail their story if they knew someone who had played too much video games.
The vital part that they left out (only news agency that actually included it, was the radio) was the scientist saying that their research had found no evidence of videogames affecting "normal kids". The only cases they got results, was when the child was mentally ill (ADHD), was hanging out in criminal gangs or had parents that fought alot for example. That combined with the kid playing violent video games in a few cases resulted in a violent kid.
I think that if you're looking to do this as a profession, and you aren't one of the top 20 or so good enough to do it without cheating, maybe it's time you got a real job.....
On December 23 2010 01:23 Spacemanspiff wrote: Let me see if I understand this. A tournament is set up so there is a bonus prize if you win 11/18 but this prize is not given out if a player only wins 10/18 but still won the tournament. That seems like a poor idea for a prize since it encourages there only being 1 incredibly good player, but having 2 good players have close matches is discouraged.
Imagine this prize - winning a big non-Korean tournaments gives you a place in GSL Code A. Imagine Ret/Idra/Jinro dropping final games to someone just to have him get that invite. Pretty encouraging to drop a game, right, especially if the other player is his teammate?
On December 23 2010 01:27 hifriend wrote: Lol tl.net drama queens... They even spoke to an admin beforehand, so how can it even be considered cheating?
What they did was basically telling the organizer kindly : " Hey i want to join your tournament but one of us will not play properly in the finals because it is more profitable to us that way. Can we do it?"
Upon being told by the organizer that : "No you can't do that. "
Then they says : Ok then only one of us will join.
I dont see a problem at all with this. Sure it sucks that 2 good players will not go at it to win the prize but the blame is on the poor tournament structure that it discourages competition. Sjow and Morrow didn't do anything wrong.
On December 23 2010 01:27 hifriend wrote: Lol tl.net drama queens... They even spoke to an admin beforehand, so how can it even be considered cheating?
"They were caught talking about doing it, since then they talked to the admins to ask if it was ok."
As a Magic the Gathering player, this makes a lot of sense and isn't necessarily wrong. They talked to the admins, they said it wasn't allowed (obviously), so just one is playing. This happens all the time in terms of prize split in mtg tournaments. You can ask if a situation constitutes bribery, and if you get approval from a judge there's no problem with what you're doing. The fact that they were so transparent with admins about what they were doing means there really shouldn't be a problem. I think a lot of people are just trying to unnecessarily cause drama.
On December 23 2010 01:21 zev318 wrote: its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
It's not the same as that. First off, this isn't a big tournament, this is a tiny LAN that has an incentive for winning a lot of the series. Morrow and Sjow wanted to play the matches, but they also wouldn't want to eliminate each other from earning their prize.
Plenty of pro-gamers have done this in the past because they have little to no incentive to turn down an offer with the risk of losing thousands of dollars.
You work your butt off all year to get good, you finally get to the point where you are confident you can make it to the finals and get 10,000 bucks. But the opponent says look whoever wins this we'll split it 50-50. 2nd place is 2,000 dollars.
On December 23 2010 01:32 Playguuu wrote: As a Magic the Gathering player, this makes a lot of sense and isn't necessarily wrong. They talked to the admins, they said it wasn't allowed (obviously), so just one is playing. This happens all the time in terms of prize split in mtg tournaments. You can ask if a situation constitutes bribery, and if you get approval from a judge there's no problem with what you're doing. The fact that they were so transparent with admins about what they were doing means there really shouldn't be a problem. I think a lot of people are just trying to unnecessarily cause drama.
Only naive people believe that they were always going to discuss it with admins before doing it. The message wasn't "let's ask the admins if we can do this" it was "let's do this" and then everyone saw it and then they were like "well everyone knows we're doing it now, so let's ask the admins if we can, then get turned down because it's obviously cheating, and then we'll act like we never meant to cheat"
On December 23 2010 01:27 hifriend wrote: Lol tl.net drama queens... They even spoke to an admin beforehand, so how can it even be considered cheating?
One of them was kicked out after they "asked".
One of them elected not to sign up for the tournament after they asked. Stop trolling and read the thread -- or at least read the updated OP summarizing what the thread has said so far. Seriously.
On December 23 2010 01:21 zev318 wrote: its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
Plenty of pro-gamers have done this in the past because they have little to no incentive to turn down an offer with the risk of losing thousands of dollars.
You work your butt off all year to get good, you finally get to the point where you are confident you can make it to the finals and get 10,000 bucks. But the opponent says look whoever wins this we'll split it 50-50. 2nd place is 2,000 dollars.
You would be fucking stupid not to split.
Moral of the story: when money is involved, it's stupid not to fix?
Do you behave the same way at your workplace, too?
On December 23 2010 01:21 zev318 wrote: its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
It's not the same as that. First off, this isn't a big tournament, this is a tiny LAN that has an incentive for winning a lot of the series. Morrow and Sjow wanted to play the matches, but they also wouldn't want to eliminate each other from earning their prize.
Plenty of pro-gamers have done this in the past because they have little to no incentive to turn down an offer with the risk of losing thousands of dollars.
You work your butt off all year to get good, you finally get to the point where you are confident you can make it to the finals and get 10,000 bucks. But the opponent says look whoever wins this we'll split it 50-50. 2nd place is 2,000 dollars.
You would be fucking stupid not to split.
Why stop there? Why not the top 4 of GSL collude to just split their combined prize pool 4 ways? It's probably about 35-40 grand each, which is really nice if none of them are the absolute favorites.
It goes against the spirit of competition. People aren't going to like it no matter how many different ways you try to rationalize what they were trying to do.
On December 23 2010 01:21 zev318 wrote: its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
It's not the same as that. First off, this isn't a big tournament, this is a tiny LAN that has an incentive for winning a lot of the series. Morrow and Sjow wanted to play the matches, but they also wouldn't want to eliminate each other from earning their prize.
Plenty of pro-gamers have done this in the past because they have little to no incentive to turn down an offer with the risk of losing thousands of dollars.
You work your butt off all year to get good, you finally get to the point where you are confident you can make it to the finals and get 10,000 bucks. But the opponent says look whoever wins this we'll split it 50-50. 2nd place is 2,000 dollars.
You would be fucking stupid not to split.
The fact that they were trying to take advantage of a smaller tournament only makes it worse. This line of reasoning is down right pathetic, they are generous to even offer a prize tournament. But fuck em because the prize isn't big enough? That is a great way to scare people off from sponsoring tournaments at all.
How about the pro's just come clean up all the ~$100 tournaments that are posted here, fix the matches, split the money, and the sponsor is left without even having good games to watch. Fuck em, it's just a small tournament. I hope you are starting to see how disgusting this thinking is.
Oh and yeah, forget pro-gamers, plenty of sports players have been getting paid to lose for a long fucking time. This does not make it good, or okay, or anything like that.
By your logic, pretty much every player would be "fucking stupid" to not get paid to lose, because it is less risky than trying to win.
I can see why this is looked down upon, but I don't see why it's bad. The tournament prize is structured terribly. If I was a pro gamer playing at that tournament, I would probably do the same thing. If they just gave the computer to the first place winner regardless of how many tournaments he wins, this wouldn't be a problem.
On December 23 2010 01:32 Playguuu wrote: As a Magic the Gathering player, this makes a lot of sense and isn't necessarily wrong. They talked to the admins, they said it wasn't allowed (obviously), so just one is playing. This happens all the time in terms of prize split in mtg tournaments. You can ask if a situation constitutes bribery, and if you get approval from a judge there's no problem with what you're doing. The fact that they were so transparent with admins about what they were doing means there really shouldn't be a problem. I think a lot of people are just trying to unnecessarily cause drama.
Only naive people believe that they were always going to discuss it with admins before doing it. The message wasn't "let's ask the admins if we can do this" it was "let's do this" and then everyone saw it and then they were like "well everyone knows we're doing it now, so let's ask the admins if we can, then get turned down because it's obviously cheating, and then we'll act like we never meant to cheat"
Obi Wan Nony speaks the truth. I think they tried to cover their asses after realizing this could screw their careers completely. If I were their respective team manager I would either not allow them to participate in tournaments for a while or kick them off the team for attempting this crap.
On December 23 2010 01:34 Tomken wrote: Still matchfixing.
Will people fucking calm down and get a grip. These are small tournaments with shit prices, and some of you is like omg MATCHFIXING BANN BANN BANN!
1. Nobody gives a shit about this tournament, there is absolutely no esteem in winning it. 2. They are not fixing matches unless you're sitting there betting money on them. 3. I do agree that it's bad sportsmanship and whatever, but what they want to do is their business, not yours.
Until there are stiff penalties, and a governing body of eSports a la MLB (Pete Rose) or NCAA (UNLV) match fixing will continue to happen. I'm sure that it exists even now in some major eSport tournaments in a big way.
It's tough to detect unless you're a fucking tool and stream it live....
On December 23 2010 01:40 Chairman Ray wrote: I can see why this is looked down upon, but I don't see why it's bad. The tournament prize is structured terribly. If I was a pro gamer playing at that tournament, I would probably do the same thing. If they just gave the computer to the first place winner regardless of how many tournaments he wins, this wouldn't be a problem.
Worst excuse for cheating ever. You don't like the tournament, don't be a part of it.
On December 23 2010 01:21 zev318 wrote: its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
It's not the same as that. First off, this isn't a big tournament, this is a tiny LAN that has an incentive for winning a lot of the series. Morrow and Sjow wanted to play the matches, but they also wouldn't want to eliminate each other from earning their prize.
Plenty of pro-gamers have done this in the past because they have little to no incentive to turn down an offer with the risk of losing thousands of dollars.
You work your butt off all year to get good, you finally get to the point where you are confident you can make it to the finals and get 10,000 bucks. But the opponent says look whoever wins this we'll split it 50-50. 2nd place is 2,000 dollars.
You would be fucking stupid not to split.
Why stop there? Why not the top 4 of GSL collude to just split their combined prize pool 4 ways? It's probably about 35-40 grand each, which is really nice if none of them are the absolute favorites.
It goes against the spirit of competition. People aren't going to like it no matter how many different ways you try to rationalize what they were trying to do.
Well the fact is, it goes on all the time. Without anyone knowing. And when people are transparent it's a scandal. The pro teams from korea get paid well enough where they don't have a survival issue where they would do this. I had met progamers that were damn hear homeless from games that don't have the awesome sponsorship, and every win with their immense talent was important. They would always make top 4 at tournaments, but due to the crappy payouts they would split. Just because they were splitting doesn't mean they wouldn't play out the match, and try their best to win. The finals matches of smash were always amazing, but everyone splits. Because competition is more important to that community than who gets the money. If everyone splits, they will still try their absolute best to win, because winning matters more.
Comeplete and utter bullshit. If you don't think your good enough to win than gtfo and get a job. Splitting a prize-pool is never right, hell if players do that i'd have no problem if the tournament organizers/sponsors refuse to give them the money because they didn't actually play, which is what they need to do to win the money. PS: Really that was so stupid by them. If they wanted to do this than why the hell let everyone know? Show up at the tournament, get in the finals, than play games and make them look partially good and one player makes a bad attack intentionally and no one will guess, hell even make it a 2-1/3-2 or w/e.
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.
And so will your living address once the other guy tries to apply his principles in RL and gets caught...
This feels like it's being blown out of proportion. Cheating is bad yes. But it's such a small tournament and they shouldn't get crucified internationally for it.
It's like if 1. Micheal Jordan and Larry Bird cheated in a street basketball game tournament 2. It gets leaked on you tube 3. public demands for their heads to be cut off
On December 23 2010 01:34 Tomken wrote: Still matchfixing.
Will people fucking calm down and get a grip. These are small tournaments with shit prices, and some of you is like omg MATCHFIXING BANN BANN BANN!
1. Nobody gives a shit about this tournament, there is absolutely no esteem in winning it. 2. They are not fixing matches unless you're sitting there betting money on them. 3. I do agree that it's bad sportsmanship and whatever, but what they want to do is their business, not yours.
1. So because its not the GSL they should be allowed to match fix?
what?
