|
well shit this is going to get really interesting really fast.
|
The Idra vs Demuslim thing wasn't a tournament if I recall it correctly. Just training matches.
@topic: Coca and Byun should receive a mild punishment and nothing more. They ruined the purpose of a tournament but apart from that I don't think they hurt anybody. But people like drama, so nobody cares and everybody is just yelling "esports is deeeeeeaad".
|
|
|
I dont see why everybody is so offended by this.
If it wasn't explicitly said in the rules that dropping a game was forbidden ( maybe someone raised the point, havent read the 60p ~.~ ) it makes total sense for me to do it.
It might not be 100% ethical but it is the most logical move if you think in term of benefit Code A spots are hard to get.
There is a ton of collusion in Lan parties for example, dropping games to get 1st/2nd of the pool play to get to the better part of the bracket. It is not totally legit, I admit, but it's part of the game.
I totally disagree with the sanctions ( even if I can understand Boxer being upset because it is not good for the Slayers team image ) that I find totally disproportionate.
If people don't want to see this happening, it is the rules and/or the format of the tournament that should be adapted. Exploited a breche isn't criminal.
|
If someone famous decides to fool around in a weekly online tournament with little or no prize money, I don't think it should have ramifications outside that tournament.
If someone breaks the rules of the GSL, I don't think they should be suspended from MLG, IPL, etc etc etc automatically.
Same the other way around ...
Say for instance someone decides not to bother competing in the NASL halfway through ... I don't think that MLG or GSL should sanction them in their tournaments.
As long as this tournament wasn't a qualifier tournament ... I think, meh, just let it be.
There are no internationally recognized governing body for the sport that can be appealed to and enforce the rules the same way ...
It's like ... some player doing something stupid in soccer:
- The governing body can sanction him from playing (UEFA, FIFA).
- The national association can sanction him from playing in the league and or cups and or national team.
- The club can prohibit him from the team, but not the national team.
- International cup organizers can prevent him from playing in the cup (say champions league), but not in the league, national cups, national team
... and so on.
We don't have a governing body, so ... I think each tournament should behave like dictators in their own little world not caring much about the others.
|
On November 15 2011 21:20 boaecho wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 21:11 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 20:49 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On November 15 2011 20:38 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 20:23 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On November 15 2011 20:07 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote:
Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent. 1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win. 2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent? 3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics. 3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time. 4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad. 5) Maybe AZK will take him. 1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses. 1) Right. So a robber has better integrity than a pickpocket. Because he's honest and truthful in relieving you of your valuables. You have evidence this was done in jest? Please provide these incidences. Where you there behind either Byun's or CoCa's PC? Or do you know them personally? And spontaneous theft is perfectly acceptable in our modern society. 2) So the either South Korean eSports community are wrong to call Byun's demands to CoCa to leave the game 3a) How does throwing a game... You know what, forget it. You sir, are certifiably immoral. I wouldn't trust you with spare change. 1) No, because the robber steals you valuables without consent, which harms you. Coca and byun did something mutually agreeable. Please refrain from using false analogies. 2) It is okay if the South Korean community objects to coca and byun's actions, as it is just their personal opinion, but the overreaction that harms them is certainly wrong. 3a) I do not understand your fragment of a sentence. Your endeavours at ad hominem do not add value to your arguments. I would advise you not to attempt personal attacks in future, both over the internet and in personal life, as to reasonable people, it only discredits yourself. On November 15 2011 20:25 Nouar wrote:On November 15 2011 20:07 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote:
Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent. 1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win. 2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent? 3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics. 3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time. 4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad. 5) Maybe AZK will take him. 1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses. If it starts like that, we Will ALL wonder each and every Time two players meet : "is this match fixed because they are friends?" This is the kind of trust WE need as viewers to know matches are fair and the competition is fair. "i'm better at zvt than you, lose and let me win the finals and we'll share the money" is what your opinion will bring us to. I don't watch a tournament to see people lose on purpose and ask