|
I think this is a really good idea albeit a very late one.
This is the following scenario what IMO killed alot of tournaments:
Assumptions :
SC2 players are between the ages 16-30.
SC players have high-end jobs/high education or generally a high intellect (it's just the type of game that attracts these people).
Tournaments in 2010-2012 :
Tournaments used to start between 19:00 and 20:00 on weekdays and had alot of players signing up for it. There were alot of tournaments aswell and some people signed up for 3 tournaments at a time. Due to this fact, tournaments ended way past 0:00, forcing the tournament organizers to either move the tournament up or reduce the playing field.
I won't name any names, but I've waited litterally hours on pro players that were busy playing 3 tournaments and kept saying I have to wait. These were players, that would end up top 16 in all 3 tournaments they were playing, thus delaying every tournament.
This sucked for me, since I was 85% sure I was going to lose this game anyways, yet still had to wait for 60+ minutes to play a game, where they would rush me within 5minutes and die (because i was not that bad).
Since I could beat amateur players 95% of the time, this scenario happened almost litterally every tournament and I got used to it.
Tournaments in 2013 and onwards :
Tournament organizers realized that tournaments were taking far too long and needed to do something about this. ESL moved their tournaments to 18:00, sometimes even 17:00. Other organizers did the same. There would still be 2 tournaments run at the same time, but with alot less participants. The tournaments still get dragged out, because people were still playing 2 tournaments, BUT everyone who is old enough to work can't join any tournament anymore or has to rush home.
By moving the tournaments starting time to 18:00, organizers effectively singled out everyone who was not a Pro player from the age of 22+. I'm sure I'm not the only one when I say that this litterally killed my passion. I'm 26 and have a good job, I have thought about going pro but it's far too unreliable for me, I was also not good enough (yet). Where could I now test my abilities? Only the Sunday cups were left, which start at 14:00, which is fine, but sunday is just not a good day for me.
For LotV, I hope organizers will hold onto such a list, so that when tournaments collide players aren't able to play 2 at a time. Which would result in tournaments being able to be played within X hours, so that they can start on a later time again.
This would result in everyone that either works or has college untill late, can actually join. Increasing the player pool again and increasing the stale environment we're getting now.
In a game where atleast 50% of the players are atleast 20+ and probably have jobs, how can you make them interested again?
I'm aware that the biggest reason for this alliance is to keep people like major and naniwa show up for invitationals and stuff, but I think this is a serious issue.
This still feels like a really satirical post nonetheless, but it's key to the problem SC2 is having..
|
I'm surprised we haven't seen a similar blacklist from players towards organisers paying out late or not paying out at all. I guess they're in a position to do that. Either way, it's been a long time coming 
|
i'd just like to send my condolences to all the pro players and or family members for the "emergencies" that are about to befall them in the future 
What if I have a medical/family emergency that prevents me from playing
Medical/family emergencies will be excused as stated in the rules.
it is a decent idea tho imo
|
Lorning
Belgica34432 Posts
|
On July 27 2015 12:37 feardragon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2015 11:42 lichter wrote:
can i get a transfer to foreigner jail they probably have nicer amenities So...tempted...to...put...you...on...the....list..... Show nested quote +On July 27 2015 12:05 NonY wrote:
I think privacy should be a serious consideration. I made a decision to talk about my depression publicly but if it was private and I had some incident that made me miss a match, I'd take the strike before I trust such a sensitive issue to strangers. It is incredible how much private information gets spread around when people meet up at events, have a few drinks and decide to share a little something with a trusted friend, and that friend does the same, etc. Shit like that happens in the "real world" too even when lifelong careers are on the line. The checks and balances system makes it so the source of a leak is harder to determine and even if evidence of indiscretion came to light it might not result in severe consequences for the culprit.
Since a lot of people seem to think the system isn't strict enough, and since some players may rather take a strike than explain themselves, I think you have to give players the benefit of the doubt. I mean you should make sure to be respectful of players and let the system do the work and not assume a player is lazy or disrespectful whenever he misses a match.
