|
On December 14 2017 13:15 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 13:07 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 12:41 DieuCure wrote:
PandaBearMe going to IEM PyeongChang instead of Neeb / Major, and you say it cant be worse? I said it can't be made better. It could be much worse. If they were to redo the qualifiers, that would be an abomination of several magnitudes worse than the DQ's. Why would that be worse?
Because you'd be punishing players for things outside of their control in the name of making up for punishing players for things outside of their control. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The original wrong can at least be justified by someone making a poor decision in a tough situation. This would be a wrong made with time and discussion.
|
On December 14 2017 13:25 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 13:15 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 14 2017 13:07 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 12:41 DieuCure wrote:
PandaBearMe going to IEM PyeongChang instead of Neeb / Major, and you say it cant be worse? I said it can't be made better. It could be much worse. If they were to redo the qualifiers, that would be an abomination of several magnitudes worse than the DQ's. Why would that be worse? Because you'd be punishing players for things outside of their control in the name of making up for punishing players for things outside of their control. Two wrongs don't make a right. The original wrong can at least be justified by someone making a poor decision in a tough situation. This would be a wrong made with time and discussion.
You'd be declaring the initial qualifiers invalid due to being mismanaged. Sure it sucks for Cham and PandaBearMe who won the invalid qualifier, but at least new qualifiers give everyone a fair shot. It's a much better solution than leaving things as is (though I'm not sure how easy it is logistically).
|
On December 14 2017 13:07 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 12:41 DieuCure wrote:
PandaBearMe going to IEM PyeongChang instead of Neeb / Major, and you say it cant be worse? I said it can't be made better. It could be much worse. If they were to redo the qualifiers, that would be an abomination of several magnitudes worse than the DQ's.
Could be worse. You could have more foreigners
|
|
|
On December 14 2017 17:44 Beany wrote:Hold up, there still isn't anything sorted out yet? I check https://twitter.com/ApolloSC2 but his last tweet was from 2 days ago.
Apollo said "shortly" and we haven't heard from him since. Presumably the simple fix they were planning on turned out to be not so simple after all.
This is why Soon™ exists in the first place.
|
On December 14 2017 18:28 pvsnp wrote:Apollo said "shortly" and we haven't heard from him since. Presumably the simple fix they were planning on turned out to be not so simple after all. This is why Soon™ exists in the first place.
I would imagine that the fix is not so simple as it requires two-four of the players to miss all media and publicity prior to a major tournament held right before the Olympics.
Or it requires a venue that's been booked for months to have a major event cancelled and rescheduled for a week or so later knowing that the main event is a month away.
Keep in mind they have
WCS Leipzig January 26-28
WESG NA February 1-4
IEM PyeongChang 5-7
The players who play in all three are going to be hyper jet lagged, not to mention that at least three players are going to show up to what is essentially the Olympics pre show just to play at the tournament.
|
On December 14 2017 18:28 pvsnp wrote:Apollo said "shortly" and we haven't heard from him since. Presumably the simple fix they were planning on turned out to be not so simple after all. This is why Soon™ exists in the first place.
originally he said "in a hour or two". Then he retconned it to "shortly". So far they've shown how disorganized they are so I don't expect any real response soon.
|
On December 14 2017 13:25 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 13:15 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 14 2017 13:07 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 12:41 DieuCure wrote:
PandaBearMe going to IEM PyeongChang instead of Neeb / Major, and you say it cant be worse? I said it can't be made better. It could be much worse. If they were to redo the qualifiers, that would be an abomination of several magnitudes worse than the DQ's. Why would that be worse? Because you'd be punishing players for things outside of their control in the name of making up for punishing players for things outside of their control. Two wrongs don't make a right. The original wrong can at least be justified by someone making a poor decision in a tough situation. This would be a wrong made with time and discussion.
Replaying the qualifiers with everyone in it is the only way to do it fairly. Cham and PBM should not have been able to qualify by beating the players they did. And making players requalify is not near as bad as unfairly removing them from the event
The qualifier should never have been played with half the players removed in the first place. Replaying it means that whoever wins actually deserves to go to IEM. That's what matters.
|
Maybe they'll settle this by paying the DQ'ed players a certain amount of $
|
On December 14 2017 18:28 pvsnp wrote:Apollo said "shortly" and we haven't heard from him since. Presumably the simple fix they were planning on turned out to be not so simple after all.