2. They are fixing matches if one of them is forfeiting for no reason/losing intentionally
3. If one of them won the tournament legitimately and then decided to share the prize, yes. If one of them intentionally loses/forfeits 11 games so the other one can win and share with him, no.
they could play their best game, give community something worth to watch without damaging the challenge spirit and then they could share the prize or just burn the fucking pc if they want.
On December 23 2010 01:43 hidiliho wrote: This feels like it's being blown out of proportion. Cheating is bad yes. But it's such a small tournament and they shouldn't get crucified internationally for it.
It's like if 1. Micheal Jordan and Larry Bird cheated in a street basketball game tournament 2. It gets leaked on you tube 3. public demands for their heads to be cut off
I would pay to have the organizers of this tournament come here and respond to some of posts like these. They probably put a lot of effort into setting up tournament and getting sponsors and prizes, and the people are like 'fuck them, it's a pathetic little tourney, it's ok to cheat there'
On December 23 2010 01:21 zev318 wrote: its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
It's not the same as that. First off, this isn't a big tournament, this is a tiny LAN that has an incentive for winning a lot of the series. Morrow and Sjow wanted to play the matches, but they also wouldn't want to eliminate each other from earning their prize.
Plenty of pro-gamers have done this in the past because they have little to no incentive to turn down an offer with the risk of losing thousands of dollars.
You work your butt off all year to get good, you finally get to the point where you are confident you can make it to the finals and get 10,000 bucks. But the opponent says look whoever wins this we'll split it 50-50. 2nd place is 2,000 dollars.
You would be fucking stupid not to split.
Why stop there? Why not the top 4 of GSL collude to just split their combined prize pool 4 ways? It's probably about 35-40 grand each, which is really nice if none of them are the absolute favorites.
It goes against the spirit of competition. People aren't going to like it no matter how many different ways you try to rationalize what they were trying to do.
Well the fact is, it goes on all the time. Without anyone knowing. And when people are transparent it's a scandal. The pro teams from korea get paid well enough where they don't have a survival issue where they would do this. I had met progamers that were damn hear homeless from games that don't have the awesome sponsorship, and every win with their immense talent was important. They would always make top 4 at tournaments, but due to the crappy payouts they would split. Just because they were splitting doesn't mean they wouldn't play out the match, and try their best to win. The finals matches of smash were always amazing, but everyone splits. Because competition is more important to that community than who gets the money. If everyone splits, they will still try their absolute best to win, because winning matters more.
I don't disagree at all that it goes on. There's a reason these kind of things are back room arrangements though and not to be done in public on a stream. It's just really appallingly stupid of the parties involved. TL has banned people from TSL for things far less significant than fixing the outcome of a tourney with a payout of 2000-4000 euro.
Things like this really bring your integrity into question. It was just dumb
On December 23 2010 01:21 zev318 wrote: its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
It's not the same as that. First off, this isn't a big tournament, this is a tiny LAN that has an incentive for winning a lot of the series. Morrow and Sjow wanted to play the matches, but they also wouldn't want to eliminate each other from earning their prize.
Plenty of pro-gamers have done this in the past because they have little to no incentive to turn down an offer with the risk of losing thousands of dollars.
You work your butt off all year to get good, you finally get to the point where you are confident you can make it to the finals and get 10,000 bucks. But the opponent says look whoever wins this we'll split it 50-50. 2nd place is 2,000 dollars.
You would be fucking stupid not to split.
Why stop there? Why not the top 4 of GSL collude to just split their combined prize pool 4 ways? It's probably about 35-40 grand each, which is really nice if none of them are the absolute favorites.
It goes against the spirit of competition. People aren't going to like it no matter how many different ways you try to rationalize what they were trying to do.
Well the fact is, it goes on all the time. Without anyone knowing. And when people are transparent it's a scandal. The pro teams from korea get paid well enough where they don't have a survival issue where they would do this. I had met progamers that were damn hear homeless from games that don't have the awesome sponsorship, and every win with their immense talent was important. They would always make top 4 at tournaments, but due to the crappy payouts they would split. Just because they were splitting doesn't mean they wouldn't play out the match, and try their best to win. The finals matches of smash were always amazing, but everyone splits. Because competition is more important to that community than who gets the money. If everyone splits, they will still try their absolute best to win, because winning matters more.
That's like saying this murder is okay because there are plenty of others you never knew about.
On December 23 2010 01:34 Tomken wrote: Still matchfixing.
Will people fucking calm down and get a grip. These are small tournaments with shit prices, and some of you is like omg MATCHFIXING BANN BANN BANN!
1. Nobody gives a shit about this tournament, there is absolutely no esteem in winning it. 2. They are not fixing matches unless you're sitting there betting money on them. 3. I do agree that it's bad sportsmanship and whatever, but what they want to do is their business, not yours.
Terrible fallacious argument.
The size of the tournament has no bearing on whether or not it is ok to do something like this.
I'm ashamed that these players are from Sweden, and am sad so many people are defending their actions.
Its not about if its cheating or not, its about trusting the players to do their best. Its boring to watch a rigged game. Once a player plays a rigged game they have a soiled reputation forever, however unimportant the game was.
On December 23 2010 00:31 Almisael wrote: hmm there has to be something wrong with that:
ipp says: "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."
and the op says: "As if this wasn't enough, Rakaka have received reports that one of the admins of Inferno Online's SC2-tournament, the well known Swedish SC2-commentator and tournament admin Marcel "Maven" Mattsson, has given his "approval" for the planed throwaway game."
so one says "no" the other one "yes" -_-;.
I'm not going to dig up a post by SjoW but he stated that one of them is no longer playing. While SjoW and MorroW both speak English very well; translations don't always come out right and it's definitely possible the translators miss snippets.
Also if i had a dollar every time tournament admins change their mind or have a disagreement. I think the moral to this story is tournaments shouldn't be set up like this as it provokes this type of behavior all prizes should be set in stone.
These are actual people, not some robotic players for our amusement. Believe it or not, eSports isn't the most lucrative job and they have bills to pay. They were doing nothing wrong and this is not match fixing or conspiring to fix matches. It is simply them beating a poorly designed system, you can't have a loop hole in a tournament setup and expect a STRATEGY player to not see it; Halo maybe.
Everyone makes mistakes, from my eyes this is Rakaka's mistake for slander; it sucks thats SjoW and MorroW's rep will get hurt
Edit: The matches NEVER took place. There is no confirmation one was going to throw a match; they could of simply just forfeited in the finals. It's not match fixing if there is no match.
On December 23 2010 01:32 Playguuu wrote: As a Magic the Gathering player, this makes a lot of sense and isn't necessarily wrong. They talked to the admins, they said it wasn't allowed (obviously), so just one is playing. This happens all the time in terms of prize split in mtg tournaments. You can ask if a situation constitutes bribery, and if you get approval from a judge there's no problem with what you're doing. The fact that they were so transparent with admins about what they were doing means there really shouldn't be a problem. I think a lot of people are just trying to unnecessarily cause drama.
Only naive people believe that they were always going to discuss it with admins before doing it. The message wasn't "let's ask the admins if we can do this" it was "let's do this" and then everyone saw it and then they were like "well everyone knows we're doing it now, so let's ask the admins if we can, then get turned down because it's obviously cheating, and then we'll act like we never meant to cheat"
That Sjow said "Make sure it's ok. I don't want to cheat" in the very same conversation - how does that fit with your 'theory'?
Rakaka is a fun fun website. They call themselves for the sensational tabloid of E-gaming and love to write about all kinds of e-gaming gossip and drama. Gotta love them
On December 23 2010 01:51 Kaboo wrote: I'm ashamed that these players are from Sweden, and am sad so many people are defending their actions.
Its not about if its cheating or not, its about trusting the players to do their best. Its boring to watch a rigged game. Once a player plays a rigged game they have a soiled reputation forever, however unimportant the game was.
They actually didn't cheat. If you read the update... They were initially "give(n) the go ahead for the two to throwaway games" by the admins.
On December 23 2010 01:51 Ipp wrote: These are actual people, not some robotic players for our amusement. Believe it or not, eSports isn't the most lucrative job and they have bills to pay. They were doing nothing wrong and this is not match fixing or conspiring to fix matches. It is simply them beating a poorly designed system, you can't have a loop hole in a tournament setup and expect a STRATEGY player to not see it; Halo maybe.
The solution to obtaining $$$ to pay your bills is not to CHEAT, contributing to only of the only dark perception clouds over SC2 and eSports in general that began with Savior's match fixing ring.
The solution would be to get good enough to earn a sponsor that can support you financially, or to get a fucking job. Maybe you can get a gig signing autographs and books in Las Vegas like Pete Rose has. This stuff makes me sick.
What are you talking about? That's like saying that the Chicago Black Sox scandal is okay. It damages the integrity of the sport if stuff like this happens. I really hope this is false. [/QUOTE]
the blacksox were paid by an outside source to throw the world series. if you compared that to this situation it would be like... the braves agreeing to let the yankees win the world series...but the yankees would split their bonus with the braves. it doesnt really matter what the reward is or whos paying it if you look at it from a professional sports fans perspective and the league owners perspective its damaging to the sport.
i hope their teams kick them - they arent worthy to be on a "pro"-team its bad PR for the team - whenever someone now talks about their teams there still is a bitter feeling that it is a cheater team.
They are lucky that it is a small tournament so they most likely not getting banned from other tournaments but if they would be banned that is OK and they should accept it. I think that only 1 is going to play now is damage limitation and a poor try to clean their names.
To be honest a tourney in which you think you can get to the finals 18 times out of 18 games there is no need to cheat for a little bit extra prize money (especially if there is a step system so you guys get at least 9-9 both(assuming 10-8 >9-9)) also its totally fine to share the prize money but to rig games isnt- that greedy attitude just fucked up your team - think about it.
Totalbiscuit really said everything that needed to be said. While this kind of behavior might not be illegal and might indeed make financial sense, it is rather embarassing and would never be accepted in any sport, not even at amateur level.
Also, I personally believe that the arguments given by Sjow prove my point.
On December 23 2010 01:21 zev318 wrote: its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
It's not the same as that. First off, this isn't a big tournament, this is a tiny LAN that has an incentive for winning a lot of the series. Morrow and Sjow wanted to play the matches, but they also wouldn't want to eliminate each other from earning their prize.
Plenty of pro-gamers have done this in the past because they have little to no incentive to turn down an offer with the risk of losing thousands of dollars.
You work your butt off all year to get good, you finally get to the point where you are confident you can make it to the finals and get 10,000 bucks. But the opponent says look whoever wins this we'll split it 50-50. 2nd place is 2,000 dollars.
You would be fucking stupid not to split.
Why stop there? Why not the top 4 of GSL collude to just split their combined prize pool 4 ways? It's probably about 35-40 grand each, which is really nice if none of them are the absolute favorites.
It goes against the spirit of competition. People aren't going to like it no matter how many different ways you try to rationalize what they were trying to do.
Well the fact is, it goes on all the time. Without anyone knowing. And when people are transparent it's a scandal. The pro teams from korea get paid well enough where they don't have a survival issue where they would do this. I had met progamers that were damn hear homeless from games that don't have the awesome sponsorship, and every win with their immense talent was important. They would always make top 4 at tournaments, but due to the crappy payouts they would split. Just because they were splitting doesn't mean they wouldn't play out the match, and try their best to win. The finals matches of smash were always amazing, but everyone splits. Because competition is more important to that community than who gets the money. If everyone splits, they will still try their absolute best to win, because winning matters more.
That's like saying this murder is okay because there are plenty of others you never knew about.
Hey murder is the same as trying to make money from a tournament!
On December 23 2010 01:51 Ipp wrote: These are actual people, not some robotic players for our amusement. Believe it or not, eSports isn't the most lucrative job and they have bills to pay. They were doing nothing wrong and this is not match fixing or conspiring to fix matches. It is simply them beating a poorly designed system, you can't have a loop hole in a tournament setup and expect a STRATEGY player to not see it; Halo maybe.
The solution to obtaining $$$ to pay your bills is not to CHEAT, contributing to only of the only dark perception clouds over SC2 and eSports in general that began with Savior's match fixing ring.
The solution would be to get good enough to earn a sponsor that can support you financially, or to get a fucking job. Maybe you can get a gig signing autographs and books in Las Vegas like Pete Rose has. This stuff makes me sick.
