Official statement on the server selection issues for EU qualifier #2
Hi, I'm Julmust, the tournament director for TeamLiquid Starleague 5. Yesterday, during the first day of the second European qualifier for TSL 5, a controversy arose regarding the server selection, mainly in the series where SpeCial played. I want to be as transparent as possible with the community regarding our decision-making process and what led us here.
There are two main reasons as to why the situation arose, in the first place:
The “fairest server” rule and a failure in communication
A failure in updating the official ruleset.
Before we get into those two issues, I want to explain why we scheduled three North American qualifiers but only two European qualifiers, as well as give you some insight into the structure behind the scenes. Our thinking was that the NA qualifiers would become the natural qualifier for players from all non-Korea regions to play in, in which case NA deserves the extra qualifier. We did not, at the time, believe that players in Asia would want to play in the European qualifiers — both due to the timezone difference, but also due to ping. This decision was made by a group of people referred to here as the “organizing committee” led by me. This group is separate from the admins running the tournament. The organizing committee creates the outlines of the tournament, the admins execute based on the outline.
The “fairest server” rule and a failure in communication Due to a miscommunication at the start of the tournament, a “fairest server” rule was implemented. In short, the rule says that if two players are to play a game, it should be played on the server where the ping differential between the two is as low as possible. Unfortunately, this caused matches to be played on servers outside of a qualifier's 'home' continent, contradicting the official rulebook. . SpeCial (Korea) vs MaNa (Poland) in the European qualifier was the most notable example. When approached by SpeCial, who had questions about the NA qualifier, I informed him of the fairest server rule under the assumption that he would play in the NA qualifier. A few rounds into the European qualifier, we realized the flaw in the rule. As the fairest server rule was in place and had been used in previous qualifiers, the decision was made to remain consistent and follow it. This ended up in a big debate before SpeCial’s match against MaNa. The discussion concluded in the two players compromising and agreeing to play on NA Central, instead of NA West.
Both the organizing committee and the admin group did what they thought was best for the tournament. However, the two did not communicate properly prior to the qualifier, and did not properly adhere to the rulebook once the issue was discovered. The person responsible for that communication is me, the tournament director, and I take full responsibility for this failure.
A failure in updating the official ruleset Another issue was that the official ruleset for the tournament was never updated to reflect the “fairest server” policy. Even though this policy may not have been correct, it was still being enforced in practice, and thus it was our obligation to update the rulebook to reflect how the qualifiers were actually being run.
Regarding the “double qualification” issue Due to our two-part scheduling of the EU and NA qualifiers, we encountered an unintended situation in which the same two players, Lambo and Special, qualified for the winners match of the upper bracket in both the EU and NA qualifiers. This means that both winners bracket matches effectively become irrelevant, as the winner of the first match would forfeit the other, handing the other player the top spot of the other qualifier on a bye. The unfortunate consequence of this is that other players in the second qualifier were knocked out by someone who then, due to our scheduling, would later forfeit their spot in the bracket. This is a flaw we did not anticipate.
Conclusion Going forward, we will continue to apply the fairest server rule to the qualifiers. The rule, while not properly communicated, has been in place since the first round of qualifiers and I believe that changing the rules now will be counterproductive and will hurt the players left in both the EU and NA qualifiers.
Reviving a tournament is never an easy endeavor. Valuable experience has been lost over the years which has resulted in situations where we’ve made mistakes without realizing it until it was too late.
However, we are not out to create excuses. Just as with the scheduling affecting the first Korean qualifier, we messed up. Unfortunately, in this case, there’s no quick fix. One positive thing we’ll take away from this is the fact that everyone, from the fans to the organizers, care so much about getting this right. To us that is a sign of how much TSL means to the community. Thanks for keeping us accountable and I hope through this communication you understand where we are coming from.
I also want to officially apologize to the players affected by this rule. Our intention was to create a fair playing environment but we ended up creating the opposite. Words cannot repair the damage done but we hope that you accept our apology. For the main event, we will have clear rules for server selection and will reach out to the qualified players for feedback.
I think I can speak for everyone in saying that if nothing else, we all appreciate the incredible transparency in this tournament. Thank you for sharing your process with us.
Yeah A+ for comunication And thank you for trying to get everything right. It s understandable, that you can t think everything thru after such a long break. Everyone, who has ever organised any cind of competiotion can relate Thanks for trying your best in giving us the best tourney possible. I m possitve, that the main event is goin to be sick, as you appear to addapt and learn realy quick, from the mistakes made and listen to both your players and your community
I wouldn't call it transparency considering these apologies only mention the mana vs special match but do not refer to Vanya and Skillous (his comments here : ) who got unfairly treated too.