There's a good chance Apollo's tweet was just damage control and they aren't actually doing anything about it
|
On December 14 2017 23:11 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 18:28 pvsnp wrote:On December 14 2017 17:44 Beany wrote:Hold up, there still isn't anything sorted out yet? I check https://twitter.com/ApolloSC2 but his last tweet was from 2 days ago. Apollo said "shortly" and we haven't heard from him since. Presumably the simple fix they were planning on turned out to be not so simple after all. There's a good chance Apollo's tweet was just damage control and they aren't actually doing anything about it
I don't see Apollo being that evil.
|
On December 14 2017 13:38 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 13:25 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 13:15 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 14 2017 13:07 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 12:41 DieuCure wrote:
PandaBearMe going to IEM PyeongChang instead of Neeb / Major, and you say it cant be worse? I said it can't be made better. It could be much worse. If they were to redo the qualifiers, that would be an abomination of several magnitudes worse than the DQ's. Why would that be worse? Because you'd be punishing players for things outside of their control in the name of making up for punishing players for things outside of their control. Two wrongs don't make a right. The original wrong can at least be justified by someone making a poor decision in a tough situation. This would be a wrong made with time and discussion. You'd be declaring the initial qualifiers invalid due to being mismanaged. Sure it sucks for Cham and PandaBearMe who won the invalid qualifier, but at least new qualifiers give everyone a fair shot. It's a much better solution than leaving things as is (though I'm not sure how easy it is logistically).
If the rules allowed the person who made the decision to DQ the players to make that decision, then the qualifiers were NOT mismanaged. The better decision on the part of that individual would have been to pursue it up the chain of command and maybe even postpone the qualifier if things couldn't be resolved quickly, but once the decision was made to DQ the players and have the qualifiers, that's what they have to stand behind. You can't give people authority to make judgment calls then undercut them afterwards if you don't like the decisions they made.
|
On December 15 2017 00:33 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 13:38 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 14 2017 13:25 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 13:15 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 14 2017 13:07 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 12:41 DieuCure wrote:
PandaBearMe going to IEM PyeongChang instead of Neeb / Major, and you say it cant be worse? I said it can't be made better. It could be much worse. If they were to redo the qualifiers, that would be an abomination of several magnitudes worse than the DQ's. Why would that be worse? Because you'd be punishing players for things outside of their control in the name of making up for punishing players for things outside of their control. Two wrongs don't make a right. The original wrong can at least be justified by someone making a poor decision in a tough situation. This would be a wrong made with time and discussion. You'd be declaring the initial qualifiers invalid due to being mismanaged. Sure it sucks for Cham and PandaBearMe who won the invalid qualifier, but at least new qualifiers give everyone a fair shot. It's a much better solution than leaving things as is (though I'm not sure how easy it is logistically). If the rules allowed the person who made the decision to DQ the players to make that decision, then the qualifiers were NOT mismanaged. The better decision on the part of that individual would have been to pursue it up the chain of command and maybe even postpone the qualifier if things couldn't be resolved quickly, but once the decision was made to DQ the players and have the qualifiers, that's what they have to stand behind. You can't give people authority to make judgment calls then undercut them afterwards if you don't like the decisions they made.
Why should IEM be beholden to a shitty decision an admin made when they ultimately have the authority to overturn that decision? You 100% can rule that the decision made was incorrect and undermined the qualifier and take steps to correct the mistake. Boxing organizational bodies for example have overruled decisions made my refs before.
Besides at the end of the day all we want is an outcome that is fairest to the players and giving everyone another shot is undoubtedly fairer than leaving half the players arbitrarily DQed (assuming that there is a way to accomodate the scheduling).
|
On December 15 2017 00:03 Beany wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 23:11 Fango wrote:On December 14 2017 18:28 pvsnp wrote:On December 14 2017 17:44 Beany wrote:Hold up, there still isn't anything sorted out yet? I check https://twitter.com/ApolloSC2 but his last tweet was from 2 days ago. Apollo said "shortly" and we haven't heard from him since. Presumably the simple fix they were planning on turned out to be not so simple after all. There's a good chance Apollo's tweet was just damage control and they aren't actually doing anything about it I don't see Apollo being that evil.
Also it doesn't actually control damage, just delays it,while making it worse if they don't find a resolution.