You are saying you want them to quit the thing they are awesome at, and have worked hard to be awesome at, and just get a regular ol job? You must not love e-sports.
You are also suggesting they write books about starcraft, and then sell their autographs at events in Las Vegas. I think you are officially the most unrealistic poster in this thread.
On December 23 2010 02:01 idonthinksobro wrote: i hope their teams kick them - they arent worthy to be on a "pro"-team its bad PR for the team - whenever someone now talks about their teams there still is a bitter feeling that it is a cheater team.
They are lucky that it is a small tournament so they most likely not getting banned from other tournaments but if they would be banned that is OK and they should accept it. I think that only 1 is going to play now is damage limitation and a poor try to clean their names.
To be honest a tourney in which you think you can get to the finals 18 times out of 18 games there is no need to cheat for a little bit extra prize money (especially if there is a step system so you guys get at least 9-9 both(assuming 10-8 >9-9)) also its totally fine to share the prize money but to rig games isnt- that greedy attitude just fucked up your team - think about it.
On December 23 2010 01:21 zev318 wrote: its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
It's not the same as that. First off, this isn't a big tournament, this is a tiny LAN that has an incentive for winning a lot of the series. Morrow and Sjow wanted to play the matches, but they also wouldn't want to eliminate each other from earning their prize.
Plenty of pro-gamers have done this in the past because they have little to no incentive to turn down an offer with the risk of losing thousands of dollars.
You work your butt off all year to get good, you finally get to the point where you are confident you can make it to the finals and get 10,000 bucks. But the opponent says look whoever wins this we'll split it 50-50. 2nd place is 2,000 dollars.
You would be fucking stupid not to split.
Why stop there? Why not the top 4 of GSL collude to just split their combined prize pool 4 ways? It's probably about 35-40 grand each, which is really nice if none of them are the absolute favorites.
It goes against the spirit of competition. People aren't going to like it no matter how many different ways you try to rationalize what they were trying to do.
Well the fact is, it goes on all the time. Without anyone knowing. And when people are transparent it's a scandal. The pro teams from korea get paid well enough where they don't have a survival issue where they would do this. I had met progamers that were damn hear homeless from games that don't have the awesome sponsorship, and every win with their immense talent was important. They would always make top 4 at tournaments, but due to the crappy payouts they would split. Just because they were splitting doesn't mean they wouldn't play out the match, and try their best to win. The finals matches of smash were always amazing, but everyone splits. Because competition is more important to that community than who gets the money. If everyone splits, they will still try their absolute best to win, because winning matters more.
That's like saying this murder is okay because there are plenty of others you never knew about.
Hey murder is the same as trying to make money from a tournament!
I actually saw this live on sjows stream and im swedish so i understood what they were talking about. Tbh i didnt interpret it as match fixing in any way.
On December 23 2010 01:21 zev318 wrote: its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
It's not the same as that. First off, this isn't a big tournament, this is a tiny LAN that has an incentive for winning a lot of the series. Morrow and Sjow wanted to play the matches, but they also wouldn't want to eliminate each other from earning their prize.
Plenty of pro-gamers have done this in the past because they have little to no incentive to turn down an offer with the risk of losing thousands of dollars.
You work your butt off all year to get good, you finally get to the point where you are confident you can make it to the finals and get 10,000 bucks. But the opponent says look whoever wins this we'll split it 50-50. 2nd place is 2,000 dollars.
You would be fucking stupid not to split.
Why stop there? Why not the top 4 of GSL collude to just split their combined prize pool 4 ways? It's probably about 35-40 grand each, which is really nice if none of them are the absolute favorites.
It goes against the spirit of competition. People aren't going to like it no matter how many different ways you try to rationalize what they were trying to do.
Well the fact is, it goes on all the time. Without anyone knowing. And when people are transparent it's a scandal. The pro teams from korea get paid well enough where they don't have a survival issue where they would do this. I had met progamers that were damn hear homeless from games that don't have the awesome sponsorship, and every win with their immense talent was important. They would always make top 4 at tournaments, but due to the crappy payouts they would split. Just because they were splitting doesn't mean they wouldn't play out the match, and try their best to win. The finals matches of smash were always amazing, but everyone splits. Because competition is more important to that community than who gets the money. If everyone splits, they will still try their absolute best to win, because winning matters more.
That's like saying this murder is okay because there are plenty of others you never knew about.
Hey murder is the same as trying to make money from a tournament!
People do kill for money.
Quit trolling, I was calling him out on his slippery-slope fallacy.
On December 23 2010 01:21 zev318 wrote: its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
This is my thought exactly. "Hey IdrA wanna earn 500$? Just let me win the games". (I assume the notebook is worth more than 500$^^) "Ok, deal, just 2rax me, it's strong enough to beat me when I make some tiny mistakes and no one will know".
Or what will happen in GSL Code S? Think about the oGs group (Nada, MC, Inca) + sanZenith. Imagine 1 oGs player (let's call him MC^^) is qualified. sanZenith pulls a miracle and is tied for 2nd place with another oGs player. That oGs player is playing MC last. Should MC let him win so 2 oGs players advance? Even though MC is the better player and would normally beat him which would lead to sanZenith advancing?
The tournament format is strange, sure. It sounds similiar to premiums (like in football contracts, where players get more money for goals, advancing in tournaments, minimum league rankings,...) but in this case it's tournament side not sponsor/club side. But I dont think "Oh this sucks - I will try everything to exploit the system" is a good way to solve those problems. Reminds me of the Morrow ESL casting incident where he also acted first and sought communication later. Ah well - maybe it's just his age
So... What I am gathering from this 44 page thread is that Morrow and Sjow discussed the format of this tourney.... asked beforehand if it was ok to play the tourney a certain way (I guess forfeiting matches to make sure it wasn't cheating). They were then denied that route so one of them is going to sit out and let the other win and split the winnings?
What is wrong with that?
Why are there so many haters?
Did they do anything wrong besides talk about what can and can't be done?
Why are so many people so willing to believe a source which is known for bad journalism?
Anyways.... It is a bad format for a tourney... and all this is doing is feeding that terrible site free hits for being terrible at reporting news. le sigh.
On December 23 2010 01:43 hidiliho wrote: This feels like it's being blown out of proportion. Cheating is bad yes. But it's such a small tournament and they shouldn't get crucified internationally for it.
It's like if 1. Micheal Jordan and Larry Bird cheated in a street basketball game tournament 2. It gets leaked on you tube 3. public demands for their heads to be cut off
Wow that is the worst comparison I have ever seen in my entire life. Try this one, it would make more sense evern though I don't agree with it at all.
1. Michael Jordan and Larry Bird cheat in a minor leage tournament. 2. Gets leaked 3. We want their heads.
See what I did there?
Not the big leagues, but the people in it still take it seriously.
On December 22 2010 23:41 Ipp wrote: [...]Do you honestly think a previous IEM winner is stupid enough to talk about match fixing while streaming?[...]
It´s not the first time he is did something like that. There was an ESL-tournament where he didn´t invite the ESL-streamer to his game and apologised afterwards for doing so. But to a different streamer (bigt) he wrote that he told ESL he regrets it, but in reality he doesn´t... to a streamer who has about 1-2k viewers... and now he got caught on his OWN stream...
And just because nothing happened doesn´t mean that it couldn´t have happened. I can kind of understand their point of view, financially it is a no brainer as Ipp said. But it´s still a shame from a sports perspective.
On December 23 2010 02:05 Aberu wrote: You are also suggesting they write books about starcraft, and then sell their autographs at events in Las Vegas. I think you are officially the most unrealistic poster in this thread.
That's exactly what I was suggesting. From my post I thought I made it apparent that I admire cheaters like Pete Rose, and that other cheaters should try and emulate him since he is so well respected.
The was no sarcasm whatsoever in my reply, or this one. You are a valued TL member. I hope that you have a great day!
On December 23 2010 01:21 zev318 wrote: its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
It's not the same as that. First off, this isn't a big tournament, this is a tiny LAN that has an incentive for winning a lot of the series. Morrow and Sjow wanted to play the matches, but they also wouldn't want to eliminate each other from earning their prize.
Plenty of pro-gamers have done this in the past because they have little to no incentive to turn down an offer with the risk of losing thousands of dollars.
You work your butt off all year to get good, you finally get to the point where you are confident you can make it to the finals and get 10,000 bucks. But the opponent says look whoever wins this we'll split it 50-50. 2nd place is 2,000 dollars.
You would be fucking stupid not to split.
Why stop there? Why not the top 4 of GSL collude to just split their combined prize pool 4 ways? It's probably about 35-40 grand each, which is really nice if none of them are the absolute favorites.
It goes against the spirit of competition. People aren't going to like it no matter how many different ways you try to rationalize what they were trying to do.
Well the fact is, it goes on all the time. Without anyone knowing. And when people are transparent it's a scandal. The pro teams from korea get paid well enough where they don't have a survival issue where they would do this. I had met progamers that were damn hear homeless from games that don't have the awesome sponsorship, and every win with their immense talent was important. They would always make top 4 at tournaments, but due to the crappy payouts they would split. Just because they were splitting doesn't mean they wouldn't play out the match, and try their best to win. The finals matches of smash were always amazing, but everyone splits. Because competition is more important to that community than who gets the money. If everyone splits, they will still try their absolute best to win, because winning matters more.
That's like saying this murder is okay because there are plenty of others you never knew about.
Hey murder is the same as trying to make money from a tournament!
People do kill for money.
Quit trolling, I was calling him out on his slippery-slope fallacy.
At the risk of distracting things... This was not a slippery slope fallacy. He wasn't claiming that doing it in this case would lead to murder being accepted. He was saying that the principle in question when applied to other situations (like rules against murder) would lead to obviously incorrect conclusions. As such, this principle's reliability should be questioned. This is a totally valid logical argument. It has the unfortunate downside of almost never being understood by your audience, but it is entirely logical.
On December 23 2010 01:34 Tomken wrote: Still matchfixing.
Will people fucking calm down and get a grip. These are small tournaments with shit prices, and some of you is like omg MATCHFIXING BANN BANN BANN!
1. Nobody gives a shit about this tournament, there is absolutely no esteem in winning it. 2. They are not fixing matches unless you're sitting there betting money on them. 3. I do agree that it's bad sportsmanship and whatever, but what they want to do is their business, not yours.
I feel so ashamed by posts like yours. People take stuff for granted so fast. Trying to loophole a system that is feeding your hobby is so disrespectful to a level that is staggering and clearly shows the immaturity of these kids.
Are these marches broadcasted? No. Does that vindicate them from anything? By principle, no. Was this wrong to do? Probably. Have their reputations taken a hit? Yes.
Moral of the story? Be more discreet when you're planning to cheat a system.
Read this thread, I'm not sure what is more surprising -
a) that players with reputations behind them (something to lose) would be so careless about how they conduct themselves,
b) that an admin would be allowed to be an admin if he has close/personal ties to the players, or that an admin would be dumb enough to say yes (first off) to a plan that obviously exploits the setup of a tournament prize payout and goes against its purpose, i.e. to reward the single most consistent winner,
c) that anyone here defends either of these players based on size of tournament or inability to be "matchfixing" due to public participation/viewership/etc.
The truth, if all the facts in this thread are correct (and translations), is that this isn't exactly "matchfixing" in the historical meaning of the word, which usually involves third party gambling or interest in the outcome of a game. It is a concious decision/agreement between two players to exploit a prize system that was setup to give out a 'special' reward to a player that proved hismelf to be a consistent winner over all of his peers 11/18 of the time.
The mere fact that these two players are concerned that a setup like this will not see either of them walk away with the prize unfixed is proof that they don't deserve the grand prize, only a player that can 'earn' the majority of wins derserves it. If I was the tournament organizer or admin I wouldn't allow either of these players to compete after this incident.
Finally, blaming a 'poor' tournament structure for this is just wrong. The point of a strcuture like this is to provide incentive for players to compete in multiple tournaments, and to reward the player that wins an exceptionally high percentage of matches against other players of similar skill. The structure is fine, players should have enough integrity to realize and respect the reason for a setup and play within the rules to attempt to earn the best prize, not find flaws with it and exploit them.