On May 02 2020 23:37 stilt wrote: I wouldn't call it transparency considering these apologies only mention the mana vs special match but do not refer to Vanya and Skillous (his comments here : https://twitter.com/SKillousSC2/status/1256337390525919234 ) who got unfairly treated too.
We brought up MaNa vs. SpeCial as the most notable argument over the rule, causing delays. I'll just reiterate what I said close to the end of the statement: words cannot repair the damage done, all we can hope for is that they can forgive us for this mess.
On May 02 2020 23:37 seanranklin wrote: So special wanted the fairest server but wanted Mana to play on NA West?
We can't blame SpeCial here. He was abiding by the rules. NA West was seen as the server where the difference in ping between the two players was the lowest. I wasn't in the chat myself, so can't vouch for that being the reason but it's the most plausible scenario.
Thanks for the transparency, that clears up most of the issues.
The only question left is: Why are the qualifiers named after regions if there are no restrictions on the geographical regions of the players or the servers on which the games are to be played?
I honestly think you should play all the games according to the rule book that you have issued. Even in Liquipedia the tab is called "EU Server Qualifiers", not "EU Time Zone" qualifier. or the "Fairest Server". You say there isn't a quick fix, and while that might be true, I think you should have opted for the not-so-quick-fix and get everything right according to the rules, instead of just shrugging it off. You can apologize as much as you want, that will not help the affected players one bit. Those that played in the EU server qualifier had the right to play on the EU server, and there is no way you can justify anything else when the rules clearly says so.
The idea of having 'server' qualifiers where only the starting times are different and where this 'fairest' server rule matters is rather strange in the first place which is part of the problem. Not only were the rules not enforced consistently with the official rulebook, they were also enforced in a way that makes less sense.
Additionally continuing to use this fairest server rule once the problem was discovered doesn't sit right either. Sure the rule had been used at times in previous qualifiers. However there would also have been cases where the fairest server rule was not used due to both players following the published rules and someone got screwed over accordingly. So switching to always using the fairest server rule seems worse than following the rulebook and never using it from there onwards.
On May 03 2020 00:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The idea of having 'server' qualifiers where only the starting times are different and where this 'fairest' server rule matters is rather strange in the first place which is part of the problem. Not only were the rules not enforced consistently with the official rulebook, they were also enforced in a way that makes less sense.
Additionally continuing to use this fairest server rule once the problem was discovered doesn't sit right either. Sure the rule had been used at times in previous qualifiers. However there would also have been cases where the fairest server rule was not used due to both players following the published rules and someone got screwed over accordingly. So switching to always using the fairest server rule seems worse than following the rulebook and never using it from there onwards.
Problem with a default server is that u as a player can force that server no matter what. and its kinda dumb and give advatrange to one player most of the time.
there was this case where bly and reynor played on iem katowice qualifier on na server. despite both being from europe someone decided he wanted to play on NA CENTRAL. and they had to play on na central. its pretty dumb and just like that theres so many examples of thing like that happening.
On May 03 2020 00:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The idea of having 'server' qualifiers where only the starting times are different and where this 'fairest' server rule matters is rather strange in the first place which is part of the problem. Not only were the rules not enforced consistently with the official rulebook, they were also enforced in a way that makes less sense.
Additionally continuing to use this fairest server rule once the problem was discovered doesn't sit right either. Sure the rule had been used at times in previous qualifiers. However there would also have been cases where the fairest server rule was not used due to both players following the published rules and someone got screwed over accordingly. So switching to always using the fairest server rule seems worse than following the rulebook and never using it from there onwards.
Problem with a default server is that u as a player can force that server no matter what. and its kinda dumb and give advatrange to one player most of the time.
Isn't this why it's called American qualifier? This is to ensure that America-resided players get to play with low ping.
The Bly vs Reynor match is not directly related to that as it seems to be a blatant abuse of rules to enforce both players playing on high ping. It is not the same as someone playing from Korea enforcing EU players to not play on EU server during the European qualifier supposedly designed with European players in mind.
On May 03 2020 00:11 BaneRiders wrote: I honestly think you should play all the games according to the rule book that you have issued. Even in Liquipedia the tab is called "EU Server Qualifiers", not "EU Time Zone" qualifier.
I know it was a joke, but you cannot assign the qualifiers to specific time zones to begin with: - The KOR qualifiers begin at a perfectly reasonable time for KOR and EU players alike. - The EU qualifiers begin at a perfectly reasonable time for EU and NA players alike. - The NA qualifiers begin at a perfectly reasonable time for NA and KOR players alike.