myself "is it à true match, is the guy who advances the one who should?" this is NOT integrity. Friendship is not the most important thing when you take part in a COMPETITION ! Letting friends win on purpose is not the way to go whatever the reason. (and asking for a win is even worse imo... Byun....) That match was inconsequential. Coca and byun would play their best if it was something important. Byun asked to win in jest, and coca gave in jest. They probably didn't mean it to be cheating. Besides, there is neither a law, nor a rule against purposely playing badly for reasons that do not benefit yourself. Perhaps the tournaments could add in such rules in future to prevent people from doing such things, if they wish to. But going by the current situation, what coca and byun did was a permissible choice. To summarise, two players openly collude to fix a game they were entered in by their respective teams and it is honourable and good by your standards for them to do so. And you find this good and fair to watch games end this way when two friends meet each other in any tournament: "HEY YOU, LEAVE NOW" "OK, GG" And you find this acceptable and good for the state of the eSports to move in this direction? That friends should let their lower ranked friends win if the tournament doesn't interest them. I did not say it was honourable to fix a match, I said that coca's good intentions at helping byun were noble. But whether coca's leaving is impermissible (or comparable to match fixing) is entirely debatable, although I do not think so. Well, if someone really doesn't want to win, and the rules specifically prohibit the person from blatantly leaving, the person would just make a few mistakes here and there and blame it on a slump or whatever, which would make it indistinguishable from a real loss. Just saying that people can purposely lose secretly if they really wanted too, and coca was honest for doing it outright. Putting heavy punishment on someone for purposely losing a match will not help esports in any way, as people who want to throw matches would still do it, albeit more covertly. If you really want to prevent such stuff, you need to solve the problem from its root, i.e. imbibing in players that they have to play their best at all times. Lynching a few to set an example for the rest and to satisfy the mob is not a good way to solve the problem. On November 15 2011 20:54 boaecho wrote:On November 15 2011 20:38 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 20:23 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On November 15 2011 20:07 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote:
Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent. 1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win. 2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent? 3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics. 3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time. 4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad. 5) Maybe AZK will take him. 1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses. 1) Right. So a robber has better integrity than a pickpocket. Because he's honest and truthful in relieving you of your valuables. You have evidence this was done in jest? Please provide these incidences. Where you there behind either Byun's or CoCa's PC? Or do you know them personally? And spontaneous theft is perfectly acceptable in our modern society. 2) So the either South Korean eSports community are wrong to call Byun's demands to CoCa to leave the game 3a) How does throwing a game... You know what, forget it. You sir, are certifiably immoral. I wouldn't trust you with spare change. 1) No, because the robber steals you valuables without consent, which harms you. Coca and byun did something mutually agreeable. Please refrain from using false analogies. 2) It is okay if the South Korean community objects to coca and byun's actions, as it is just their personal opinion, but the overreaction that harms them is certainly wrong. 3a) I do not understand your fragment of a sentence. Your endeavours at ad hominem do not add value to your arguments. I would advise you not to attempt personal attacks in future, both over the internet and in personal life, as to reasonable people, it only discredits yourself. On November 15 2011 20:25 Nouar wrote:On November 15 2011 20:07 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote:
Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent. 1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win. 2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent? 3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics. 3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time. 4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad. 5) Maybe AZK will take him. 1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses. If it starts like that, we Will ALL wonder each and every Time two players meet : "is this match fixed because they are friends?" This is the kind of trust WE need as viewers to know matches are fair and the competition is fair. "i'm better at zvt than you, lose and let me win the finals and we'll share the money" is what your opinion will bring us to. I don't watch a tournament to see people lose on purpose and ask myself "is it à true match, is the guy who advances the one who should?" this is NOT integrity. Friendship is not the most important thing when you take part in a COMPETITION ! Letting friends win on purpose is not the way to go whatever the reason. (and asking for a win is even worse imo... Byun....) That match was inconsequential. Coca and byun would play their best if it was something important. Byun asked to