Ultimately, this just supports the idea that the players involved value the prize more than the competition. Because, even if they are friends, as competitive players they should try to prove they are better than one another in any given day/match every given day/match. To do otherwise spits in the face of the spirit of the game.
No.. The moral of the story is to man up and play the game legit.. Some $1.000 or $2,0000 dollar computer or laptop is not worth the embarrassment or bad publicity you will get within the Starcraft 2 community for attempting to pull off stunts like this.
On December 23 2010 02:07 Rabbitmaster wrote: I actually saw this live on sjows stream and im swedish so i understood what they were talking about. Tbh i didnt interpret it as match fixing in any way.
What else is it then? Its pretty much the definition of matchfixing. Its discreditable and disrespectable and should be punished. I'm not saying the tournaments prize system is good, but that does not change the fact that they planned on fixing the matches if they needed too.
Can't believe so many people are ok with this... In the end, would it have been ok for Savior to fix matches if he said that he needed the money because his salary is so low for the number of hours he always has to work for?
Its a shame to see all the angry, hateful people in this thread bashing morrow and sjow. They didnt do anything wrong, this doesnt matter and has been blown way out of proportion.
Some people just love to hate and cry about everything, be it balance, how people play, or what questions a player asks about a tourny between friends. Perhaps they should just grow up and enjoy an awesome game.
I'm curious how people would view this if one of them wasn't heavily favored to win the event.
Say TLO had also been invited, so instead of just fighting between themselves for the finals, they would have been working together to lower TLO's chances of getting to 11. Is that worse in people's opinions?
If so, how is that different than the actual situation? Ignoring the possibility of an unknown causing an upset, the skill level of the competition determines whether it's ok to game them or not?
Running a tourney where the prize pool increases depending on who wins is a bad idea. It gives players major incentive to talk about stuff like this, and the fact is that they asked permission first. Nothing wrong here.
On December 23 2010 01:21 zev318 wrote: its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
This is my thought exactly. "Hey IdrA wanna earn 500$? Just let me win the games". (I assume the notebook is worth more than 500$^^) "Ok, deal, just 2rax me, it's strong enough to beat me when I make some tiny mistakes and no one will know".
Or what will happen in GSL Code S? Think about the oGs group (Nada, MC, Inca) + sanZenith. Imagine 1 oGs player (let's call him MC^^) is qualified. sanZenith pulls a miracle and is tied for 2nd place with another oGs player. That oGs player is playing MC last. Should MC let him win so 2 oGs players advance? Even though MC is the better player and would normally beat him which would lead to sanZenith advancing?
The tournament format is strange, sure. It sounds similiar to premiums (like in football contracts, where players get more money for goals, advancing in tournaments, minimum league rankings,...) but in this case it's tournament side not sponsor/club side. But I dont think "Oh this sucks - I will try everything to exploit the system" is a good way to solve those problems. Reminds me of the Morrow ESL casting incident where he also acted first and sought communication later. Ah well - maybe it's just his age
wasnt everyone complaining it looked like gomtv was fixing the brackets. matching boxer up with terrans. and some other unofficial bracket methods. but then people justified it by saying "its ok because it helps esports" is that any better than this (if it was true). how can the fans hold the players to one standard and the organizers to another? even if its "in the best interest of esports"
On December 23 2010 02:22 Jibba wrote: I'm curious how people would view this if one of them wasn't heavily favored to win the event.
Say TLO had also been invited, so instead of just fighting between themselves for the finals, they would have been working together to lower TLO's chances of getting to 11. Is that worse in people's opinions?
Yes of course it is, as bad as this is that would be so much worse just because they are doubling up on a player in a non team event.
On December 23 2010 01:21 zev318 wrote: its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
It's not the same as that. First off, this isn't a big tournament, this is a tiny LAN that has an incentive for winning a lot of the series. Morrow and Sjow wanted to play the matches, but they also wouldn't want to eliminate each other from earning their prize.
Plenty of pro-gamers have done this in the past because they have little to no incentive to turn down an offer with the risk of losing thousands of dollars.
You work your butt off all year to get good, you finally get to the point where you are confident you can make it to the finals and get 10,000 bucks. But the opponent says look whoever wins this we'll split it 50-50. 2nd place is 2,000 dollars.
You would be fucking stupid not to split.
Why stop there? Why not the top 4 of GSL collude to just split their combined prize pool 4 ways? It's probably about 35-40 grand each, which is really nice if none of them are the absolute favorites.
It goes against the spirit of competition. People aren't going to like it no matter how many different ways you try to rationalize what they were trying to do.
Well the fact is, it goes on all the time. Without anyone knowing. And when people are transparent it's a scandal. The pro teams from korea get paid well enough where they don't have a survival issue where they would do this. I had met progamers that were damn hear homeless from games that don't have the awesome sponsorship, and every win with their immense talent was important. They would always make top 4 at tournaments, but due to the crappy payouts they would split. Just because they were splitting doesn't mean they wouldn't play out the match, and try their best to win. The finals matches of smash were always amazing, but everyone splits. Because competition is more important to that community than who gets the money. If everyone splits, they will still try their absolute best to win, because winning matters more.
That's like saying this murder is okay because there are plenty of others you never knew about.
Hey murder is the same as trying to make money from a tournament!
People do kill for money.
Quit trolling, I was calling him out on his slippery-slope fallacy.
Uh, no you weren't, you might have been trying to. I was comparing the excuse of "it happens all the time", I wasn't comparing match fixing to murder.
On December 23 2010 02:22 SharkSpider wrote: Running a tourney where the prize pool increases depending on who wins is a bad idea. It gives players major incentive to talk about stuff like this, and the fact is that they asked permission first. Nothing wrong here.
THANK YOU. Everyone is getting so butt hurt over a silly format and a question about the silly format.
On December 23 2010 02:21 FrostShadow wrote: Its a shame to see all the angry, hateful people in this thread bashing morrow and sjow. They didnt do anything wrong, this doesnt matter and has been blown way out of proportion.
Some people just love to hate and cry about everything, be it balance, how people play, or what questions a player asks about a tourny between friends. Perhaps they should just grow up and enjoy an awesome game.
lmao, people who want legit tournaments are angry and hateful? You just pulled that out of your ass.
Whether or not the tournament is poorly designed doesn't give you leave to conspire to essentially defraud the hosts of the grand prize allocated to someone who puts on an exceptional performance.
If you want the grand prize earn it the way it's intended to be earned, through fair competition.
when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
Morrow may be a very good guy IRL but he always seemed to be sketchy to me online. I ran a BW tournament a long while ago and had to remove Morrow from the tournament for very similar behavior. I guess it will just take a little growing up before it hits him.
With that being said, both players are very skilled and it's sad to see them wanting to match fix when they spent all their time practicing so they could go and legitimately win tournaments.
Tournament format is irrelevant. Size of the tournament is irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is what they tried to do, which is match fixing. Don't like a tournament due to its size or format, don't participate.
On December 23 2010 02:22 Jibba wrote: I'm curious how people would view this if one of them wasn't heavily favored to win the event.
Say TLO had also been invited, so instead of just fighting between themselves for the finals, they would have been working together to lower TLO's chances of getting to 11. Is that worse in people's opinions?
I don´t understand how they could lower TLO´s chances? They would still have to beat him 1v1, it´s not like they could 2v1 him.
On December 23 2010 02:22 SharkSpider wrote: Running a tourney where the prize pool increases depending on who wins is a bad idea. It gives players major incentive to talk about stuff like this, and the fact is that they asked permission first. Nothing wrong here.
They asked after they were caught because of Morrows stupidity. They would have done so anyway without asking if it wasn't revealed like that.
On December 23 2010 02:21 FrostShadow wrote: Its a shame to see all the angry, hateful people in this thread bashing morrow and sjow. They didnt do anything wrong, this doesnt matter and has been blown way out of proportion.
Some people just love to hate and cry about everything, be it balance, how people play, or what questions a player asks about a tourny between friends. Perhaps they should just grow up and enjoy an awesome game.
lmao, people who want legit tournaments are angry and hateful? You just pulled that out of your ass.
show me the games that were actually fixed? sounds like none were.
On December 23 2010 02:22 Jibba wrote: I'm curious how people would view this if one of them wasn't heavily favored to win the event.
Say TLO had also been invited, so instead of just fighting between themselves for the finals, they would have been working together to lower TLO's chances of getting to 11. Is that worse in people's opinions?
I don´t understand how they could lower TLO´s chances? They would still have to beat him 1v1, it´s not like they could 2v1 him.
TLO would have to beat two top tier players to win. They would only have to beat one. It's not the same as rolling 2 dice vs. 1, but it's like getting an extra roll.
On December 23 2010 02:22 Jibba wrote: I'm curious how people would view this if one of them wasn't heavily favored to win the event.
Say TLO had also been invited, so instead of just fighting between themselves for the finals, they would have been working together to lower TLO's chances of getting to 11. Is that worse in people's opinions?
If so, how is that different than the actual situation? Ignoring the possibility of an unknown causing an upset, the skill level of the competition determines whether it's ok to game them or not?
There's no difference there if they play out the finals or if they all forfeit them to Morrow since TLO isn't involved in any of those games. How can what Sjow and Morrow do between themselves hurt TLO's chances? It doesn't matter if they play the games out or Sjow just forfeits every time to TLO, right?
On December 23 2010 02:22 Jibba wrote: I'm curious how people would view this if one of them wasn't heavily favored to win the event.
Say TLO had also been invited, so instead of just fighting between themselves for the finals, they would have been working together to lower TLO's chances of getting to 11. Is that worse in people's opinions?
I don´t understand how they could lower TLO´s chances? They would still have to beat him 1v1, it´s not like they could 2v1 him.
TLO would have to beat two top tier players to win. They would only have to beat one. It's not the same as rolling 2 dice vs. 1, but it's like getting an extra roll.
This doesn't hurt TLO's chances at all! It hurts his chances relatively to Sjow+Morrow, but TLO's chances are the same, and I don't see why the relative chances matter.
On December 23 2010 02:21 FrostShadow wrote: Its a shame to see all the angry, hateful people in this thread bashing morrow and sjow. They didnt do anything wrong, this doesnt matter and has been blown way out of proportion.
Some people just love to hate and cry about everything, be it balance, how people play, or what questions a player asks about a tourny between friends. Perhaps they should just grow up and enjoy an awesome game.
How is it a shame? It is a testament to the value us players/posters place on the integrity of the game that we care enough to post and discuss what is right or wrong with tournament conduct. Or, it is a testament to how much we care about our favorite or disliked players. Either way, both of these are good signs that the community 'cares' and wants to be involved in the careful and positive growth of a game they love - that is not a shame, that is something special.
What is a shame is that you take passionate posts out of context and assume they are coming from the same source that balance or other 'completely different' complaints players have come from.
I agree that the priority should be that we should all enjoy an awesome game, however this is a case of two recognized players leading on that their priority is more alligned with the outcome/prize of the game than with the playing of it.
I do think they are doing something wrong. I also think what they are doing, only one of them now competing, to be a continuation of them doing something wrong. It is their decision of course, but even that indicates to me that they are trying to extract maximum value out of tournaments, and not simply competing in them for the sake of competition. Sadly, I understand this is the reality of their life situations, money matters.
I don't dislike or like any of the players involved more or less. I am hopeful that this will be a learning experience for them as it is obviously one for the community discussing/thinking about it.
Seriously SjoW & MorroW - you really need to learn something about PR and how to handle things.
This is not about cheating, it's more about manners and kids don't want to see their heroes do something that's not morally right.
This is a small tournament at a Internet Café and it cannot directly be compared to GSL. But the kids playing there likes to participate in it and will get nervous like hell when they meet you.
This is bad for you because these gamers will look at you different now.
I'm not judging if you broke the rules or not - but I want to say that you handle this really shitty in so many ways:
1. You discuss this on a open live stream. Seriously, what where you thinking?
2. You publicly say: "I agree its wrong on a big tournament because it lets down the audiance. By not showing a good game or not a game at all. But in this case theres no audiance at all."
You disrespect all of the participants in Inferno Online who probably where looking forward to these "Nightgib" during Christmas. For many of them meeting you in a tournament is something big that they will talk about to friends and family.