|
On December 15 2017 02:41 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 00:33 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 13:38 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 14 2017 13:25 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 13:15 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 14 2017 13:07 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 12:41 DieuCure wrote:
PandaBearMe going to IEM PyeongChang instead of Neeb / Major, and you say it cant be worse? I said it can't be made better. It could be much worse. If they were to redo the qualifiers, that would be an abomination of several magnitudes worse than the DQ's. Why would that be worse? Because you'd be punishing players for things outside of their control in the name of making up for punishing players for things outside of their control. Two wrongs don't make a right. The original wrong can at least be justified by someone making a poor decision in a tough situation. This would be a wrong made with time and discussion. You'd be declaring the initial qualifiers invalid due to being mismanaged. Sure it sucks for Cham and PandaBearMe who won the invalid qualifier, but at least new qualifiers give everyone a fair shot. It's a much better solution than leaving things as is (though I'm not sure how easy it is logistically). If the rules allowed the person who made the decision to DQ the players to make that decision, then the qualifiers were NOT mismanaged. The better decision on the part of that individual would have been to pursue it up the chain of command and maybe even postpone the qualifier if things couldn't be resolved quickly, but once the decision was made to DQ the players and have the qualifiers, that's what they have to stand behind. You can't give people authority to make judgment calls then undercut them afterwards if you don't like the decisions they made. Why should IEM be beholden to a shitty decision an admin made when they ultimately have the authority to overturn that decision? You 100% can rule that the decision made was incorrect and undermined the qualifier and take steps to correct the mistake. Boxing organizational bodies for example have overruled decisions made my refs before. Besides at the end of the day all we want is an outcome that is fairest to the players and giving everyone another shot is undoubtedly fairer than leaving half the players arbitrarily DQed (assuming that there is a way to accomodate the scheduling).
It isn't fair to the players to force certain players to reveal builds and strategies in what they thought were qualifying matches then tell them those don't count. That's more unfair than not letting players play when they have scheduling conflicts that will cause additional accommodations to be made.
If they DO hold a redo, they need to DQ SpeCial for making offensive jokes in twitch chat during the ESL stream.
|
On December 15 2017 03:50 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 02:41 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 15 2017 00:33 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 13:38 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 14 2017 13:25 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 13:15 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 14 2017 13:07 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 12:41 DieuCure wrote:
PandaBearMe going to IEM PyeongChang instead of Neeb / Major, and you say it cant be worse? I said it can't be made better. It could be much worse. If they were to redo the qualifiers, that would be an abomination of several magnitudes worse than the DQ's. Why would that be worse? Because you'd be punishing players for things outside of their control in the name of making up for punishing players for things outside of their control. Two wrongs don't make a right. The original wrong can at least be justified by someone making a poor decision in a tough situation. This would be a wrong made with time and discussion. You'd be declaring the initial qualifiers invalid due to being mismanaged. Sure it sucks for Cham and PandaBearMe who won the invalid qualifier, but at least new qualifiers give everyone a fair shot. It's a much better solution than leaving things as is (though I'm not sure how easy it is logistically). If the rules allowed the person who made the decision to DQ the players to make that decision, then the qualifiers were NOT mismanaged. The better decision on the part of that individual would have been to pursue it up the chain of command and maybe even postpone the qualifier if things couldn't be resolved quickly, but once the decision was made to DQ the players and have the qualifiers, that's what they have to stand behind. You can't give people authority to make judgment calls then undercut them afterwards if you don't like the decisions they made. Why should IEM be beholden to a shitty decision an admin made when they ultimately have the authority to overturn that decision? You 100% can rule that the decision made was incorrect and undermined the qualifier and take steps to correct the mistake. Boxing organizational bodies for example have overruled decisions made my refs before. Besides at the end of the day all we want is an outcome that is fairest to the players and giving everyone another shot is undoubtedly fairer than leaving half the players arbitrarily DQed (assuming that there is a way to accomodate the scheduling). It isn't fair to the players to force certain players to reveal builds and strategies in what they thought were qualifying matches then tell them those don't count. That's more unfair than not letting players play when they have scheduling conflicts that will cause additional accommodations to be made. If they DO hold a redo, they need to DQ SpeCial for making offensive jokes in twitch chat during the ESL stream.
Your conception of fairness is warped. Players maybe revealing a few strategies for matches that don't end up mattering is in no way close to as bad as half the field not getting a chance due to getting disqualified by an overzealous admin. And DQing MajOr for twitch chat humour? Really?