win in jest, and coca gave in jest. They probably didn't mean it to be cheating. Besides, there is neither a law, nor a rule against purposely playing badly for reasons that do not benefit yourself. Perhaps the tournaments could add in such rules in future to prevent people from doing such things, if they wish to. But going by the current situation, what coca and byun did was a permissible choice. Jesus stop trying to impress people with debate class 101 material. Your argument with point number one is completely wrong. It hurt the other competitors by giving Byun a chance that he would not have gotten if he was not playing against his teammate. No other player had a attained a free win. So why should Byun get one? He should have been eliminated but he got another chance. ALSO You completely used ad hominem incorrectly. He merely insulted you with a comment but in no way did he use that to try to disprove your argument (Definition of ad hominem is to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Trying to sound smart would only hurt you when talking to people who know their shit. Firstly, I am not Jesus. Secondly, you said it hurt other competitors by giving byun a chance. But if coca had won byun, then coca would have the chance, and coca is stronger than byun, since byun needed coca to throw the match. Therefore, it would hurt the other competitors even more to fight coca than byun. Thirdly, from wikipedia "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.". He attempted to negate the truth of my statements by terming my statements "immoral". In fact, you are also committing ad hominem by saying that I am "trying to impress people" and "Trying to sound smart" instead of evaluating the salient points of my arguments. It DID hurt the other players because it denied them of a FAIR match regardless if it was for better or worse. If you could reason as well as you can pull up words to make yourself look intelligent, you would see that your logic is flawed in your second point again. It does not matter if coca is stronger or weaker. It does not even matter if he had the power of jaedong, flash, bisu ,and stork combine. It is not for you to assume anything in a debate.Also, your entire point is weak if it consist entirely of "woulds coulds ifs" . It all comes down to who the opponents would have faced in a fair situation. <- End of discussion. He also didn't negate anything with his "immoral" comment. He never attributed it to any of his bullet points. If he added, "omg you are immoral your points are all wrong" then you would be correct. Of course, that did not happen and he merely just simply insulted you.
I can tell you with much certainty that in a case where players really want to win a tournament, most would rather face a weaker opponent. whether it is "fair" or not, depends on your definition of fair. You seem to define "fair" as everyone playing to their best, but I define "fair" as everyone doing what they want as long as it adheres to the rules. Moreover, the other players stood to benefit objectively.
Furthermore "woulds coulds ifs" don't make an argument weak automatically, so please explain yourself here.
Regarding the last point, I assumed that he implied a link (and made a misjudgement by using an ad hominem argument) since civil people don't resort insults, and I respect people by treating them as civil people by default. As to what were his true intentions, only he has the correct answer. But this is besides the main point.
|
lol @ people raging over Coca throwing one game in some random tourney. What he should do now is look for another team. If I was playing sc2 and my team did that to me, Id never play for them again.
|
On November 15 2011 21:16 Superouman wrote:
I went to sleep just after that game on daybreak finished and... i would never thought that a such drama will occur O_o
Me too, I was thinking: well, this is kinda silly, but I bet they just want to entertain us a bit more by giving us a 3rd game and Byun will give Coca the win.
The way it turned out is just stupid of both of them and they certainly deserved some kind of punishment to maintain the credibility of the Weekly. This ist still a Code A qualifier...
|
have to admire coca's dedication to team slayers though. he dropped out of code s for them, and with the forfeit he's not eligible to join the gsl for the next three seasons either.
i can understand that's it's korea so whatever they decided is probably best, but as a foreigner it's frustrating to watch two really good players end up like this. i don't really see the distinction between the whitera case and this. the point here is throwing matches, not what the matches are worth.
hope coca uses this time to come back stronger, leenock style (though of course leenock's circumstances were different)
|
If Slayers made CoCa forfeit his code S spot, I think he should INSTANTLY be looking for a better team. I love Slayers team and such but he worked hard for that. Hes a human after all mistakes happen.
Am I the only one who pictures Boxers GF behind all of this? Shes the lowpoint of Slayers imo.
|
On November 15 2011 21:44 chestnutman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 21:16 Superouman wrote:
I went to sleep just after that game on daybreak finished and... i would never thought that a such drama will occur O_o Me too, I was thinking: well, this is kinda silly, but I bet they just want to entertain us a bit more by giving us a 3rd game and Byun will give Coca the win. The way it turned out is just stupid of both of them and they certainly deserved some kind of punishment to maintain the credibility of the Weekly. This ist still a Code A qualifier...