3. You talk shit about the site that reported this. It doesn't matter who reported about it - you made it public by discussing it on a live stream. You are personally responsible that people talk about it so don't put the blame on someone else.
4. You call people faggots and therefore you sound homophobic pricks on an open forum.
You still don't think there's a problem here? Wake up guys! This news is out internationally and right now you look like idiots.
If I where a PR manager at Mousesports or Dignitas I would have a 4h lesson in manners and teach you how to handle things regarding PR.
On December 23 2010 02:22 Jibba wrote: I'm curious how people would view this if one of them wasn't heavily favored to win the event.
Say TLO had also been invited, so instead of just fighting between themselves for the finals, they would have been working together to lower TLO's chances of getting to 11. Is that worse in people's opinions?
If so, how is that different than the actual situation? Ignoring the possibility of an unknown causing an upset, the skill level of the competition determines whether it's ok to game them or not?
There's no difference there if they play out the finals or if they all forfeit them to Morrow since TLO isn't involved in any of those games. How can what Sjow and Morrow do between themselves hurt TLO's chances? It doesn't matter if they play the games out or Sjow just forfeits every time to TLO, right?
On December 23 2010 02:22 Jibba wrote: I'm curious how people would view this if one of them wasn't heavily favored to win the event.
Say TLO had also been invited, so instead of just fighting between themselves for the finals, they would have been working together to lower TLO's chances of getting to 11. Is that worse in people's opinions?
I don´t understand how they could lower TLO´s chances? They would still have to beat him 1v1, it´s not like they could 2v1 him.
TLO would have to beat two top tier players to win. They would only have to beat one. It's not the same as rolling 2 dice vs. 1, but it's like getting an extra roll.
This doesn't hurt TLO's chances at all! It hurts his chances relatively to Sjow+Morrow, but TLO's chances are the same, and I don't see why the relative chances matter.
So if one player (morrow/sjow) could win 1 game instead of having to win 2 (TLO), that doesnt matter? damn, set me up, id rather only do half the work to get the prize.
On December 23 2010 01:34 Tomken wrote: Still matchfixing.
Will people fucking calm down and get a grip. These are small tournaments with shit prices, and some of you is like omg MATCHFIXING BANN BANN BANN!
1. Nobody gives a shit about this tournament, there is absolutely no esteem in winning it. 2. They are not fixing matches unless you're sitting there betting money on them. 3. I do agree that it's bad sportsmanship and whatever, but what they want to do is their business, not yours.
Terrible fallacious argument.
The size of the tournament has no bearing on whether or not it is ok to do something like this.
I'm saying that I'm okey with it because with the system they're having they were pretty much asking for it.
On December 23 2010 02:22 Jibba wrote: I'm curious how people would view this if one of them wasn't heavily favored to win the event.
Say TLO had also been invited, so instead of just fighting between themselves for the finals, they would have been working together to lower TLO's chances of getting to 11. Is that worse in people's opinions?
If so, how is that different than the actual situation? Ignoring the possibility of an unknown causing an upset, the skill level of the competition determines whether it's ok to game them or not?
There's no difference there if they play out the finals or if they all forfeit them to Morrow since TLO isn't involved in any of those games. How can what Sjow and Morrow do between themselves hurt TLO's chances? It doesn't matter if they play the games out or Sjow just forfeits every time to TLO, right?
On December 23 2010 02:31 Jibba wrote:
On December 23 2010 02:28 Hirnfrost wrote:
On December 23 2010 02:22 Jibba wrote: I'm curious how people would view this if one of them wasn't heavily favored to win the event.
Say TLO had also been invited, so instead of just fighting between themselves for the finals, they would have been working together to lower TLO's chances of getting to 11. Is that worse in people's opinions?
I don´t understand how they could lower TLO´s chances? They would still have to beat him 1v1, it´s not like they could 2v1 him.
TLO would have to beat two top tier players to win. They would only have to beat one. It's not the same as rolling 2 dice vs. 1, but it's like getting an extra roll.
This doesn't hurt TLO's chances at all! It hurts his chances relatively to Sjow+Morrow, but TLO's chances are the same, and I don't see why the relative chances matter.
So if one player (morrow/sjow) could win 1 game instead of having to win 2 (TLO), that doesnt matter?
Yes, that's correct. TLO's chances of winning the tournament are the same whether Sjow concedes to Morrow or not, right? So he isn't hurt at all.
On December 23 2010 01:34 Tomken wrote: Still matchfixing.
Will people fucking calm down and get a grip. These are small tournaments with shit prices, and some of you is like omg MATCHFIXING BANN BANN BANN!
1. Nobody gives a shit about this tournament, there is absolutely no esteem in winning it. 2. They are not fixing matches unless you're sitting there betting money on them. 3. I do agree that it's bad sportsmanship and whatever, but what they want to do is their business, not yours.
Terrible fallacious argument.
The size of the tournament has no bearing on whether or not it is ok to do something like this.
I'm saying that I'm okey with it because with the system they're having they were pretty much asking for it.
See, this is a sad statement. Why since there is potential for abuse should the top end players be doing this? It ruins the image of what high level gaming and E-sports really is. Remember when there was the match fixing thing in Korea and how many people that affected? This is basically similar just on a much smaller level. There is nothing good that can come out of it, so why discuss it to begin with?
On December 23 2010 02:22 Jibba wrote: I'm curious how people would view this if one of them wasn't heavily favored to win the event.
Say TLO had also been invited, so instead of just fighting between themselves for the finals, they would have been working together to lower TLO's chances of getting to 11. Is that worse in people's opinions?
If so, how is that different than the actual situation? Ignoring the possibility of an unknown causing an upset, the skill level of the competition determines whether it's ok to game them or not?
There's no difference there if they play out the finals or if they all forfeit them to Morrow since TLO isn't involved in any of those games. How can what Sjow and Morrow do between themselves hurt TLO's chances? It doesn't matter if they play the games out or Sjow just forfeits every time to TLO, right?
On December 23 2010 02:31 Jibba wrote:
On December 23 2010 02:28 Hirnfrost wrote:
On December 23 2010 02:22 Jibba wrote: I'm curious how people would view this if one of them wasn't heavily favored to win the event.
Say TLO had also been invited, so instead of just fighting between themselves for the finals, they would have been working together to lower TLO's chances of getting to 11. Is that worse in people's opinions?
I don´t understand how they could lower TLO´s chances? They would still have to beat him 1v1, it´s not like they could 2v1 him.
TLO would have to beat two top tier players to win. They would only have to beat one. It's not the same as rolling 2 dice vs. 1, but it's like getting an extra roll.
This doesn't hurt TLO's chances at all! It hurts his chances relatively to Sjow+Morrow, but TLO's chances are the same, and I don't see why the relative chances matter.
So if one player (morrow/sjow) could win 1 game instead of having to win 2 (TLO), that doesnt matter?
Yes, that's correct. TLO's chances of winning the tournament are the same whether Sjow concedes to Morrow or not, right? So he isn't hurt at all.
No, only if TLO only has to play 1 of them and not both.
when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
That should about shut the drama queens up. Seriously why make a big deal out of this. T_T
On December 23 2010 01:34 Tomken wrote: Still matchfixing.
Will people fucking calm down and get a grip. These are small tournaments with shit prices, and some of you is like omg MATCHFIXING BANN BANN BANN!
1. Nobody gives a shit about this tournament, there is absolutely no esteem in winning it. 2. They are not fixing matches unless you're sitting there betting money on them. 3. I do agree that it's bad sportsmanship and whatever, but what they want to do is their business, not yours.
Terrible fallacious argument.
The size of the tournament has no bearing on whether or not it is ok to do something like this.
I'm saying that I'm okey with it because with the system they're having they were pretty much asking for it.
So if there's a flaw it must obviously be exploited, right?
I mean who gives a shit about competitive spirit, prestige, sponsorship, reputation and fans?
Your argument is terrible because it only looks from the selfish perspective of a player.
On December 23 2010 01:34 Tomken wrote: Still matchfixing.
Will people fucking calm down and get a grip. These are small tournaments with shit prices, and some of you is like omg MATCHFIXING BANN BANN BANN!
1. Nobody gives a shit about this tournament, there is absolutely no esteem in winning it. 2. They are not fixing matches unless you're sitting there betting money on them. 3. I do agree that it's bad sportsmanship and whatever, but what they want to do is their business, not yours.
Terrible fallacious argument.
The size of the tournament has no bearing on whether or not it is ok to do something like this.
I'm saying that I'm okey with it because with the system they're having they were pretty much asking for it.
You are very right, I mean, the corner convenience store has no cameras at all, so they are pretty much asking for people to steal.
What they were talking about doing/asked the admin about aside, do people think that one dropping out and them sharing the prize is cheating since thats what the tournament encourages?
On December 23 2010 02:28 MorroW wrote: when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
Oh please, you are really going to bring balance into this discussion?
The fact is you were looking to match fix to get an easy computer. You were looking for the easiest way to get the prize, by slacking off competition. To make it worse you were doing this on a "small" no name tournament where the two of you could clean house.
Yeah financially we know how it makes sense. It's obvious, but don't talk about how you are a serious gamer when you just explained in depth how you were going blow off competition, blow off the game, to get the prize as easy as possible. You aren't a serious gamer, you just want the prize, even if you can get it by not even playing.
On December 23 2010 01:21 zev318 wrote: its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
It's not the same as that. First off, this isn't a big tournament, this is a tiny LAN that has an incentive for winning a lot of the series. Morrow and Sjow wanted to play the matches, but they also wouldn't want to eliminate each other from earning their prize.
Plenty of pro-gamers have done this in the past because they have little to no incentive to turn down an offer with the risk of losing thousands of dollars.
You work your butt off all year to get good, you finally get to the point where you are confident you can make it to the finals and get 10,000 bucks. But the opponent says look whoever wins this we'll split it 50-50. 2nd place is 2,000 dollars.
You would be fucking stupid not to split.
Why stop there? Why not the top 4 of GSL collude to just split their combined prize pool 4 ways? It's probably about 35-40 grand each, which is really nice if none of them are the absolute favorites.
It goes against the spirit of competition. People aren't going to like it no matter how many different ways you try to rationalize what they were trying to do.
Well the fact is, it goes on all the time. Without anyone knowing. And when people are transparent it's a scandal. The pro teams from korea get paid well enough where they don't have a survival issue where they would do this. I had met progamers that were damn hear homeless from games that don't have the awesome sponsorship, and every win with their immense talent was important. They would always make top 4 at tournaments, but due to the crappy payouts they would split. Just because they were splitting doesn't mean they wouldn't play out the match, and try their best to win. The finals matches of smash were always amazing, but everyone splits. Because competition is more important to that community than who gets the money. If everyone splits, they will still try their absolute best to win, because winning matters more.
That's like saying this murder is okay because there are plenty of others you never knew about.
Hey murder is the same as trying to make money from a tournament!
People do kill for money.
Quit trolling, I was calling him out on his slippery-slope fallacy.
Uh, no you weren't, you might have been trying to. I was comparing the excuse of "it happens all the time", I wasn't comparing match fixing to murder.
But you replaced match-fixing with murder. It's a bad debate tactic. It's appealing to sensationalism. Sort of like "that's what hilter would do!" or "if this were a serial murderer you would be okay with him too?"
Trying to emphasize your point that this isn't okay because murder isn't okay.
On December 23 2010 02:46 zev318 wrote: Asking if it's ok to fix matches doesn't make it ok lol
They did not ask to fix the matches. They said they would play the matches... whoever wins wins... but they asked if they could transfer the win to one side so they could maximize the prize pool. All they asked was this... They were told it was ok.
Morrow gets to the tourney.... he is told he cannot do this. They decided Sjow will be the only one playing in the tourney to maximize the prize pool.
is that ok? Is it ok to ask an admin if something is legal? get over it.
On December 23 2010 02:28 MorroW wrote: when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
Oh please, you are really going to bring balance into this discussion?
The fact is you were looking to match fix to get an easy computer. You were looking for the easiest way to get the prize, by slacking off competition. To make it worse you were doing this on a "small" no name tournament where the two of you could clean house.