On May 03 2020 00:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The idea of having 'server' qualifiers where only the starting times are different and where this 'fairest' server rule matters is rather strange in the first place which is part of the problem. Not only were the rules not enforced consistently with the official rulebook, they were also enforced in a way that makes less sense.
Additionally continuing to use this fairest server rule once the problem was discovered doesn't sit right either. Sure the rule had been used at times in previous qualifiers. However there would also have been cases where the fairest server rule was not used due to both players following the published rules and someone got screwed over accordingly. So switching to always using the fairest server rule seems worse than following the rulebook and never using it from there onwards.
Problem with a default server is that u as a player can force that server no matter what. and its kinda dumb and give advatrange to one player most of the time.
there was this case where bly and reynor played on iem katowice qualifier on na server. despite both being from europe someone decided he wanted to play on NA CENTRAL. and they had to play on na central. its pretty dumb and just like that theres so many examples of thing like that happening.
That's an argument for not structuring the qualifiers as server qualifiers (though obviously you could also change the rules to minimize abuse of the sort). If you already have server qualifiers structured to favour people from a specific server then having a default server only makes sense. And the AM qualifiers even got more spots due to catering towards not just NA but everyone outside Europe.
I guess this "fairest server" policy means that if EU players play with Koreans on the KR qualifier, then they would have to play on the US server right? I think that's pretty messed up seeing as Koreans aren't able to play on the other qualifiers. This gives EU and NA players another chance to qualifier and being able to compete with the Koreans for spots with perhaps a slight advantage in ping.
Also, how do you even know what the fairest server is anyway. Players could lie and say they're in Asia, but actually be in NA, just to have a slight ping advantage. I just wonder if this rule can be abused by players to give a slight ping advantage.
I'm glad to see transparency from the organisers, but I honestly think reverting the rule would have been better choice.
On May 03 2020 01:12 KingOfNoodles wrote: I guess this "fairest server" policy means that if EU players play with Koreans on the KR qualifier, then they would have to play on the US server right? I think that's pretty messed up seeing as Koreans aren't able to play on the other qualifiers. This gives EU and NA players another chance to qualifier and being able to compete with the Koreans for spots with perhaps a slight advantage in ping.
Also, how do you even know what the fairest server is anyway. Players could lie and say they're in Asia, but actually be in NA, just to have a slight ping advantage. I just wonder if this rule can be abused by players to give a slight ping advantage.
I'm glad to see transparency from the organisers, but I honestly think reverting the rule would have been better choice.
EU/NA players are not allowed to play in the KR qualifiers, not sure where you got that from. The actual unfairness is that foreigners with Korean residency are allowed to play in all three qualifiers, while Korean citizens with Korean residency are only allowed to play the ridiculously difficult KR qualifier. I can't say it's clear to me why the organizers are worried about Koreans "invading" the AM qualifier when the upper bracket ro16 contains only two (?) players with AM residency.
On May 03 2020 01:12 KingOfNoodles wrote: I guess this "fairest server" policy means that if EU players play with Koreans on the KR qualifier, then they would have to play on the US server right? I think that's pretty messed up seeing as Koreans aren't able to play on the other qualifiers. This gives EU and NA players another chance to qualifier and being able to compete with the Koreans for spots with perhaps a slight advantage in ping.
Also, how do you even know what the fairest server is anyway. Players could lie and say they're in Asia, but actually be in NA, just to have a slight ping advantage. I just wonder if this rule can be abused by players to give a slight ping advantage.
I'm glad to see transparency from the organisers, but I honestly think reverting the rule would have been better choice.
EU/NA players are not allowed to play in the KR qualifiers, not sure where you got that from. The actual unfairness is that foreigners with Korean residency are allowed to play in all three qualifiers, while Korean citizens with Korean residency are only allowed to play the ridiculously difficult KR qualifier. I can't say it's clear to me why the organizers are worried about Koreans "invading" the AM qualifier when the upper bracket ro16 contains only two (?) players with AM residency.
What you're saying is wrong. EU or NA players can play in KR but have to commit to it, so they can't play on EU/NA (Scarlett chose KR, for example).
On May 03 2020 01:12 KingOfNoodles wrote: I guess this "fairest server" policy means that if EU players play with Koreans on the KR qualifier, then they would have to play on the US server right? I think that's pretty messed up seeing as Koreans aren't able to play on the other qualifiers. This gives EU and NA players another chance to qualifier and being able to compete with the Koreans for spots with perhaps a slight advantage in ping.