Holy shit, can the OP put that quote by Mr.Chae in the first post and state that there isn't a Code A spot in this tournament? Seeing people using the Code A spot as the basis for their argument every other page and then someone has to clarify every other page is kinda annoying.
|
On November 15 2011 21:46 JediGamer wrote:
CoCa and Ghost deserve a better team. When I hear this news I just see Boxers 'gf with a pointed finger and Eve standing behind her.
can't say i blame slayers for reacting this way tbh, they're an organisation above everything else, and it seems to me that morality in these issues is taken very seriously in korea. that can mean your brand image is ruined somewhat, sponsorship deals are affected etc.
|
If this small thing gets unpunished then slowly other players will start doing it, and the methods would be of "Savior" proportions eventually. Why? because nobody takes action.
When nobody takes action..u get more and more confident in yourself, that u can pull stuff like this up, without anyone noticing. It's like stealing..u start with an apple..after a few apples, seeing you are not caught, u jump to other bigger stuff to steal. U need to stop this while it's still small, and make it an example for other players to not even think about stuff like this.
I fully agree with their decision. It's the only mature decision they could have made. Consider they warn't banned permanently or something, they just can't compete for 1 month.
|
On November 15 2011 21:46 JediGamer wrote:
If Slayers made CoCa forfeit his code S spot, I think he should INSTANTLY be looking for a better team. I love Slayers team and such but he worked hard for that. Hes a human after all mistakes happen.
And mistakes are punished. I'm pretty sure most korean teams would react in a similar fashion. They are very strict and don't allow BS, simple as that.
|
Wait was he forced to leave his spot and the training house by SlayerS or?
|
The official statement was that he gave up his spot himself and people are just assuming things.
|
They were clearly messing around if it was match fixing they wouldn't have chatted during the game. Wrong? Yes, it's a compitition. But not match fixing in my eyes, just 2 gamers who are friends having a few laughs and got out of hand and forgetting they are in a tournament setting. I can't really say if the punishment was too severe or not, maybe it was. Just the code S spot and not being able to compete the the korean weekly would have been enough in my opinion.
Deff stupid of them to do for sure though
|
On November 15 2011 21:49 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 21:44 chestnutman wrote:On November 15 2011 21:16 Superouman wrote:
I went to sleep just after that game on daybreak finished and... i would never thought that a such drama will occur O_o Me too, I was thinking: well, this is kinda silly, but I bet they just want to entertain us a bit more by giving us a 3rd game and Byun will give Coca the win. The way it turned out is just stupid of both of them and they certainly deserved some kind of punishment to maintain the credibility of the Weekly. This ist still a Code A qualifier... Holy shit, can the OP put that quote by Mr.Chae in the first post and state that there isn't a Code A spot in this tournament? Seeing people using the Code A spot as the basis for their argument every other page and then someone has to clarify every other page is kinda annoying.
I didn't know this. So the Code A spot was just a one time thing? Well, then this story got a whole lot sillier..
|
United Kingdom38205 Posts
On November 15 2011 21:36 Fleshcut wrote:
The Idra vs Demuslim thing wasn't a tournament if I recall it correctly. Just training matches.
It was the ESWC qualifiers...