If you do decide to make it strict to the point that a single unexplained absence is quite severe for a player, then you are assuming a level of trust from players that you haven't earned and haven't made any effort of guaranteeing. This is a REALLY good point. Thank you for bringing it up. There are issues that we haven't built up trust with players yet to handle a situation like that, I agree. Hopefully we can get to that point eventually but for now, we do need an alternative solution for something like that. I'm wary about just simply always giving trust to all players for unexplained absences since it's so easy to abuse(I mean, I was in High School once. I know how making up fake excuses goes), but I also agree that this is a scenario I hadn't considered. I want to think on this one some more to see if I can come up with a good compromise. Maybe a form of evidence for the problem that isn't extremely revealing for the full depth of the situation? I'm not sure. I do sort of feel that trust should be a two way street. This organization has not earned the trust of players enough to have sensitive information like that disclosed safely, and similarly players haven't earned trust not to abuse a loophole for this system. Ultimately, I agree a compromise must be made, but I believe we still have to think a bit harder about what that compromise is. Thank you so much for bringing this up though. This is 100% not the category of players we want to be penalizing if possible. Edit: Conversation so far in the organization seems to lean toward people being able to approach me specifically and let me know if there is a more private situation they don't want made public, and I will simply have the power to remove strikes without giving justification for those particular situations. I don't really know what I can say that won't be biased because this puts me in a position where I can only say players would have to trust me if they want to remain without a strike & not give any information about the situation. I know that my own confidence and pride in being someone who doesn't talk about things that aren't my business to talk about may count for very little. But I hope I can build up that trust over time. I'm not sure if people will find that to be an acceptable solution. I want to continue thinking on this to find a better solution. My feelings on putting absolute faith in players for unexplained absences is that if we do that, we may as well not have a system at all. The few "bad eggs" among a population of mostly "good eggs" ruin the system for everyone and makes it largely ineffective. I hope you see my point in why there is a large hesitance in simply always trusting this.
With various depressions you often don't even know you're having it until later on.
With the 3 strikes, I think there's room, and I don't think there's much reasons to manage. It shouldn't be a big deal to cancel your participation for a tournament if you're realizing after 2 strikes that there's some kind of issue preventing you to participate in the tournaments you were scheduled for.
I don't even think you need a reason, just cancel in time. The organisations in question should accomodate this.
|
It's just like any job or any appointment in life.
If you can't make it, let someone know or they're going to be consquences..
If you can't make a doctor's appointment- let them know 24 hours in advance or pay.
If you can't make it to work - let them know or get fired.
If you can't make it to school for an exam - let them know or fail your class.
If you can't make it to a friend - let them know or they'll stop being your friends in the long run (seriously it's fucking annoying when someone doesn't show up when you've planned something).
Why should a potentially PAID excercise/game be any different?
The players that are professional about this, shouldn't be the ones that suffer from unprofessionalism. It should be the ones with no regard for others, that should be punished and a system like this helps this.
|
awesome, i hope there'll be so much drama ^^
|
On July 27 2015 19:21 partouf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2015 12:37 feardragon wrote:On July 27 2015 11:42 lichter wrote:
can i get a transfer to foreigner jail they probably have nicer amenities So...tempted...to...put...you...on...the....list..... On July 27 2015 12:05 NonY wrote:
I think privacy should be a serious consideration. I made a decision to talk about my depression publicly but if it was private and I had some incident that made me miss a match, I'd take the strike before I trust such a sensitive issue to strangers. It is incredible how much private information gets spread around when people meet up at events, have a few drinks and decide to share a little something with a trusted friend, and that friend does the same, etc. Shit like that happens in the "real world" too even when lifelong careers are on the line. The checks and balances system makes it so the source of a leak is harder to determine and even if evidence of indiscretion came to light it might not result in severe consequences for the culprit.
Since a lot of people seem to think the system isn't strict enough, and since some players may rather take a strike than explain themselves, I think you have to give players the benefit of the doubt. I mean you should make sure to be respectful of players and let the system do the work and not assume a player is lazy or disrespectful whenever he misses a match.