Also, how do you even know what the fairest server is anyway. Players could lie and say they're in Asia, but actually be in NA, just to have a slight ping advantage. I just wonder if this rule can be abused by players to give a slight ping advantage.
I'm glad to see transparency from the organisers, but I honestly think reverting the rule would have been better choice.
EU/NA players are not allowed to play in the KR qualifiers, not sure where you got that from. The actual unfairness is that foreigners with Korean residency are allowed to play in all three qualifiers, while Korean citizens with Korean residency are only allowed to play the ridiculously difficult KR qualifier. I can't say it's clear to me why the organizers are worried about Koreans "invading" the AM qualifier when the upper bracket ro16 contains only two (?) players with AM residency.
What you're saying is wrong. EU or NA players can play in KR but have to commit to it, so they can't play on EU/NA (Scarlett chose KR, for example).
Possible, I didn't see anything about that from skimming the rules. Give me a quote?
On May 03 2020 01:12 KingOfNoodles wrote: I guess this "fairest server" policy means that if EU players play with Koreans on the KR qualifier, then they would have to play on the US server right? I think that's pretty messed up seeing as Koreans aren't able to play on the other qualifiers. This gives EU and NA players another chance to qualifier and being able to compete with the Koreans for spots with perhaps a slight advantage in ping.
Also, how do you even know what the fairest server is anyway. Players could lie and say they're in Asia, but actually be in NA, just to have a slight ping advantage. I just wonder if this rule can be abused by players to give a slight ping advantage.
I'm glad to see transparency from the organisers, but I honestly think reverting the rule would have been better choice.
EU/NA players are not allowed to play in the KR qualifiers, not sure where you got that from. The actual unfairness is that foreigners with Korean residency are allowed to play in all three qualifiers, while Korean citizens with Korean residency are only allowed to play the ridiculously difficult KR qualifier. I can't say it's clear to me why the organizers are worried about Koreans "invading" the AM qualifier when the upper bracket ro16 contains only two (?) players with AM residency.
What you're saying is wrong. EU or NA players can play in KR but have to commit to it, so they can't play on EU/NA (Scarlett chose KR, for example).
Possible, I didn't see anything about that from skimming the rules. Give me a quote?
Players with South Korean nationality are only eligible to play in the Korean server qualifiers (no change). Players with citizenship or permanent residency in countries other than South Korea may choose to compete in EITHER the Global Qualifiers (NA/EU servers) or Korean server qualifiers.
On May 03 2020 01:12 KingOfNoodles wrote: I guess this "fairest server" policy means that if EU players play with Koreans on the KR qualifier, then they would have to play on the US server right? I think that's pretty messed up seeing as Koreans aren't able to play on the other qualifiers. This gives EU and NA players another chance to qualifier and being able to compete with the Koreans for spots with perhaps a slight advantage in ping.
Also, how do you even know what the fairest server is anyway. Players could lie and say they're in Asia, but actually be in NA, just to have a slight ping advantage. I just wonder if this rule can be abused by players to give a slight ping advantage.
I'm glad to see transparency from the organisers, but I honestly think reverting the rule would have been better choice.
EU/NA players are not allowed to play in the KR qualifiers, not sure where you got that from. The actual unfairness is that foreigners with Korean residency are allowed to play in all three qualifiers, while Korean citizens with Korean residency are only allowed to play the ridiculously difficult KR qualifier. I can't say it's clear to me why the organizers are worried about Koreans "invading" the AM qualifier when the upper bracket ro16 contains only two (?) players with AM residency.
What you're saying is wrong. EU or NA players can play in KR but have to commit to it, so they can't play on EU/NA (Scarlett chose KR, for example).
Possible, I didn't see anything about that from skimming the rules. Give me a quote?
Players with South Korean nationality are only eligible to play in the Korean server qualifiers (no change). Players with citizenship or permanent residency in countries other than South Korea may choose to compete in EITHER the Global Qualifiers (NA/EU servers) or Korean server qualifiers.
Fair enough, are the rules on the ESL tournament page not official then? Because they make no mention of this.
Edit: I would appreciate some clarification on the "new policy" detailed on that page:
"New policy: Players with South Korean nationality are only eligible to play in the Korean server qualifiers (no change). Players with citizenship or permanent residency in countries other than South Korea may choose to compete in EITHER the Global Qualifiers (NA/EU servers) or Korean server qualifiers."
It would seem to imply that South Koreans with foreign residency are both eligible and not eligible to play on NA/EU.