|
On November 15 2011 21:42 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 21:20 boaecho wrote:On November 15 2011 21:11 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 20:49 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On November 15 2011 20:38 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 20:23 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On November 15 2011 20:07 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote:
Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent. 1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win. 2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent? 3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics. 3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time. 4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad. 5) Maybe AZK will take him. 1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses. 1) Right. So a robber has better integrity than a pickpocket. Because he's honest and truthful in relieving you of your valuables. You have evidence this was done in jest? Please provide these incidences. Where you there behind either Byun's or CoCa's PC? Or do you know them personally? And spontaneous theft is perfectly acceptable in our modern society. 2) So the either South Korean eSports community are wrong to call Byun's demands to CoCa to leave the game 3a) How does throwing a game... You know what, forget it. You sir, are certifiably immoral. I wouldn't trust you with spare change. 1) No, because the robber steals you valuables without consent, which harms you. Coca and byun did something mutually agreeable. Please refrain from using false analogies. 2) It is okay if the South Korean community objects to coca and byun's actions, as it is just their personal opinion, but the overreaction that harms them is certainly wrong. 3a) I do not understand your fragment of a sentence. Your endeavours at ad hominem do not add value to your arguments. I would advise you not to attempt personal attacks in future, both over the internet and in personal life, as to reasonable people, it only discredits yourself. On November 15 2011 20:25 Nouar wrote:On November 15 2011 20:07 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote:
Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent. 1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win. 2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent? 3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics. 3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time. 4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad. 5) Maybe AZK will take him. 1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses. If it starts like that, we Will ALL wonder each and every Time two players meet : "is this match fixed because they are friends?" This is the kind of trust WE need as viewers to know matches are fair and the competition is fair. "i'm better at zvt than you, lose and let me win the finals and we'll share the money" is what your opinion will bring us to. I don't watch a tournament to see people lose on purpose and ask myself "is it à true match, is the guy who advances the one who should?" this is NOT integrity. Friendship is not the most important thing when you take part in a COMPETITION ! Letting friends win on purpose is not the way to go whatever the reason. (and asking for a win is even worse imo... Byun....) That match was inconsequential. Coca and byun would play their best if it was something important. Byun asked to win in jest, and coca gave in jest. They probably didn't mean it to be cheating. Besides, there is neither a law, nor a rule against purposely playing badly for reasons that do not benefit yourself. Perhaps the tournaments could add in such rules in future to prevent people from doing such things, if they wish to. But going by the current situation, what coca and byun did was a permissible choice. To summarise, two players openly collude to fix a game they were entered in by their respective teams and it is honourable and good by your standards for them to do so. And you find this good and fair to watch games end this way when two friends meet each other in any tournament: "HEY YOU, LEAVE NOW" "OK, GG" And you find this acceptable and good for the state of the eSports to move in this direction? That friends should let their lower ranked friends win if the tournament doesn't interest them. I did not say it was honourable to fix a match, I said that coca's good intentions at helping byun were noble. But whether coca's leaving is impermissible (or comparable to match fixing) is entirely debatable, although I do not think so. Well, if someone really doesn't want to win, and the rules specifically prohibit the person from blatantly leaving, the person would just make a few mistakes here and there and blame it on a slump or whatever, which would make it indistinguishable from a real loss. Just saying that people can purposely lose secretly if they really wanted too, and coca was honest for doing it outright. Putting heavy punishment on someone for purposely losing a match will not help esports in any way, as people who want to throw matches would still do it, albeit more covertly. If you really want to prevent such stuff, you need to solve the problem from its root, i.e. imbibing in players that they have to play their best at all times. Lynching a few to set an example for the rest and to satisfy the mob is not a good way to solve the problem. On November 15 2011 20:54 boaecho wrote:On November 15 2011 20:38 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 20:23 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On November 15 2011 20:07 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote:
Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent. 1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win. 2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent? 3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics. 3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time. 4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad. 5) Maybe AZK will take him. 1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses. 1) Right. So a robber has better integrity than a pickpocket. Because he's honest and truthful in relieving you of your valuables. You have evidence this was done in jest? Please provide these incidences. Where you there behind either Byun's or CoCa's PC? Or do you know them personally? And spontaneous theft is perfectly acceptable in our modern society. 2) So the either South Korean eSports community are wrong to call Byun's demands to CoCa to leave the game 3a) How does throwing a game... You know what, forget it. You sir, are certifiably immoral. I wouldn't trust you with spare change. 1) No, because the robber steals you valuables without consent, which harms you. Coca and byun did something mutually agreeable. Please refrain from using false analogies. 2) It is okay if the South Korean community objects to coca and byun's actions, as it is just their personal opinion, but the overreaction that harms them is certainly wrong. 3a) I do not understand your fragment of a sentence. Your endeavours at ad hominem do not add value to your arguments. I would advise you not to attempt personal attacks in future, both over the internet and in personal life, as to reasonable people, it only discredits yourself. On November 15 2011 20:25 Nouar wrote:On November 15 2011 20:07 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote:
Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent. 1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win. 2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent? 3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics. 3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time. 4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad. 5) Maybe AZK will take him. 1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses. If it starts like that, we Will ALL wonder each and every Time two players meet : "is this match fixed because they are friends?" This is the kind of trust WE need as viewers to know matches are fair and the competition is fair. "i'm better at zvt than you, lose and let me win the finals and we'll share the money" is what your opinion will bring us to. I don't watch a tournament to see people lose on purpose and ask myself "is it à true match, is the guy who advances the one who should?" this is NOT integrity. Friendship is not the most important thing when you take part in a COMPETITION ! Letting friends win on purpose is not the way to go whatever the reason. (and asking for a win is even worse imo... Byun....) That match was inconsequential. Coca and byun would play their best if it was something important. Byun asked to win in jest, and coca gave in jest. They probably didn't mean it to be cheating. Besides, there is neither a law, nor a rule against purposely playing badly for reasons that do not benefit yourself. Perhaps the tournaments could add in such rules in future to prevent people from doing such things, if they wish to. But going by the current situation, what coca and byun did was a permissible choice. Jesus stop trying to impress people with debate class 101 material. Your argument with point number one is completely wrong. It hurt the other competitors by giving Byun a chance that he would not have gotten if he was not playing against his teammate. No other player had a attained a free win. So why should Byun get one? He should have been eliminated but he got another chance. ALSO You completely used ad hominem incorrectly. He merely insulted you with a comment but in no way did he use that to try to disprove your argument (Definition of ad hominem is to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Trying to sound smart would only hurt you when talking to people who know their shit. Firstly, I am not Jesus. Secondly, you said it hurt other competitors by giving byun a chance. But if coca had won byun, then coca would have the chance, and coca is stronger than byun, since byun needed coca to throw the match. Therefore, it would hurt the other competitors even more to fight coca than byun. Thirdly, from wikipedia "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.". He attempted to negate the truth of my statements by terming my statements "immoral". In fact, you are also committing ad hominem by saying that I am "trying to impress people" and "Trying to sound smart" instead of evaluating the salient points of my arguments. It DID hurt the other players because it denied them of a FAIR match regardless if it was for better or worse. If you could reason as well as you can pull up words to make yourself look intelligent, you would see that your logic is flawed in your second point again. It does not matter if coca is stronger or weaker. It does not even matter if he had the power of jaedong, flash, bisu ,and stork combine. It is not for you to assume anything in a debate.Also, your entire point is weak if it consist entirely of "woulds coulds ifs" . It all comes down to who the opponents would have faced in a fair situation. <- End of discussion. He also didn't negate anything with his "immoral" comment. He never attributed it to any of his bullet points. If he added, "omg you are immoral your points are all wrong" then you would be correct. Of course, that did not happen and he merely just simply insulted you. I can tell you with much certainty that in a case where players really want to win a tournament, most would rather face a weaker opponent. whether it is "fair" or not, depends on your definition of fair. You seem to define "fair" as everyone playing to their best, but I define "fair" as everyone doing what they want as long as it adheres to the rules. Moreover, the other players stood to benefit objectively. Furthermore "woulds coulds ifs" don't make an argument weak automatically, so please explain yourself here. Regarding the last point, I assumed that he implied a link (and made a misjudgement by using an ad hominem argument) since civil people don't resort insults, and I respect people by treating them as civil people by default. As to what were his true intentions, only he has the correct answer. But this is besides the main point.
Fairness is honesty and integrity. Even if it was not stated in the "rulebook" . It is obviously something that is implied. Also , refrain from pulling random statistics or generalization or as you had sad earlier , blanket statement. I know people who would rather lose than to play an unjust match or won in means that they normally would not have. The fact that you even try to bring up " most would rather..." is already a automatic fail in any judged debate btw.
The "woulds coulds ifs " is hard to explain over internet but I'll try my best here. Picture this, your good friend loses to you in a Sc2 game but all he says is "i would have totally beaten your noobass if i didn't accidently mismicro my banelings " or "if i had paid attention to the bottom drop a bit more, you wouldnt be winning". I am sure you have probably experience this type of situation before in your life whether it was jokingly or seriously. The whole point of "what ifs" are baseless comments that provide nothing of value because I could say what if Coca was murdered by Scottish monks with a bo staff and auto dq's in his next match. Yes, that is a way out there one but that is the point. What if arguments could go on forever but never reach a conclusion because both parties would always be able to find a next " if " statement and never come into a conclusion. Which is why we stick to facts and objective base reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
