|
On April 10 2013 16:17 TheBB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 16:09 Type|NarutO wrote:
To be honest a qualifier shouldn't count towards defending the title. Show nested quote +Only tournaments played live/at a LAN and broadcasted on-location (i.e. no weekly cups, TSL, online qualifiers - only MLG, GSL, GSTL, etc). An argument could be made. I'm all for getting this thing away from Bear as soon as possible. Of course, if he qualifies then all for the better.
Well, the Code B Challenger league is played live and broadcasted on-location (Khaldor). As that rule seems to exist to avoid cheating possibilities, Code B surely qualifies. Whether a specific game is casted or not doesn't matter, right. Otherwise some games at MLG and Dreamhack won't count as well. And that's an arbitrary rule as there could (and in this case, will) be people around watching the game played live.
|
There have been changes for the unofficial world champion in tournaments that have been less stacked with good players, so this Code A qualifier should definitely count in case he gets defeated.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
my main concern at the moment is that
a) are qualifiers really "tournaments?" this question was raised with showmatches a few pages past and we decided showmatches weren't.
b) we have never counted qualifiers before, some of the early GSLs have sketchy information on qualifiers. do we backtrack everything?
|
On April 10 2013 16:26 opterown wrote:
my main concern at the moment is that
a) are qualifiers really "tournaments?" this question was raised with showmatches a few pages past and we decided showmatches weren't.
b) we have never counted qualifiers before, some of the early GSLs have sketchy information on qualifiers. do we backtrack everything?
Has a world champion ever played Code B? It's a pretty rare type of qualifier. It's more like Dreamhack or MLG groups (MLG groups from last year are the most contentious as they only affected the ranking).
And it's definitely a tournament as it's part of the biggest tournament(WCS, GSL), and it's an elimination bracket, so one cannot say it is separate. If we differentiate between tournaments where you qualify into another tournament, Code A becomes contentious as well. They have the same structure.
But, yes, we should go through the history and check whether an unofficial champion has lost in Code B.
|
United States97276 Posts
Puma held the title for a while. Like opterown mentioned in the other thread if anyone did that it was probably him
|
On April 10 2013 16:26 opterown wrote:
my main concern at the moment is that
a) are qualifiers really "tournaments?" this question was raised with showmatches a few pages past and we decided showmatches weren't.
b) we have never counted qualifiers before, some of the early GSLs have sketchy information on qualifiers. do we backtrack everything?
a) Qualifiers follow the tournament style a lot more than showmatches. A qualifier means something and Bear would certainly make his best to advance.
b) Well, no. The difference is that this qualifier is being broadcasted.
I still don't think that qualifier should count cause I don't think it's appropriate to change the rules just because some people don't like Bear as the UWC but they do have some points.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
Poll: If Bear loses today, does he lose UWC?Yes, pass the UWC to whoever beats him (54) 68% No, Code B does not count (25) 32% 79 total votes Your vote: If Bear loses today, does he lose UWC? (Vote): No, Code B does not count
(Vote): Yes, pass the UWC to whoever beats him
|
On April 10 2013 16:30 NVRLand wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 16:26 opterown wrote:
my main concern at the moment is that
a) are qualifiers really "tournaments?" this question was raised with showmatches a few pages past and we decided showmatches weren't.
b) we have never counted qualifiers before, some of the early GSLs have sketchy information on qualifiers. do we backtrack everything? a) Qualifiers follow the tournament style a lot more than showmatches. A qualifier means something and Bear would certainly make his best to advance. b) Well, no. The difference is that this qualifier is being broadcasted. I still don't think that qualifier should count cause I don't think it's appropriate to change the rules just because some people don't like Bear as the UWC but they do have some points.
I'm actually in favour of keeping Bear for as long as it takes. That's how I've voted every time in the past. But not counting Code B comes as a surprise to me because it does fit the criteria as they were laid out originally.
Edit: Opterown made a poll. I don't agree to polling about this at the moment. It's a question about applying the rules as we have them, not a subjective call by the wider populace. We need ARGUMENTS for and against the different interpretations of the rules.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On April 10 2013 16:30 NVRLand wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 16:26 opterown wrote:
my main concern at the moment is that
a) are qualifiers really "tournaments?" this question was raised with showmatches a few pages past and we decided showmatches weren't.
b) we have never counted qualifiers before, some of the early GSLs have sketchy information on qualifiers. do we backtrack everything? a) Qualifiers follow the tournament style a lot more than showmatches. A qualifier means something and Bear would certainly make his best to advance. b) Well, no. The difference is that this qualifier is being broadcasted. I still don't think that qualifier should count cause I don't think it's appropriate to change the rules just because some people don't like Bear as the UWC but they do have some points.
some of the older qualifiers were broadcasted and it'll be a pain to work out specifically which, i think
|
I think that qualifiers should count - in the original football/soccer UWC, all kinds of qualifiers count as official matches. Yes, it might require some backtracking, but isn't that half the fun? >_>
|
Sorry, voted wrong on poll and can't change, ofc he should lose UWC if he is beaten in an official game!