The person most screwed by the EU/NA double booking is Namshar (and goblin, but he's already out) in the NA qualifier, because not only was he knocked down to the loser's bracket by MaNa, he also has to play one more series than the other side of the loser's bracket in order to qualify due to MaNa qualifying in EU and forfeiting his loser's bracket match in the NA qualifier.
Wouldn't it be better to just use the setup for online qualifiers that IEM Katowice has used? Qualifers are always played in three regions, matches take place on the server belonging to that region (unless both players agree otherwise), and players are free to participate whereever they want.
Both of these things are pretty bad, the second one really affects the content and "watching value" of the tournament.
Both the winner's and the loser's finals are default wins.... we could have had quite a few long and high stakes series between some of the best foreigners.
From a player's perspective, i cant imagine how frustrating it could have been to be eliminated by Lambo or Special in the NA qualifier, once they were already in the EU winner's finals. Not to mention the server problems.
Really sad to see such an unfortunate string of events.
I know mistakes happen but this tournament there were just too many of them, just too many to be honest. From viewer perspective it really killed my enjoyment and hype to see so many possible high stake games being default wins. Of all tournament organizers I would never thought TL would screw it this badly. Oh well, I still have hope for main event to be epic as previous TSLs I enjoyed watching back in the days.
On May 02 2020 23:37 stilt wrote: I wouldn't call it transparency considering these apologies only mention the mana vs special match but do not refer to Vanya and Skillous (his comments here : https://twitter.com/SKillousSC2/status/1256337390525919234 ) who got unfairly treated too.
This is an incredibly dumb situation, i agree with skillous 100%. EU qualifier goes on EU server period. NA quali goes on NA server. Should not be complicated.
Why would there be a rule that says that if somebody from another region wants to play, the EU qualifier will be moved onto a server outside of EU? Why is this ridiculous rule being upheld despite, as admitted, contradicting the rules when the tournament started? There hasn't been anywhere near adequate justification given. Majorly screwing up once isn't a free pass to continue doing so in the name of consistency.
Why are some people eligible to compete in all three qualifiers while others are only eligible for one or two of the three - especially considering said rule that forces players of their home region's qualifier to use unfavorable servers to match those who are eligible for more than their fair share of qualifiers?
If somebody wants to play on EU qualifier but has bad ping to EU that's 1000% on them. You shouldn't screw over the EU player in the EU qualifier to make it equally shit for both players.
At this point i would be seriously considering rewriting the rules to avoid these problems and starting the qualifiers over as a 2.0. It's not worth compromising the whole tournament with fairness/bias problems like this IMO. Yeah it's a pain for the admins but it's a huge deal for the integrity of the game, the players and the viewers.
On May 02 2020 23:37 stilt wrote: I wouldn't call it transparency considering these apologies only mention the mana vs special match but do not refer to Vanya and Skillous (his comments here : https://twitter.com/SKillousSC2/status/1256337390525919234 ) who got unfairly treated too.
This is an incredibly dumb situation, i agree with skillous 100%. EU qualifier goes on EU server period. NA quali goes on NA server. Should not be complicated.
Why would there be a rule that says that if somebody from another region wants to play, the EU qualifier will be moved onto a server outside of EU? Why is this ridiculous rule being upheld despite, as admitted, contradicting the rules when the tournament started? There hasn't been anywhere near adequate justification given. Majorly screwing up once isn't a free pass to continue doing so in the name of consistency.
Why are some people eligible to compete in all three qualifiers while others are only eligible for one or two of the three - especially considering said rule that forces players of their home region's qualifier to use unfavorable servers to match those who are eligible for more than their fair share of qualifiers?
If somebody wants to play on EU qualifier but has bad ping to EU that's 1000% on them. You shouldn't screw over the EU player in the EU qualifier to make it equally shit for both players.
At this point i would be seriously considering rewriting the rules to avoid these problems and starting the qualifiers over as a 2.0. It's not worth compromising the whole tournament with fairness/bias problems like this IMO. Yeah it's a pain for the admins but it's a huge deal for the integrity of the game, the players and the viewers.
I think the game lacking a lot of really good players is a reason for these server rules. Can you imagine if Reynor or Heromarine got knocked and couldn't qualify for the main event? I mean we're already seeing it in GSL. Code A is gone. Code S round of 32 has become round of 24, and even then, some players are imo, fringe Code S players.
On May 02 2020 23:37 stilt wrote: I wouldn't call it transparency considering these apologies only mention the mana vs special match but do not refer to Vanya and Skillous (his comments here : https://twitter.com/SKillousSC2/status/1256337390525919234 ) who got unfairly treated too.
This is an incredibly dumb situation, i agree with skillous 100%. EU qualifier goes on EU server period. NA quali goes on NA server. Should not be complicated.