If you do decide to make it strict to the point that a single unexplained absence is quite severe for a player, then you are assuming a level of trust from players that you haven't earned and haven't made any effort of guaranteeing. This is a REALLY good point. Thank you for bringing it up. There are issues that we haven't built up trust with players yet to handle a situation like that, I agree. Hopefully we can get to that point eventually but for now, we do need an alternative solution for something like that. I'm wary about just simply always giving trust to all players for unexplained absences since it's so easy to abuse(I mean, I was in High School once. I know how making up fake excuses goes), but I also agree that this is a scenario I hadn't considered. I want to think on this one some more to see if I can come up with a good compromise. Maybe a form of evidence for the problem that isn't extremely revealing for the full depth of the situation? I'm not sure. I do sort of feel that trust should be a two way street. This organization has not earned the trust of players enough to have sensitive information like that disclosed safely, and similarly players haven't earned trust not to abuse a loophole for this system. Ultimately, I agree a compromise must be made, but I believe we still have to think a bit harder about what that compromise is. Thank you so much for bringing this up though. This is 100% not the category of players we want to be penalizing if possible. Edit: Conversation so far in the organization seems to lean toward people being able to approach me specifically and let me know if there is a more private situation they don't want made public, and I will simply have the power to remove strikes without giving justification for those particular situations. I don't really know what I can say that won't be biased because this puts me in a position where I can only say players would have to trust me if they want to remain without a strike & not give any information about the situation. I know that my own confidence and pride in being someone who doesn't talk about things that aren't my business to talk about may count for very little. But I hope I can build up that trust over time. I'm not sure if people will find that to be an acceptable solution. I want to continue thinking on this to find a better solution. My feelings on putting absolute faith in players for unexplained absences is that if we do that, we may as well not have a system at all. The few "bad eggs" among a population of mostly "good eggs" ruin the system for everyone and makes it largely ineffective. I hope you see my point in why there is a large hesitance in simply always trusting this. With various depressions you often don't even know you're having it until later on. With the 3 strikes, I think there's room, and I don't think there's much reasons to manage. It shouldn't be a big deal to cancel your participation for a tournament if you're realizing after 2 strikes that there's some kind of issue preventing you to participate in the tournaments you were scheduled for.I don't even think you need a reason, just cancel in time. The organisations in question should accomodate this.
I agree. I think 3 strikes gives players ample opportunity. If a player has a medical condition that routinely keeps them from completing tournaments then they should probably focus on that issue more than "am I eligible to sign up".
The biggest problem this faces is that tournaments have "always" had rules to punish players that did not show up on time. If those weren't enforced before why would things change now?
|
On July 27 2015 12:05 NonY wrote:
I think privacy should be a serious consideration. I made a decision to talk about my depression publicly but if it was private and I had some incident that made me miss a match, I'd take the strike before I trust such a sensitive issue to strangers.
I can understand this. Talked with Ravi and Oli about this last night.
In order to give deference to these situations and also to prevent abuse, I think it would be best to allow a person in this situation to speak directly to (and only to) Ravi. He's a trustworthy individual. If you feel a matter is too personal to share with the rest of the council, then you can go only to Ravi. He's level headed and as objective as one could hope someone in this community to be.
If you have a valid personal matter, he can wave your strike. However, if it appears you're attempting to abuse the system and avoid the council, you have the option to take a strike (you have 3, after all) or you can let the council deliberate.
The council was implemented to protect the players, not fuck them over. We were concerned tournament organizers would have their "problem children" that would be given a strike in situations where other players would be given a pass.
We respect the desire to keep your significant personal matters private and are open to feedback on this move.
|
I love drama it's so funny (especially for such matter^^) More plz 
|
Why isn't Kane's beautiful post Community News?
|
On July 28 2015 06:13 Mistakes wrote:
Why isn't Kane's beautiful post Community News?
Because a joke and/or a butthurt reaction (I honestly can't tell) generally aren't considered news.
|
i don't like this entire idea one bit. It s supposed to bring more professionalism into the scene but all it will really do is create drama and give Rifkin a way to let off some steam (maybe thats an upside to it? ). Face it, none of us are here for the money. We watch, play (and probably cast too) for the love of the game, because we enjoy the community here, have our friends around and derp and trashtalk a lot. We really don't need a penalizing system that forces itself onto the player without their agreement in place. Btw, why does it have to be a blacklist system? wouldn't a whitelist one that rewards you with say letting you enter some sort of higher profile tournament be a lot more adequate/less drama and hate inducing?
|
This needs to work both ways.
I tried to participate in the Ting 2v2 Cup. My opponent did not reply to my teammate. They announced the Friday chat channel but I was playing in the Saturday one so I had no way of finding out where the chat channel was nor was it posted on the tournament thread/page. So this opponent who speaks Korean takes the forfeit win. We talk to the admin (Nath) and he told the winning team that he has no time and just granted them the forfeit win. I didn't even get to communicate with my opponent properly nor get to play a match.