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On April 10 2013 16:40 Zeweig wrote:
Sorry, voted wrong on poll and can't change, ofc he should lose UWC if he is beaten in an official game!
the question is whether code b counts as official, not whether he loses or not haha
|
United States33446 Posts
the thing is, is Panic any better  ?
I understand the desire to stick to a set of simple rules, but the truth is the rules are not 100% perfect as the Bear scenario has revealed, and there will be unlucky situations where strict adherence to the rules harm the system.
I don't think counting the qualifier is the right way, because that's the the bigger change to the UWC rules when you can get the belt off Bear with a smaller change that doesn't have retroactive repercussions. Something like having an X day defense clause is a more elegant solution that keeps the spirit of the UWC, imo (a chaotic belt that can go anywhere, and moves frequently).
|
United States97276 Posts
On April 10 2013 16:44 Waxangel wrote:the thing is, is Panic any better ? the best case is we get it on Zero
Terminator is in the group too and he'll keep playing in proleague and I guess for him to get it he'll also qualify for code a
|
Code B should count imo, it's part of the WCS after all and played out live !
Fits the descriptive text in the OP
|
On April 10 2013 16:44 Waxangel wrote:the thing is, is Panic any better ?
Doesn't matter. Whoever ends up with the UWC from today will be in Code A, so the chances of getting back on track are fair.
|
On April 10 2013 16:26 opterown wrote:
a) are qualifiers really "tournaments?" this question was raised with showmatches a few pages past and we decided showmatches weren't.
Code S is a qualifier for WCS. Does that make it not a tournament?
There is effectively even prizemoney awarded here, for playing in Code A Ro48.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On April 10 2013 16:54 TheBB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 16:26 opterown wrote:
a) are qualifiers really "tournaments?" this question was raised with showmatches a few pages past and we decided showmatches weren't. Code S is a qualifier for WCS. Does that make it not a tournament? There is effectively even prizemoney awarded here, for playing in Code A Ro48.
code s has always been marketed as a tournament though, and code b has always been marketed as a qualifier
On April 10 2013 16:44 Waxangel wrote:the thing is, is Panic any better ? I understand the desire to stick to a set of simple rules, but the truth is the rules are not 100% perfect as the Bear scenario has revealed, and there will be unlucky situations where strict adherence to the rules harm the system. I don't think counting the qualifier is the right way, because that's the the bigger change to the UWC rules when you can get the belt off Bear with a smaller change that doesn't have retroactive repercussions. Something like having an X day defense clause is a more elegant solution that keeps the spirit of the UWC, imo (a chaotic belt that can go anywhere, and moves frequently).
my proposal was one full GSL season. i.e. if bear hasn't defended his title by the time the next champ comes around, it goes to that champ. it sort of makes sense, too. we started with the first GSL champ for WoL, we'll re-start with the first GSL champ of HotS
|
On April 10 2013 16:44 Waxangel wrote:the thing is, is Panic any better ? I understand the desire to stick to a set of simple rules, but the truth is the rules are not 100% perfect as the Bear scenario has revealed, and there will be unlucky situations where strict adherence to the rules harm the system. I don't think counting the qualifier is the right way, because that's the the bigger change to the UWC rules when you can get the belt off Bear with a smaller change that doesn't have retroactive repercussions. Something like having an X day defense clause is a more elegant solution that keeps the spirit of the UWC, imo (a chaotic belt that can go anywhere, and moves frequently).
You forgot that taking Code B into account is NOT CHANGING RULES, per se.
It's a question of whether the one simple rule that UWC has (only tournaments played livee, broadcasted on site) extends to Code B. I think most people think it does (whether this has been applied consistently is immaterial, although it might spark quite a bit of backtracking).
As for a X day rule, that's terribly arbitrary and entirely unaligned with the spirit of UWC. The idea is that you have to beat player Y rather than to win a new tournament. So if you do not beat player Y, the very basis of UWC is shattered.
As for Panic being better or not, the question does not make sense, but thankfully the winner will play the next player in the bracket and the resulting player will be in Code A. And that IS better.
|
On April 10 2013 16:44 Waxangel wrote:the thing is, is Panic any better ? I understand the desire to stick to a set of simple rules, but the truth is the rules are not 100% perfect as the Bear scenario has revealed, and there will be unlucky situations where strict adherence to the rules harm the system. I don't think counting the qualifier is the right way, because that's the the bigger change to the UWC rules when you can get the belt off Bear with a smaller change that doesn't have retroactive repercussions. Something like having an X day defense clause is a more elegant solution that keeps the spirit of the UWC, imo (a chaotic belt that can go anywhere, and moves frequently).
I pretty much feel the opposite. I think the idea of having an "X day defense clause" ruins the title (although it might be necessary with the lack of 'official' retirements etc).
I understand not wanting to go through previous Code A qualifiers... However, an argument could be made that WCS has a different level of blahblahblah and would count where previous qualifiers did not?
Just curious if previous "qualifiers" (ie MLG open bracket) have (or would have) counted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