Why would there be a rule that says that if somebody from another region wants to play, the EU qualifier will be moved onto a server outside of EU? Why is this ridiculous rule being upheld despite, as admitted, contradicting the rules when the tournament started? There hasn't been anywhere near adequate justification given. Majorly screwing up once isn't a free pass to continue doing so in the name of consistency.
Why are some people eligible to compete in all three qualifiers while others are only eligible for one or two of the three - especially considering said rule that forces players of their home region's qualifier to use unfavorable servers to match those who are eligible for more than their fair share of qualifiers?
If somebody wants to play on EU qualifier but has bad ping to EU that's 1000% on them. You shouldn't screw over the EU player in the EU qualifier to make it equally shit for both players.
At this point i would be seriously considering rewriting the rules to avoid these problems and starting the qualifiers over as a 2.0. It's not worth compromising the whole tournament with fairness/bias problems like this IMO. Yeah it's a pain for the admins but it's a huge deal for the integrity of the game, the players and the viewers.
I think the game lacking a lot of really good players is a reason for these server rules. Can you imagine if Reynor or Heromarine got knocked and couldn't qualify for the main event? I mean we're already seeing it in GSL. Code A is gone. Code S round of 32 has become round of 24, and even then, some players are imo, fringe Code S players.
Honestly I'd love for a bit of variety, we won't have any offline event all year long, if we don't arrange the qualifiers that probably mean no Chinese, SEA or NA player outside of Neeb and Special getting the chance to play vs Europeans all year long. I much better have an event once in a while where the eu qualifier leave out a few player, but I can get MaSa vs Harstem or Nice vs Special in a quarter final rather than my fifth edition of Clem vs Reynor and Heromarine vs Elazer of the week.
How can two qualifiers for the same tournament that are open for the same players be scheduled with an overlap???
I can't believe it's surprising everyone now that issues occur in these kind of circumstances. Someone just fucked up. TL, I am disappoint. Still, shut up and take my money - I love TSL.
IMO, the "fairest server rule" should be as follows: - Players may agree to play the match on whichever server. This allows for instance, 2 NA players to agree to play on NA in the EU qualifiers. - If the players cannot agree, then the match is played on the qualifier's server, i.e. EU qualifiers played on the EU server.
On May 04 2020 05:13 Wogrim wrote: So this "double qualifier" thing is basically match fixing?
Not one match was fixed. Two players qualified twice. That meant they could have played a meaningless match in which the loser automatically qualifies from the other qualifier but they didn't. There was no match played where the outcome was predetermined, which is what match-fixing is.
There have been lots of mistakes made with these qualifiers but match-fixing, especially given historical context in SC2, is a pretty serious accusation you might want to be careful with throwing around carelessly.
On May 04 2020 05:13 Wogrim wrote: So this "double qualifier" thing is basically match fixing?
Not one match was fixed. Two players qualified twice. That meant they could have played a meaningless match in which the loser automatically qualifies from the other qualifier but they didn't. There was no match played where the outcome was predetermined, which is what match-fixing is.
There have been lots of mistakes made with these qualifiers but match-fixing, especially given historical context in SC2, is a pretty serious accusation you might want to be careful with throwing around carelessly.
Agreeing with you Olli, match fixing is too strong of a word, especially considering there were no top seed(direct to round 2) awarded to these 2 qualifiers, would be a different story otherwise.
That said, people like Skillous not being able to qualify (yet? fingers crossed) due to unpublished rules, even if I understand the reasonning, is a bit sad. If there was any way to give them a shot be it from LB or something in the tournament structure that would awesome (but I am also not sure exactly how without breaking fairness for other players...)
The server issue is not a big deal to me, obviously I understand it is very important to progamers but ultimately isn't it a bit entitled to Believe you deserve an ingame advantage because of where you live?
Historically a european qualifier was played on the european ladder, some players have very low ping and some others have rather high ping depending on where they live. Is that fair and a well deserved advantage, not really right?
Consider that all the World besides korea have to play on either EU or AM ladder, obviously it isn't fair from the start. The rule that makes all players having to play with the closest ping actually gives all players in the tournament the most level footing. Central european players that are used to get a ping advantage compared to some players, why do they deserve this ingame advantage? I Think that two brackets were being played simultaneously was a bigger issue.
The EU and AM qualifiers have been played on the respective servers forever and I get that that is how it has Always been but taht doesn't mean that it is 100% fair to everyone nor does it mean that it should Always be like that.