Yeah financially we know how it makes sense. It's obvious, but don't talk about how you are a serious gamer when you just explained in depth how you were going blow off competition, blow off the game, to get the prize as easy as possible. You aren't a serious gamer, you just want the prize, even if you can get it by not even playing.
Clearly, the alternative was one of them letting the other one play alone.
The reason he brought up balance is because people to this day still like to drag up that reaper push and try to argue that morrow is a bad player because of his abusive strategies in the IEM finals. I've even seen that a couple of times in this thread which is just ridiculous.
On December 23 2010 02:28 MorroW wrote: when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
Oh please, you are really going to bring balance into this discussion?
The fact is you were looking to match fix to get an easy computer. You were looking for the easiest way to get the prize, by slacking off competition. To make it worse you were doing this on a "small" no name tournament where the two of you could clean house.
Yeah financially we know how it makes sense. It's obvious, but don't talk about how you are a serious gamer when you just explained in depth how you were going blow off competition, blow off the game, to get the prize as easy as possible. You aren't a serious gamer, you just want the prize, even if you can get it by not even playing.
According to Morrow they never talk anything about throwing matches. They asked if they could play the games and afterwards give the win to one of them even if he didn't win.
The discussion of splitting games is considered match fixing and is cheating. You say you don't cheat, perhaps you are looking at it in terms of using hacks like income or map vision. But remember the same case this year which had Savior and GoGo end up being persecuted and prosecuted by authorities in Korea. Even though the administrators do not know any better. You do. I am really disappointed that high level play is about prize splitting. Very disappointing Morrow and Sjow.
I wonder why people had no problems with Koreans throwing matches at WCG to avoid eliminating each other, but suddenly some guys trying to abuse the system in a local tournament should be lynched.
In my opinion it is as much the organizer's fault as it is theirs. There should not be any incentive to throw matches just because of the tournament's format.
The discussion of splitting games is considered match fixing and is cheating. You say you don't cheat, perhaps you are looking at it in terms of using hacks like income or map vision. But remember the same case this year which had Savior and GoGo end up being persecuted and prosecuted by authorities in Korea. Even though the administrators do not know any better. You do. I am really disappointed that high level play is about prize splitting. Very disappointing Morrow and Sjow.
Read the quote at the top of the OP? This is nothing like throwing games or even wanting to throw games.
On December 23 2010 02:28 MorroW wrote: when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
Oh please, you are really going to bring balance into this discussion?
The fact is you were looking to match fix to get an easy computer. You were looking for the easiest way to get the prize, by slacking off competition. To make it worse you were doing this on a "small" no name tournament where the two of you could clean house.
Yeah financially we know how it makes sense. It's obvious, but don't talk about how you are a serious gamer when you just explained in depth how you were going blow off competition, blow off the game, to get the prize as easy as possible. You aren't a serious gamer, you just want the prize, even if you can get it by not even playing.
According to Morrow they never talk anything about throwing matches. They asked if they could play the games and afterwards give the win to one of them even if he didn't win.
Have you even read the OP? Sjow states this:
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
Why are people arguing that they DIDNT want to fix their matches, it was the exact thing they wanted to do and later got denied from doing it so one of them dropped out.
On December 23 2010 02:22 Jibba wrote: I'm curious how people would view this if one of them wasn't heavily favored to win the event.
Say TLO had also been invited, so instead of just fighting between themselves for the finals, they would have been working together to lower TLO's chances of getting to 11. Is that worse in people's opinions?
I don´t understand how they could lower TLO´s chances? They would still have to beat him 1v1, it´s not like they could 2v1 him.
TLO would have to beat two top tier players to win. They would only have to beat one. It's not the same as rolling 2 dice vs. 1, but it's like getting an extra roll.
no because they are paying for the extra roll......
On December 23 2010 01:21 zev318 wrote: its like Idra throwing the final series vs QXC in EG masters for some extra cash, i bet all of you who thinks this isnt a big deal would fucking flip out.
It's not the same as that. First off, this isn't a big tournament, this is a tiny LAN that has an incentive for winning a lot of the series. Morrow and Sjow wanted to play the matches, but they also wouldn't want to eliminate each other from earning their prize.
Plenty of pro-gamers have done this in the past because they have little to no incentive to turn down an offer with the risk of losing thousands of dollars.
You work your butt off all year to get good, you finally get to the point where you are confident you can make it to the finals and get 10,000 bucks. But the opponent says look whoever wins this we'll split it 50-50. 2nd place is 2,000 dollars.
You would be fucking stupid not to split.
Why stop there? Why not the top 4 of GSL collude to just split their combined prize pool 4 ways? It's probably about 35-40 grand each, which is really nice if none of them are the absolute favorites.
It goes against the spirit of competition. People aren't going to like it no matter how many different ways you try to rationalize what they were trying to do.
Well the fact is, it goes on all the time. Without anyone knowing. And when people are transparent it's a scandal. The pro teams from korea get paid well enough where they don't have a survival issue where they would do this. I had met progamers that were damn hear homeless from games that don't have the awesome sponsorship, and every win with their immense talent was important. They would always make top 4 at tournaments, but due to the crappy payouts they would split. Just because they were splitting doesn't mean they wouldn't play out the match, and try their best to win. The finals matches of smash were always amazing, but everyone splits. Because competition is more important to that community than who gets the money. If everyone splits, they will still try their absolute best to win, because winning matters more.
That's like saying this murder is okay because there are plenty of others you never knew about.
Hey murder is the same as trying to make money from a tournament!
People do kill for money.
Quit trolling, I was calling him out on his slippery-slope fallacy.
Uh, no you weren't, you might have been trying to. I was comparing the excuse of "it happens all the time", I wasn't comparing match fixing to murder.
But you replaced match-fixing with murder. It's a bad debate tactic. It's appealing to sensationalism. Sort of like "that's what hilter would do!" or "if this were a serial murderer you would be okay with him too?"
Trying to emphasize your point that this isn't okay because murder isn't okay.
No, it was clearly showing that something happening all the time doesn't not make it okay. Murder and match fixing are two things that happen all the time. It's actually not sensational at all, it is comparing the same excuse in two different situations. I use murder because it is obvious in that case that just because it happens all the time, it's still not okay. So if it happens all the time in murder, but still isn't okay - then if it happens all the time in match fixing, that also does not necessarily mean it's okay. The point is that something happening all the time has no relevance to morality.
On December 23 2010 02:28 MorroW wrote: when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
Oh please, you are really going to bring balance into this discussion?
The fact is you were looking to match fix to get an easy computer. You were looking for the easiest way to get the prize, by slacking off competition. To make it worse you were doing this on a "small" no name tournament where the two of you could clean house.
Yeah financially we know how it makes sense. It's obvious, but don't talk about how you are a serious gamer when you just explained in depth how you were going blow off competition, blow off the game, to get the prize as easy as possible. You aren't a serious gamer, you just want the prize, even if you can get it by not even playing.
Dont talk such rot. He didnt "slack off" to win, fucking read what the man says, and dont go off about a tangent about a few sentences talking about IEM. What he said there was that the rules of the tournament were lame (They are, since they give incentives to collusion), and as such they are kind of like reapers were. Or something. You´re not a serious TL poster, you just want to bitch and whine about something without fucking reading what you bitch and whine about.
If people still think this is a big deal, then they lack reading comprehension or are plain haters. My 2c.
On December 23 2010 02:18 dutpotd wrote: Read this thread, I'm not sure what is more surprising -
a) that players with reputations behind them (something to lose) would be so careless about how they conduct themselves,
b) that an admin would be allowed to be an admin if he has close/personal ties to the players, or that an admin would be dumb enough to say yes (first off) to a plan that obviously exploits the setup of a tournament prize payout and goes against its purpose, i.e. to reward the single most consistent winner,
c) that anyone here defends either of these players based on size of tournament or inability to be "matchfixing" due to public participation/viewership/etc.
The truth, if all the facts in this thread are correct (and translations), is that this isn't exactly "matchfixing" in the historical meaning of the word, which usually involves third party gambling or interest in the outcome of a game. It is a concious decision/agreement between two players to exploit a prize system that was setup to give out a 'special' reward to a player that proved hismelf to be a consistent winner over all of his peers 11/18 of the time.
The mere fact that these two players are concerned that a setup like this will not see either of them walk away with the prize unfixed is proof that they don't deserve the grand prize, only a player that can 'earn' the majority of wins derserves it. If I was the tournament organizer or admin I wouldn't allow either of these players to compete after this incident.
Finally, blaming a 'poor' tournament structure for this is just wrong. The point of a strcuture like this is to provide incentive for players to compete in multiple tournaments, and to reward the player that wins an exceptionally high percentage of matches against other players of similar skill. The structure is fine, players should have enough integrity to realize and respect the reason for a setup and play within the rules to attempt to earn the best prize, not find flaws with it and exploit them.
Ultimately, this just supports the idea that the players involved value the prize more than the competition. Because, even if they are friends, as competitive players they should try to prove they are better than one another in any given day/match every given day/match. To do otherwise spits in the face of the spirit of the game.
Thank you, very well said post.
If the point of the setup is so an exceptional player wins the special prize (11 tour wins), then if one of them really deserved it, they would play it out. If they both lose out on the special prize then that`s too bad, they don`t deserve it. Exploiting the system takes away the spirit of the competition.
Atleast in the EG tournament you see Idra crushing his peers no matter what, denying them the special prize. They have to deserve it, and it is not like Idra has anything to lose. It isn`t his computer to give away. That keeps that special prize special.
The discussion of splitting games is considered match fixing and is cheating. You say you don't cheat, perhaps you are looking at it in terms of using hacks like income or map vision. But remember the same case this year which had Savior and GoGo end up being persecuted and prosecuted by authorities in Korea. Even though the administrators do not know any better. You do. I am really disappointed that high level play is about prize splitting. Very disappointing Morrow and Sjow.
it's not cheating if it's allowed by the people who run the tourney T_T
On December 23 2010 02:28 MorroW wrote: when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
On December 23 2010 02:28 MorroW wrote: when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
Put this in the OP and lock the thread imo. The amount of haters who can't be arsed to read is disgusting.
edit: oh and go SjoW, now make sure to get that computer!
On December 23 2010 02:22 Jibba wrote: I'm curious how people would view this if one of them wasn't heavily favored to win the event.
Say TLO had also been invited, so instead of just fighting between themselves for the finals, they would have been working together to lower TLO's chances of getting to 11. Is that worse in people's opinions?
I don´t understand how they could lower TLO´s chances? They would still have to beat him 1v1, it´s not like they could 2v1 him.
TLO would have to beat two top tier players to win. They would only have to beat one. It's not the same as rolling 2 dice vs. 1, but it's like getting an extra roll.
TLO still have to win the same number of games if they "cooperate". Morrow and SjoW could win by playing one game less. They do however only get half of the price each.
Maybe unfair to the viewers who won't be able to get to see a game where they played about a lot of price money, but not unfair to the other players.
Can we just ignore the thread title and rakakas headlines and stop talking about match fixing?
Match fixing is where one player purposely loses a match. Nothing else.
If one player just _asks_ the tournament admin if he could give away his "win token" _after_ the match has been played is not match fixing.
If a player choses not to enter the tournament to give his friend better chances of winning is not match fixing either.
The whole thing has been blown out of proportion by rakakas sensationalist news reporting and people lacking the attention span to read more than headlines.
On December 23 2010 02:53 Random() wrote: I wonder why people had no problems with Koreans throwing matches at WCG to avoid eliminating each other, but suddenly some guys trying to abuse the system in a local tournament should be lynched.
In my opinion it is as much the organizer's fault as it is theirs. There should not be any incentive to throw matches just because of the tournament's format.
I wonder why people take random forum posts from different times and different people and act like it is a single individual saying everything so then they act like a collective group is a single hypocritical individual?
On December 23 2010 02:28 MorroW wrote: when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
Put this in the OP and lock the thread imo. The amount of haters who can't be arsed to read is disgusting.
Man this is a tough one. The way I understand it, you have to win 11 out of 18 tournaments. Morrow and Sjow know they are the best, and they might split 9/9 or something like 9/8/1 with somebody else winning one. That being said, nobody would win the prize. So they decide that only one of them will play and they will split it. This doesn't really screw anybody except spectators and the people that ran this tournament.