|
On December 15 2017 04:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 03:50 Boggyb wrote:On December 15 2017 02:41 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 15 2017 00:33 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 13:38 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 14 2017 13:25 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 13:15 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 14 2017 13:07 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 12:41 DieuCure wrote:
PandaBearMe going to IEM PyeongChang instead of Neeb / Major, and you say it cant be worse? I said it can't be made better. It could be much worse. If they were to redo the qualifiers, that would be an abomination of several magnitudes worse than the DQ's. Why would that be worse? Because you'd be punishing players for things outside of their control in the name of making up for punishing players for things outside of their control. Two wrongs don't make a right. The original wrong can at least be justified by someone making a poor decision in a tough situation. This would be a wrong made with time and discussion. You'd be declaring the initial qualifiers invalid due to being mismanaged. Sure it sucks for Cham and PandaBearMe who won the invalid qualifier, but at least new qualifiers give everyone a fair shot. It's a much better solution than leaving things as is (though I'm not sure how easy it is logistically). If the rules allowed the person who made the decision to DQ the players to make that decision, then the qualifiers were NOT mismanaged. The better decision on the part of that individual would have been to pursue it up the chain of command and maybe even postpone the qualifier if things couldn't be resolved quickly, but once the decision was made to DQ the players and have the qualifiers, that's what they have to stand behind. You can't give people authority to make judgment calls then undercut them afterwards if you don't like the decisions they made. Why should IEM be beholden to a shitty decision an admin made when they ultimately have the authority to overturn that decision? You 100% can rule that the decision made was incorrect and undermined the qualifier and take steps to correct the mistake. Boxing organizational bodies for example have overruled decisions made my refs before. Besides at the end of the day all we want is an outcome that is fairest to the players and giving everyone another shot is undoubtedly fairer than leaving half the players arbitrarily DQed (assuming that there is a way to accomodate the scheduling). It isn't fair to the players to force certain players to reveal builds and strategies in what they thought were qualifying matches then tell them those don't count. That's more unfair than not letting players play when they have scheduling conflicts that will cause additional accommodations to be made. If they DO hold a redo, they need to DQ SpeCial for making offensive jokes in twitch chat during the ESL stream. Your conception of fairness is warped. Players maybe revealing a few strategies for matches that don't end up mattering is in no way close to as bad as half the field not getting a chance due to getting disqualified by an overzealous admin. And DQing MajOr for twitch chat humour? Really?
Insulting disabled people is not acceptable from a professional or a human being.
|
On December 15 2017 04:36 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 04:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 15 2017 03:50 Boggyb wrote:On December 15 2017 02:41 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 15 2017 00:33 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 13:38 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 14 2017 13:25 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 13:15 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 14 2017 13:07 Boggyb wrote:On December 14 2017 12:41 DieuCure wrote:
PandaBearMe going to IEM PyeongChang instead of Neeb / Major, and you say it cant be worse? I said it can't be made better. It could be much worse. If they were to redo the qualifiers, that would be an abomination of several magnitudes worse than the DQ's. Why would that be worse? Because you'd be punishing players for things outside of their control in the name of making up for punishing players for things outside of their control. Two wrongs don't make a right. The original wrong can at least be justified by someone making a poor decision in a tough situation. This would be a wrong made with time and discussion. You'd be declaring the initial qualifiers invalid due to being mismanaged. Sure it sucks for Cham and PandaBearMe who won the invalid qualifier, but at least new qualifiers give everyone a fair shot. It's a much better solution than leaving things as is (though I'm not sure how easy it is logistically). If the rules allowed the person who made the decision to DQ the players to make that decision, then the qualifiers were NOT mismanaged. The better decision on the part of that individual would have been to pursue it up the chain of command and maybe even postpone the qualifier if things couldn't be resolved quickly, but once the decision was made to DQ the players and have the qualifiers, that's what they have to stand behind. You can't give people authority to make judgment calls then undercut them afterwards if you don't like the decisions they made. Why should IEM be beholden to a shitty decision an admin made when they ultimately have the authority to overturn that decision? You 100% can rule that the decision made was incorrect and undermined the qualifier and take steps to correct the mistake. Boxing organizational bodies for example have overruled decisions made my refs before. Besides at the end of the day all we want is an outcome that is fairest to the players and giving everyone another shot is undoubtedly fairer than leaving half the players arbitrarily DQed (assuming that there is a way to accomodate the scheduling). It isn't fair to the players to force certain players to reveal builds and strategies in what they thought were qualifying matches then tell them those don't count. That's more unfair than not letting players play when they have scheduling conflicts that will cause additional accommodations to be made. If they DO hold a redo, they need to DQ SpeCial for making offensive jokes in twitch chat during the ESL stream. Your conception of fairness is warped. Players maybe revealing a few strategies for matches that don't end up mattering is in no way close to as bad as half the field not getting a chance due to getting disqualified by an overzealous admin. And DQing MajOr for twitch chat humour? Really? Insulting disabled people is not acceptable from a professional or a human being.
Lodge a complaint with ESL if you feel strongly about it. Either way it isn't too relevant to this thread, or what ESL should do.
|
Apollo just tweeted this 5 hours ago ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/GjDWory.png)
|
Really cannot expect anything reasonable from Apollo.
Also the situation is stupid and it is hard to imagine any good solution.
But still interested in what they come with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1387
526
257
253
110
EPT