On May 04 2020 16:29 Shuffleblade wrote: The server issue is not a big deal to me, obviously I understand it is very important to progamers but ultimately isn't it a bit entitled to Believe you deserve an ingame advantage because of where you live?
Historically a european qualifier was played on the european ladder, some players have very low ping and some others have rather high ping depending on where they live. Is that fair and a well deserved advantage, not really right?
Consider that all the World besides korea have to play on either EU or AM ladder, obviously it isn't fair from the start. The rule that makes all players having to play with the closest ping actually gives all players in the tournament the most level footing. Central european players that are used to get a ping advantage compared to some players, why do they deserve this ingame advantage? I Think that two brackets were being played simultaneously was a bigger issue.
The EU and AM qualifiers have been played on the respective servers forever and I get that that is how it has Always been but taht doesn't mean that it is 100% fair to everyone nor does it mean that it should Always be like that.
You are missing the point. The rules say the EU server qualifier is played on the EU server. Only if both players agree to play on another server the admin will allow for it. The rules are plain and simple. The admins broke the rules of their own tournament, forced people to play on another server against their will, and now, admins acknowledging that this was obviously wrong, they still offer no rectification whatsoever to disadvantaged players. Hence, this is not about believing you are entitled an in-game advantage, this is about believing that you are entitled to play according to the rules of the tournament.
On May 04 2020 16:29 Shuffleblade wrote: The server issue is not a big deal to me, obviously I understand it is very important to progamers but ultimately isn't it a bit entitled to Believe you deserve an ingame advantage because of where you live?
Historically a european qualifier was played on the european ladder, some players have very low ping and some others have rather high ping depending on where they live. Is that fair and a well deserved advantage, not really right?
Consider that all the World besides korea have to play on either EU or AM ladder, obviously it isn't fair from the start. The rule that makes all players having to play with the closest ping actually gives all players in the tournament the most level footing. Central european players that are used to get a ping advantage compared to some players, why do they deserve this ingame advantage? I Think that two brackets were being played simultaneously was a bigger issue.
The EU and AM qualifiers have been played on the respective servers forever and I get that that is how it has Always been but taht doesn't mean that it is 100% fair to everyone nor does it mean that it should Always be like that.
The question never was if it s fair or not, the question was about putting Rule X in the rulebook and proceeding to use Rule Y instead withoutupdating said Rulebook. If they did that there would have been no issue with the Servers. Now we only can assume how many Players played on the Default Server like statet in the rulebooks before this issue occured instead of the fairest server like intended. It s not only about Mana and Skillous games against Special, it is also about every other Game in the qualifiers beforehand, where Players from differents Servers played each other on default server instead of "Fairest Server" because it was what the (outdated) Rulebook said. I totally agree, that the Schedule conflict was absolutly bonkers and could have been easily avoided. Not only becase of the double qualification, wich was indeed unexpected, but also because of the Lower Bracket bye, due to Mana s qualification, wich was painfully obvious be expected to happen..
On May 04 2020 20:37 dbRic1203 wrote: The question never was if it s fair or not, the question was about putting Rule X in the rulebook and proceeding to use Rule Y instead withoutupdating said Rulebook. If they did that there would have been no issue with the Servers. Now we only can assume how many Players played on the Default Server like statet in the rulebooks before this issue occured instead of the fairest server like intended. It s not only about Mana and Skillous games against Special, it is also about every other Game in the qualifiers beforehand, where Players from differents Servers played each other on default server instead of "Fairest Server" because it was what the (outdated) Rulebook said. I totally agree, that the Schedule conflict was absolutly bonkers and could have been easily avoided. Not only becase of the double qualification, wich was indeed unexpected, but also because of the Lower Bracket bye, due to Mana s qualification, wich was painfully obvious be expected to happen..
On May 04 2020 20:33 BaneRiders wrote: You are missing the point. The rules say the EU server qualifier is played on the EU server. Only if both players agree to play on another server the admin will allow for it. The rules are plain and simple. The admins broke the rules of their own tournament, forced people to play on another server against their will, and now, admins acknowledging that this was obviously wrong, they still offer no rectification whatsoever to disadvantaged players. Hence, this is not about believing you are entitled an in-game advantage, this is about believing that you are entitled to play according to the rules of the tournament.
If the problem was really that the rules weren't updated in time then why isn't that what posters are complaining about?
It is not uncommon in sports, especially esport, for rules, seeding and similar to change while the update the official rules aren't done in time. What the organization usually do in those situations is say "Whoopise, we will now updates the rules", it happens and its really not a big deal. The reason this incident turned into a big deal is because we have players and soectators disagreeing with the new rules which is a totally different topic and has nothing to do with TSL screwing up.