If what I said above was true, I really can't say this is cheating... it's just... being very shady.
On December 23 2010 02:53 Random() wrote: I wonder why people had no problems with Koreans throwing matches at WCG to avoid eliminating each other, but suddenly some guys trying to abuse the system in a local tournament should be lynched.
In my opinion it is as much the organizer's fault as it is theirs. There should not be any incentive to throw matches just because of the tournament's format.
There is NO incentive to throw matches. The point of this tournament`s format is to reward a player that actually is dominant (11/18). If they believe they can`t do that against each other than they don`t deserve it period. It cheapens the competitive spirit if they try to arrange anything just to get the prize.
On December 23 2010 02:28 MorroW wrote: when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
Oh please, you are really going to bring balance into this discussion?
The fact is you were looking to match fix to get an easy computer. You were looking for the easiest way to get the prize, by slacking off competition. To make it worse you were doing this on a "small" no name tournament where the two of you could clean house.
Yeah financially we know how it makes sense. It's obvious, but don't talk about how you are a serious gamer when you just explained in depth how you were going blow off competition, blow off the game, to get the prize as easy as possible. You aren't a serious gamer, you just want the prize, even if you can get it by not even playing.
No this is not about match fixing to get an easy computer. In fact, by only having Sjow participating, Sjow is basically guaranteed to get the computer. Is this also cheating for you? Is it cheating that Morrow does not try to stand in Sjow's way.
What would have happened does not change at all. That Sjow will get the computer. What Morrow wanted was to play in the tournament and arguably since this is a small tournament, having Morrow in it will increase the quality and popularity. In fact, Morrow does not have to join at all because him getting half the computer is guaranteed. If anything , Morrow joining ensure us of a good final at least because he already said they will play for real. They just wanted to ask the admin if its ok that regardless what happened in that match, Sjow will be determined the winner.
Admin says NO and that's that. Morrow decided not to join, nothing happened. Sjow is still gonna 11-0 ( or 11-1 since they missed one).
On December 23 2010 02:28 MorroW wrote: when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
Put this in the OP and lock the thread imo. The amount of haters who can't be arsed to read is disgusting.
On December 23 2010 02:28 MorroW wrote: when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
Oh please, you are really going to bring balance into this discussion?
The fact is you were looking to match fix to get an easy computer. You were looking for the easiest way to get the prize, by slacking off competition. To make it worse you were doing this on a "small" no name tournament where the two of you could clean house.
Yeah financially we know how it makes sense. It's obvious, but don't talk about how you are a serious gamer when you just explained in depth how you were going blow off competition, blow off the game, to get the prize as easy as possible. You aren't a serious gamer, you just want the prize, even if you can get it by not even playing.
According to Morrow they never talk anything about throwing matches. They asked if they could play the games and afterwards give the win to one of them even if he didn't win.
According to the morrow posting now or according to the morrow chatting in his stream?
The discussion of splitting games is considered match fixing and is cheating. You say you don't cheat, perhaps you are looking at it in terms of using hacks like income or map vision. But remember the same case this year which had Savior and GoGo end up being persecuted and prosecuted by authorities in Korea. Even though the administrators do not know any better. You do. I am really disappointed that high level play is about prize splitting. Very disappointing Morrow and Sjow.
Read the quote at the top of the OP? This is nothing like throwing games or even wanting to throw games.
It is. Prize splitting is exactly that. Play the game, if the winner wants to donate his winnings to the loser, give him a I-99 form for a tax deduction, that is legal. Look this was a matter of time before we see something like what happened at MLG with Super Smash Brothers.
While the BW players threw matches because of gambling influences, the players here threw wins so one could get a prize.
On December 22 2010 15:30 SjoW wrote: Lets make this clear. We both wanted to participate on this league and if both would participate on this tournament it would decrease our chances of winning the grandprize (a computer).
The league consists of 18 tournaments and is played once a day. For every first place you get a prize and climb one step closer to the grandprize. You ultimatly need to win 11 tournament to get the grandprize and when there is only 18 tournaments, only one can get the grandprize.
So we both agreed it would be better if we split the prizes and just let one of us win everyone. (we assumed we would go to the finals everytime since we would be in diffrent part of brackets because of seeds, we didnt see any harm in it.
We talked with the organisation and they didnt allow us to do fixed matches. Now only one of us gonna play.
On December 22 2010 23:41 Ipp wrote: 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.
So explain to me how throwing games is not cheating or match fixing?
This topic is a fine example of how text and words can be misconstrued and interpreted wrong or differently than it was intended. Cheating to win is cheating. This is essentially making it so no one else has a chance to win. "Matchfixing" is not "cheating". The two players still have to fight their way to the top to meet in the finals.
That said it's still a sore sight to see this happening or being thought of.
This whole discussion just blows my mind. Just asking myself what is more plausible:
a) I am discussing with my friend how we can win this computer, come up with an solution and asking the admins about it if this is possible within the rules
b) I am planning Match fixing while my stream is running. But while I know this, I just ask random people in irc if they can read my chat, and if they say no, I will just continue to discuss it.
I think MorroW said it already:
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
The only confirmation we really need is from the owner of this Internet Café, that he knew about this beforehand. Would be nice to hear something official from them.
Still has to be said, just don't discuss anything of any importance while people are watching, it is going to bite you in the ass. But you're still young, so that mistake is understandable
Half of the accusations in this thread are based on things that never happened or just by interpreting statements in some obscure way. The other half is the more interesting and justified discussion, how this does reflect upon esports and how this should be seen morally (MorroW now says that they would not have lost on purpose but just awarded the winning points onto the same account, but if they really wanted to do it this way we cannot know, so there is a problem. Still does not change the fact that nothing happened). I can very much understand this discussion, I was just watching the finals of some big UK lan with Demuslim vs some guy in the grand finals (casted by d.apollo and Rotterdam) and they just played random vs random on a relatively big stage. Now that was just disgusting, as a fan, I simply felt betrayed by that. If MorroW and Sjow planned to fool around like that (which is not unlikely) that is just bad, even if there is no stream. But again, this is just blaming them for stuff that didn't happen and probably wasn't bound to happene, so rather pointless. It's just good to let them know that this would not be appreciated at all.
On December 23 2010 01:34 Tomken wrote: Still matchfixing.
Will people fucking calm down and get a grip. These are small tournaments with shit prices, and some of you is like omg MATCHFIXING BANN BANN BANN!
1. Nobody gives a shit about this tournament, there is absolutely no esteem in winning it. 2. They are not fixing matches unless you're sitting there betting money on them. 3. I do agree that it's bad sportsmanship and whatever, but what they want to do is their business, not yours.
Terrible fallacious argument.
The size of the tournament has no bearing on whether or not it is ok to do something like this.
I'm saying that I'm okey with it because with the system they're having they were pretty much asking for it.
So if there's a flaw it must obviously be exploited, right?
I mean who gives a shit about competitive spirit, prestige, sponsorship, reputation and fans?
Your argument is terrible because it only looks from the selfish perspective of a player.
having to win 11 tournaments is bullshit, and even then the winning is small. it just went up from insignificant. These players doesn't have the sponsors that korea does. They need to win to get by. If you were to look at tournaments outside starleagues korea, you'd realise that everyone makes deals to share the pot everyone does it super smash, street fighter, counterstrike everyone share's the pot. So to do this in a scrubby local tournament when it's perfectly legit does not bother me one bit. what bothers me is everyone's convinced that planning this was the greatest scandal of 2010. People saying this is a disgrace to gaming doesn't have a clue what they are talking about here. they got some vivid bloody imaginary dreamworld image and that's why they're so offended by this.
Competetive spirit? well they still need to beat every god damn else first and make it to the semi finals. Prestige? are you trolling, this isn't gsl, that majority of the players signing upp will be gold level. Sponosorship, what???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? As for the fans and reputation, It's their individual choice what they want to do, If you don't want to be their fans, don't. Their primary goal is to earn money, if you can't understand that then you're stupid, spoiled or still live with your parents
either way, no matter the outcome, the damage has been done. because of this, sjow and morrow's credibility has decrease even though they weren't cheating
On December 23 2010 02:53 Random() wrote: I wonder why people had no problems with Koreans throwing matches at WCG to avoid eliminating each other, but suddenly some guys trying to abuse the system in a local tournament should be lynched.
In my opinion it is as much the organizer's fault as it is theirs. There should not be any incentive to throw matches just because of the tournament's format.
There is NO incentive to throw matches. The point of this tournament`s format is to reward a player that actually is dominant (11/18). If they believe they can`t do that against each other than they don`t deserve it period. It cheapens the competitive spirit if they try to arrange anything just to get the prize.
First you say there is no incentive to throw the matches. Then you say that it sucks if they arranged their matches, TO GET THE PRIZE.
There IS an incentive when they can get more stuff by colluding than not doing so. Saying something else is absurd. In a normal tournament there are less of such incentives, the reason people do it normally is to profit from external betting, because of the information advantage you get.....
So in conclusion, badly designed rules that give bad incentives.
On December 23 2010 03:04 Malinor wrote: This whole discussion just blows my mind. Just asking myself what is more plausible:
a) I am discussing with my friend how we can win this computer, come up with an solution and asking the admins about it if this is possible within the rules
b) I am planning Match fixing while my stream is running. But while I know this, I just ask random people in irc if they can read my chat, and if they say no, I will just continue to discuss it.
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
The only confirmation we really need is from the owner of this Internet Café, that he knew about this beforehand. Would be nice to hear something official from them.
Still has to be said, just don't discuss anything of any importance while people are watching, it is going to bite you in the ass. But you're still young, so that mistake is understandable
Half of the accusations in this thread are based on things that never happened or just by interpreting statements in some obscure way. The other half is the more interesting and justified discussion, how this does reflect upon esports and how this should be seen morally (MorroW now says that they would not have lost on purpose but just awarded the winning points onto the same account, but if they really wanted to do it this way we cannot know, so there is a problem. Still does not change the fact that nothing happened). I can very much understand this discussion, I was just watching the finals of some big UK lan with Demuslim vs some guy in the grand finals (casted by d.apollo and Rotterdam) and they just played random vs random on a relatively big stage. Now that was just disgusting, as a fan, I simply felt betrayed by that. If MorroW and Sjow planned to fool around like that (which is not unlikely) that is just bad, even if there is no stream. But again, this is just blaming them for stuff that didn't happen and probably wasn't bound to happene, so rather pointless. It's just good to let them know that this would not be appreciated at all.
The admin has already said that they asked him, and that he would allow it. As they arrived some other admin decided that they would rule against it after all.
On December 23 2010 01:34 Tomken wrote: Still matchfixing.
Will people fucking calm down and get a grip. These are small tournaments with shit prices, and some of you is like omg MATCHFIXING BANN BANN BANN!
1. Nobody gives a shit about this tournament, there is absolutely no esteem in winning it. 2. They are not fixing matches unless you're sitting there betting money on them. 3. I do agree that it's bad sportsmanship and whatever, but what they want to do is their business, not yours.
Terrible fallacious argument.
The size of the tournament has no bearing on whether or not it is ok to do something like this.
I'm saying that I'm okey with it because with the system they're having they were pretty much asking for it.
So if there's a flaw it must obviously be exploited, right?
I mean who gives a shit about competitive spirit, prestige, sponsorship, reputation and fans?
Your argument is terrible because it only looks from the selfish perspective of a player.
having to win 11 tournaments is bullshit, and even then the winning is small. it just went up from insignificant. These players doesn't have the sponsors that korea does. They need to win to get by. If you were to look at tournaments outside starleagues korea, you'd realise that everyone makes deals to share the pot everyone does it super smash, street fighter, counterstrike everyone share's the pot. So to do this in a scrubby local tournament when it's perfectly legit does not bother me one bit. what bothers me is everyone's convinced that planning this was the greatest scandal of 2010. People saying this is a disgrace to gaming doesn't have a clue what they are talking about here. they got some vivid bloody imaginary dreamworld image and that's why they're so offended by this.