We've also seen tournaments where a player was mistreated in this December tournament. The admin/caster told him "our house our rules" - which is perfectly acceptable but hypocritical if this player penalty system goes through.
If we're going to implement "professional rules", let's have a sufficiently staffed tournaments too. Saying we're short-handed is not that much better than the player saying g2g..
Shoutout to Pharside for being the best ESL admin!
|
I suggest and/or hope players and viewers alike will boycott anything involved with this organization.
|
On July 28 2015 09:27 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
I suggest and/or hope players and viewers alike will boycott anything involved with this organization.
Just gunna humor the troll, WHY?
|
On July 28 2015 09:27 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
I suggest and/or hope players and viewers alike will boycott anything involved with this organization.
Won't be necessary, as everything outside of WCS or a major event is more or less irrelevant.
The entire topic is just beating around the bush at calling out less than a handful of players. I read it, had a chuckle then dismissed it as impudent.
|
As someone who has previously set up show matches and events I'm actually really happy something like this is set up. If I was worried about inviting any players to play in an event I can always check the list to make sure no one was close to being placed in "jail"
Keep up the good work guys~!
|
Hey everyone. This is an f.y.i. that the organization has discussed a lot of the feedback that was given for this initial proposal and we are going to try some changes to the rules before things get rolling based on that feedback. A fairly large number of people, including players, felt that the system was not strict enough. We agreed and decided to find the best way to make the system more effective.
Our options were to decrease the number of strikes(most suggested option from the community) from 3 to 2, increase the amount of time a strike would last before expiring from 3 months to something longer, or increase the amount of time a player would spend in jail from 2 months to something longer.
Ultimately, we decided the best option was to increase the amount of time a strike would last before expiring from 3 months to 9 months. Reducing the number of strikes a player could get before being put in foreigner jail would also affect players who simply had unfortunate circumstances more, so we wanted to avoid this if possible. Increasing jail time would also make it more likely for players to lose motivation to play the game at all if they didn't qualify for WCS or offline events, which is not the intended purpose of this system. We decided by increasing the amount of time it takes for a strike to expire because this leaves players with a sense of consequence for no-showing and should hopefully disincentivize thoughts that were mentioned in feedback like "I can skip one event a month."
Some other smaller changes were made to the rules such as some clarifications about certain situations and edge cases. For example, Nony where a player may have a family/medical emergency but not want it publicly disclosed. If you want to see the new ruleset, you can find it here.
I also want to remind everyone that the objective of this system is not to turn this into "organizers versus players". The members of the TOA were selected carefully as reliable organizers who generally aren't the ones "screwing over players" as it's been pointed out. At some point, I personally hope we can start also creating standards for the organizers in this organization as well so that we too will be held accountable for poor player treatment. For now, we don't want to overreach with an already ambitious project. One step at a time.
As always, if you have any questions, feel free to leave them here and we'll do our best to address the ones that haven't already been answered or addressed already.
|
On July 27 2015 10:45 NonY wrote:
(1) Bad name. I get enjoying an inside joke but that only works for something like this if the name, outside of the context of the joke, appears neutral. But "Foreigner Jail" is not neutral. If you are really committing to this then change the name now. I can already picture you guys talking about foreigner jail in a joking manner. Actually I have a hard time picturing a caster talking about it in completely serious tones, and even if they did then 'foreigner jail' will sound out of place every time it's said.
(2) A competitive person reads this system as "I can drop out of two events and then another one every three months, or even sooner than that if I'm not planning to play anymore of these organizers' tournaments for the following two months." Every warning system in any competitive environment is interpreted like that. It's like fouls in basketball. It's part of the game to use them to your advantage as long as you're not getting into foul trouble. I imagine that if players use as many dropouts as you're allowing them to, you'll still feel like there are too many dropouts. If that's the case, make it stricter. edit: Apparently two strikes can decay simultaneously so it's even less strict than I thought.
Of course players are going to game this system like there is no tomorrow. If you got a dq on top of a cash fine for not showing up or dropping a tournament then attitudes would change. Players would of course be angry at first but they'd get over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