TSL will update the rulesset, the problem is fixed now move on. I agree that naming it EU qualifier and AM qualifiers as being separate under these rules are weird and if these rules are to be kept it should be renamed EUNA qualifier 1, 2, 3 ,4 and 5 or similar.
On May 03 2020 02:11 ThxSub~ wrote: Skillous has the most logic approach here. Being the EU qualifier, it should only be played on EU.
On May 03 2020 10:14 Cyro wrote: If somebody wants to play on EU qualifier but has bad ping to EU that's 1000% on them. You shouldn't screw over the EU player in the EU qualifier to make it equally shit for both players.
How about the qualifier follows the rules, even if they are new or old. If you Believe central europeans should get an ingame advantage for living where they live fine thats your opinion, my opinion is that fairness is more important than europeans (or americans) getting ingame advantages because of where they live. What qualifier should Chinese, australians or africans play to get a fair chance?
You'd have to concede that it's at least uncommon for an admin to directly contradict the written rules after the start of a tournament. In what sports is this common? Also, as I read Julmust's post, the TO did not intend to make this rules change until renegade admins started enforcing it, at which point they felt forced to keep the misinterpreted rule in place for the sake of consistency.
On May 04 2020 23:06 Klyberess wrote: You'd have to concede that it's at least uncommon for an admin to directly contradict the written rules after the start of a tournament. In what sports is this common? Also, as I read Julmust's post, the TO did not intend to make this rules change until renegade admins started enforcing it, at which point they felt forced to keep the misinterpreted rule in place for the sake of consistency.
O_O Yeah, maybe I misunderstood his post. I interpreted it as the most fair server decision was an actual decision and not just one admin enforcing a rule that were never meant to even be there in the first Place. If thats how it is and one admin due to bad Communication was enforcing the rule without any real decision being behind it then…. I am sorry for Everything I wrote and agree that this "fairness" rule should just be abolished straight away.
On May 04 2020 05:13 Wogrim wrote: So this "double qualifier" thing is basically match fixing?
Not one match was fixed. Two players qualified twice. That meant they could have played a meaningless match in which the loser automatically qualifies from the other qualifier but they didn't. There was no match played where the outcome was predetermined, which is what match-fixing is.
There have been lots of mistakes made with these qualifiers but match-fixing, especially given historical context in SC2, is a pretty serious accusation you might want to be careful with throwing around carelessly.
Well maybe I misunderstood the post. It looked like it said the winner of the first match forfeited the second match so that the other player was qualified without having to beat him, thereby giving him a spot he had not yet earned.
I would consider a forfeit a manipulation of the match results and therefore match fixing; if the opponent is given the win it doesn't matter if you actually play the game.
I do realize my opinion may be in the minority, but I expect players to have the professional integrity to play the game whether or not the results are "meaningless".
On May 04 2020 05:13 Wogrim wrote: So this "double qualifier" thing is basically match fixing?
Not one match was fixed. Two players qualified twice. That meant they could have played a meaningless match in which the loser automatically qualifies from the other qualifier but they didn't. There was no match played where the outcome was predetermined, which is what match-fixing is.
There have been lots of mistakes made with these qualifiers but match-fixing, especially given historical context in SC2, is a pretty serious accusation you might want to be careful with throwing around carelessly.
Well maybe I misunderstood the post. It looked like it said the winner of the first match forfeited the second match so that the other player was qualified without having to beat him, thereby giving him a spot he had not yet earned.
I would consider a forfeit a manipulation of the match results and therefore match fixing; if the opponent is given the win it doesn't matter if you actually play the game.
I do realize my opinion may be in the minority, but I expect players to have the professional integrity to play the game whether or not the results are "meaningless".
You consider forfeiting an example of match fixing?! Yeah your opinion is a minority one because not only is it completely daft, but it also diminishes the seriousness of what match fixing actually is. No one's forcing the players to play--forfeiting is no more an example of "manipulation of the match results" than choosing to play.
On May 02 2020 22:56 CreightonOlsen wrote: I think I can speak for everyone in saying that if nothing else, we all appreciate the incredible transparency in this tournament. Thank you for sharing your process with us.
100%. To anyone complaining - would you like some cheese with that whine?
On May 02 2020 22:56 CreightonOlsen wrote: I think I can speak for everyone in saying that if nothing else, we all appreciate the incredible transparency in this tournament. Thank you for sharing your process with us.
100%. To anyone complaining - would you like some cheese with that whine?
Edit: Never mind, but hey, I'm always up for some cheese!
EPT