Competetive spirit? well they still need to beat every god damn else first and make it to the semi finals. Prestige? are you trolling, this isn't gsl, that majority of the players signing upp will be gold level. Sponosorship, what???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? As for the fans and reputation, It's their individual choice what they want to do, If you don't want to be their fans, don't. Their primary goal is to earn money, if you can't understand that then you're stupid, spoiled or still live with your parents
It doesn't matter how "bullshit" the tournament is that doesn't give anyone the right to cheat (I'M NOT SAYING THEY WERE CHEATING, I'm just saying your logic is horribly flawed and no, I didn't read anything past that).
IMO, what they are doing is either: 1) very smart or 2) dishonest. This is a discussion of ethics, which has no right answer. Go ahead and argue it for the rest of your life if you want (as many philosophers do).
On December 23 2010 02:28 MorroW wrote: when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
Oh please, you are really going to bring balance into this discussion?
The fact is you were looking to match fix to get an easy computer. You were looking for the easiest way to get the prize, by slacking off competition. To make it worse you were doing this on a "small" no name tournament where the two of you could clean house.
Yeah financially we know how it makes sense. It's obvious, but don't talk about how you are a serious gamer when you just explained in depth how you were going blow off competition, blow off the game, to get the prize as easy as possible. You aren't a serious gamer, you just want the prize, even if you can get it by not even playing.
Yes, why should we let the accused person speak? We all should just speculate what happened based on reports from a 3rd party site that wasn't there when it happened and is known for cherry picking quotes and blowing things out of proportion. And then we should all decide on a suitable punishment for what the rumours said he might have done if he wasn't "caught".
On December 23 2010 03:04 Malinor wrote: This whole discussion just blows my mind. Just asking myself what is more plausible:
a) I am discussing with my friend how we can win this computer, come up with an solution and asking the admins about it if this is possible within the rules
b) I am planning Match fixing while my stream is running. But while I know this, I just ask random people in irc if they can read my chat, and if they say no, I will just continue to discuss it.
I think MorroW said it already:
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
The only confirmation we really need is from the owner of this Internet Café, that he knew about this beforehand. Would be nice to hear something official from them.
Still has to be said, just don't discuss anything of any importance while people are watching, it is going to bite you in the ass. But you're still young, so that mistake is understandable
Half of the accusations in this thread are based on things that never happened or just by interpreting statements in some obscure way. The other half is the more interesting and justified discussion, how this does reflect upon esports and how this should be seen morally (MorroW now says that they would not have lost on purpose but just awarded the winning points onto the same account, but if they really wanted to do it this way we cannot know, so there is a problem. Still does not change the fact that nothing happened). I can very much understand this discussion, I was just watching the finals of some big UK lan with Demuslim vs some guy in the grand finals (casted by d.apollo and Rotterdam) and they just played random vs random on a relatively big stage. Now that was just disgusting, as a fan, I simply felt betrayed by that. If MorroW and Sjow planned to fool around like that (which is not unlikely) that is just bad, even if there is no stream. But again, this is just blaming them for stuff that didn't happen and probably wasn't bound to happene, so rather pointless. It's just good to let them know that this would not be appreciated at all.
The admin has already said that they asked him, and that he would allow it. As they arrived some other admin decided that they would rule against it after all.
Oh, is there an official response in this thread by this admin? Because that's what I meant. I must have missed it, but this would remove all remaining doubts (not that I have too many).
On December 23 2010 02:28 MorroW wrote: when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
Oh please, you are really going to bring balance into this discussion?
The fact is you were looking to match fix to get an easy computer. You were looking for the easiest way to get the prize, by slacking off competition. To make it worse you were doing this on a "small" no name tournament where the two of you could clean house.
Yeah financially we know how it makes sense. It's obvious, but don't talk about how you are a serious gamer when you just explained in depth how you were going blow off competition, blow off the game, to get the prize as easy as possible. You aren't a serious gamer, you just want the prize, even if you can get it by not even playing.
Yes, why should we let the accused person speak? We all should just speculate what happened based on reports from a 3rd party site that wasn't there when it happened and is known for cherry picking quotes and blowing things out of proportion. And then we should all decide on a suitable punishment for what the rumours said he might have done if he wasn't "caught".
Sounds completely reasonable.
/irony
Is this even a reply to me? I didn't say anything about not letting him speak.
I feel that many are overreacting to the situation, we can all argue about many things, but the fact is that two friends where only wanting to play the finals and then they wanted to just see themselves as a team, and as a team if someone win the finals the team will get the win instead of them, thus making scoring wins and then winning the prize pool. It is not wrong to ask the admins of a tournament to do these if they both see that if in competing against themselves would just loose them the prize at the end, andmis said no and then everyone hate them for just asking even when only one of them is competing for the prize now.
On December 23 2010 02:56 Senx wrote: Why are people arguing that they DIDNT want to fix their matches, it was the exact thing they wanted to do and later got denied from doing it so one of them dropped out.
It sounds, from Morrows explanation, that they didn't want to 'fix' the match, they wanted to 'fix' the reported outcome so that the grand prize was released no matter what.
It is basically like asking the admin - can we get the grand prize no matter what? Can we ignore the rationale behind your prize system which is obviously - give the big prize out to BIG/best player only if there is one - ?
Its a weird system, and I don't think they cheated or wanted to cheat, they just wanted the biggest prize - which, as Morrow explains, does make sense.
Ideally, when hearing about the tourney structure it would be cool if Morrow said to Sjow "guess I'm going to have to wipe the floor with you instead of just spot cleaning it with your feet!' instead of "damn, it's possible we might not get the best prize paid out to either of us. Le'ts ask if we can get around this issue somehow even though it is obvious the reason for the payout structure is to make it harder for an individual to get the best prize for themselves"
Why wouldn't they ask instead for the system to change so that the player who wins the most rounds/matches gets the big prize? This would be the more proper way to ask for the prize payout without touching the ending win/loss representation and its basically the same question "can you change the prize payout so that at least one of us gets it if we are 1st - 2nd?"
Sigh, just a bad way of going about things really.
In my opinion the casual sc2 spectators need to man up if they want to label sc2 an e-sport.
A legitimate e-sport does not condone matchfixing. It does not QQ about MLG's tourney format, it does not feel it is justified for GSL to organize the ro64 brackets however they want for an open qualifier just to make better profit for themselves.
A legitimate e-sport holds itself to the highest level of integrity.
On December 23 2010 02:28 MorroW wrote: when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
Oh please, you are really going to bring balance into this discussion?
The fact is you were looking to match fix to get an easy computer. You were looking for the easiest way to get the prize, by slacking off competition. To make it worse you were doing this on a "small" no name tournament where the two of you could clean house.
Yeah financially we know how it makes sense. It's obvious, but don't talk about how you are a serious gamer when you just explained in depth how you were going blow off competition, blow off the game, to get the prize as easy as possible. You aren't a serious gamer, you just want the prize, even if you can get it by not even playing.
Yes, why should we let the accused person speak? We all should just speculate what happened based on reports from a 3rd party site that wasn't there when it happened and is known for cherry picking quotes and blowing things out of proportion. And then we should all decide on a suitable punishment for what the rumours said he might have done if he wasn't "caught".
Sounds completely reasonable.
/irony
Sure Morrow should have his due process. But freedom of the press is also valued as well. By Sjow's and Ipp's statements, there was a discussion that happened and they have the right to report the story. It doesn't sound like the quotes were cherry picked. It looks like journalism at work.
On December 23 2010 02:53 Random() wrote: I wonder why people had no problems with Koreans throwing matches at WCG to avoid eliminating each other, but suddenly some guys trying to abuse the system in a local tournament should be lynched.
In my opinion it is as much the organizer's fault as it is theirs. There should not be any incentive to throw matches just because of the tournament's format.
There is NO incentive to throw matches. The point of this tournament`s format is to reward a player that actually is dominant (11/18). If they believe they can`t do that against each other than they don`t deserve it period. It cheapens the competitive spirit if they try to arrange anything just to get the prize.
Well, don't give full information about the requirements to win that prize then so that it cannot be easily exploited. Don't tell the actual number of wins required, or make it so that the one who wins most tournaments gets it. Or make the one with most wins and the one with second most wins fight in a BO7 for that prize.
It is kind of obvious that if there is a pool of players such that there are two whose skill levels are approximately equal to each other but much higher than anyone else's they may feel that it is only right that one of them gets that prize because one of them most probably would if it weren't for the other.
I agree that such behaviour may not be too sportsmanlike, but it is quite logical if you ask me.
I honestly don't understand what all the drama is about. If I were in their shoes I would have made the same choice. If they both play and split the wins, they both lose. If only one plays and wins, they both win. They asked if one of them could forfeit their wins, so what? The 11 win rule is a completely idiotic rule in the first place. In the end no one fixed a single match and one of them dropped out of the tournament, boo hoo.
Just close the thread, they wanted to split the prize not throw away games. Only one of them is competing and everything has been explained the only thing left that will be said are from people who have preformed negative opinions about Morrow and Sjow and will just use this thread as another reason to complain.
when we saw this event we quickly realized if both if us played it and won half of the tours then we wouldnt get the computer (there are about 16 tours and need 11 tour wins to get the computer). assuming we would win half of these each which would make us 3 steps away from getting it
so we asked maven if it was allowed to play the finals and give the win to the other player even if someone else won. for example if me and sjow met in finals and then we stacked all wins to sjows "thorphy table". he said he was ok and i thought it was ok going to IOL on the bus but when i got there it was not the case. we were not allowed to stack all wins to 1 player
in all honesty im far from a cheater, i have never cheated in my life and im a serious gamer. i thought i could keep the stream on because its not like were gonna talk anything dirty about cheating. we were just honestly asking the admins of the tournament if it was allowed to give the wins to 1 player if we met in the finals. which was not allowed
and from here rakaka took over and made the story alot more interesting than it actually is haha
if its allowed by the admins to split wins like that then u shouldnt call the gamers cheaters or anything, then you should complaint to the admins and orga for allowing it to happen. me and sjow are good friends and we knew we would be the far superior players at this backdoor neighbour events thats why we wanted to work together so we wouldnt sabotage each other so nobody of us would get the computer, it actually makes alot of sense.
you cant blame players for things they do might be boring or lame, just when i abused reapers in the IEM germany, its imbalanced and i said it myself but you shouldnt call me a lame player for doing it, you should put the blame on the game for being imbalanced. its quite the same concept if u think about it really
me and sjow came to a new conclusion now anyway and we decided only 1 player should stay and play these tournaments and it turns out to be sjow. just to make it extra clear only 1 of us plays this because if both plays it theres a big risk neither of us gets the computer and that would be such a tragedy
lets just cheer for sjow to get the computer asap. if the cs players get 11 wins before sjow does, then they will take both the computers they have on their giveout and once sjow reach 11 wins he wont get any computer. thats why its so important that 1 person wins all tours in a row
many are talking about rigging games as in acting the finals when one player plays on purpose badly so he loses. we were never going to do this ofcourse. we were gonna play finals and have a nice time and let the best player win, and then give the actual prize wins to 1 person.
this is not anything like koreas match making scandal^^ ive been a member of the sc community for a long time and ive been a very mannered and competitive one aswell with high goals in the game. it would never come to me to cheat in events and thats why i wanted to make sure with the admins it was allowed to pile up all wins on 1 person because personally i thought it sounded silly and didnt believe we would be allowed to do so, which turned out to be true.
just wanna give a big cheers to inferno online they have let me practice there for over a month for free and hosting such awesome events. i wish the guys who participate in it the best of luck and ill leave sjow to this one
i never meant to do anything that i knew was wrong. we were told it was allowed but once i got there it was completely different. all we have done really is just to ask if something was allowed by the admins and they said it was ok and will work something out, and later on changing their mind and then rakaka took it from there
Thank you for this explanation. It originally appeared like the potential matches would not be played seriously, but if they were and only the prize would be divided, then I don't think it affects the competition at all. Some of you might not believe him, but MorroW deserves the benefit of the doubt in this community.
I'm locking this thread, as that seems to conclude everything unless some awesome new development occurs. Maybe the next ESPORTS drama can be a sex scandal?
EPT
Hope it gets cleared up.
![[image loading]](http://www.infernoonline.com/img/bildarkiv/slicesteg11.jpg)
