EPTa judgement call was required and a re-game was issued.
Avilo could've been DQ-ed at this point...long before this series with BeastyQT began.
CraftCup Weekly Tournaments - Page 17
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17127 Posts
a judgement call was required and a re-game was issued. Avilo could've been DQ-ed at this point...long before this series with BeastyQT began. | ||
|
Torai
Denmark195 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:00 UnholyRai wrote: When I see someone pausing a game to whine at admins and then the game being called a draw soon after when the other non whining player is in a clearly winning position That wasnt Beasty whining -that was beasty being PM'd by the craftcup admins on IRC because he was set to Busy ingame so they had to get in contact with him somehow | ||
|
Smurphy
United States374 Posts
On February 10 2011 11:24 Puremiss wrote: And, why would you judge an entire tournament based on one overblown event? It is insane how fast people are willing to judge others based on something like this. I have been following the Craftcup (U.S. craftcup but same difference, same ppl running it) for an extremely long time now and I have to say they have one of the best bracket systems, best website interface for both participants and streamers and most consistent/smoothly run tournaments today. However does anyone make mention of those points? No. However when a tournament admin is forced to make a controversial decision like this, the entire integrity of the tournament goes down the drain for you? I can judge an entire series tournament based on this one event because the occurrence was so outrageous. The rules of Starcraft were changed mid-game. The rules of Starcraft were changed for no logical reason. The reasoning behind the changes was ludicrous. I understand that time is an issue and that a tournament needs to be completed in a reasonable time-frame. Evidently, rules are in place in the CraftCup for matches being delayed by players not showing up on time. This game did not have issues of players not being available and was outside the scope of such rules. I cannot respect the logic of declaring game 2 between avilo and beasty a re-game because of time constraints. If time is the issue then declaring a winner in a timely manner is the goal. If you want to declare a winner in a timely manner then choose the winner of the first game: avilo. These two players have played a game. One player was the victor in the first game. If the second game is declared a stalemate (which it was not a stalemate, I don't know who would have won, but I understand time constraints) then declare it so, declare the series 1-0-1 and advance avilo. Also, the re-game was going to be played in a form where neither player was allowed to be Terran. What is the point of that? If you are going to be forcing players to choose or not choose a specific race this needs to be outlined in the rules beforehand. After review here is how **I** personally would handle the situation. I understand that I have the benefit of being able to look back on the scenario and the judges did not. However, while watching the game live at no point in time did I think "it would be a good idea to have these players start over... and as off-races". Neither the starting over nor off-racing is a good idea. First, I would determine the necessities of time. How long do we have to complete the finals? Is it possible to delay the finals? If it is not possible to complete this tournament another day I would work to end the game and determine a result as quickly as possible. If there was some time to spare I would give the players a warning: "You have xxx time to complete the series or the game being played will be declared a draw." I would also explain that in the case of a tie I would flip a coin to advance a player. I would admit that flipping a coin sucks but I would explain that someone needs to advance and someone needs to advance within this period of time. I would explain since determining who should advance can not be done via Starcraft that I would be using as fair and unbiased of a method as possible. The coin flip has precedence and many sports use a coin-flip when no other method is available and all other tie-breakers have been utilized. The key to the rulings is to think of what a ruling means for future scenarios and rulings. The nerdy term is "precedence". What precedence does this ruling set? What precedence does forcing a re-game create? What precedence does declaring a stalemate arbitrarily create? Re-games and stalemates exist when both players are unable to change the game state or unwilling to change the game state. Such a scenario exists when both players have a Supply Depot left and no troops. In that scenario, neither player can change the game state. Another example is when one player has a Supply Depot and a Marine and the other has a floating building that the marine cannot shoot. One player is unable to change the game state and the other is unwilling. The situation in beasty verse avilo game 2 was not such a scenario. Both players were able and willing to change the game state. The state of the game was simply being changed very slowly. "Because I feel like it" is not a valid reason for a re-game. What precedence does forcing off-racing create? That creates a terrible precedence. How would players know when they are or are not going to be forced to play different races? What precedence does declaring the match a draw due to time constraints create? This creates an acceptable precedence. Players understand that someone has to win in an elimination tournament. Ensure beforehand that players are aware of the time constraints. Including penalties for stalling is acceptable too. Stalling is possible in Starcraft. A player could refuse to surrender a game and drag it out and try to bank on the results of the first game. But this "stalling" needs to be clear. One player needs to be in a distinct and clear advantage to be declared the winner. Playing defensively is an acceptable strategy. | ||
|
UnholyRai
720 Posts
On February 10 2011 11:55 mcduffs wrote: Here go watch what was really said dude... http://www.sc-streams.com/vod/1277 | Go to min 120:28 and listen... go watch and chill out yeah i watched it dude, it actually starts at 121.50 the absolute ripping into avilo. People can watch it and come to their own conclusions. I'm completely chill man. | ||
|
Torai
Denmark195 Posts
edit: Typo | ||
|
UnholyRai
720 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:05 Smurphy wrote: I can judge an entire series tournament based on this one event because the occurrence was so outrageous. The rules of Starcraft were changed mid-game. The rules of Starcraft were changed for no logical reason. The reasoning behind the changes was ludicrous. I understand that time is an issue and that a tournament needs to be completed in a reasonable time-frame. Evidently, rules are in place in the CraftCup for matches being delayed by players not showing up on time. This game did not have issues of players not being available and was outside the scope of such rules. I cannot respect the logic of declaring game 2 between avilo and beasty a re-game because of time constraints. If time is the issue then declaring a winner in a timely manner is the goal. If you want to declare a winner in a timely manner then choose the winner of the first game: avilo. These two players have played a game. One player was the victor in the first game. If the second game is declared a stalemate (which it was not a stalemate, I don't know who would have won, but I understand time constraints) then declare it so, declare the series 1-0-1 and advance avilo. Also, the re-game was going to be played in a form where neither player was allowed to be Terran. What is the point of that? If you are going to be forcing players to choose or not choose a specific race this needs to be outlined in the rules beforehand. After review here is how **I** personally would handle the situation. I understand that I have the benefit of being able to look back on the scenario and the judges did not. However, while watching the game live at no point in time did I think "it would be a good idea to have these players start over... and as off-races". Neither the starting over nor off-racing is a good idea. First, I would determine the necessities of time. How long do we have to complete the finals? Is it possible to delay the finals? If it is not possible to complete this tournament another day I would work to end the game and determine a result as quickly as possible. If there was some time to spare I would give the players a warning: "You have xxx time to complete the series or the game being played will be declared a draw." I would also explain that in the case of a tie I would flip a coin to advance a player. I would admit that flipping a coin sucks but I would explain that someone needs to advance and someone needs to advance within this period of time. I would explain since determining who should advance can not be done via Starcraft that I would be using as fair and unbiased of a method as possible. The coin flip has precedence and many sports use a coin-flip when no other method is available and all other tie-breakers have been utilized. The key to the rulings is to think of what a ruling means for future scenarios and rulings. The nerdy term is "precedence". What precedence does this ruling set? What precedence does forcing a re-game create? What precedence does declaring a stalemate arbitrarily create? Re-games and stalemates exist when both players are unable to change the game state or unwilling to change the game state. Such a scenario exists when both players have a Supply Depot left and no troops. In that scenario, neither player can change the game state. Another example is when one player has a Supply Depot and a Marine and the other has a floating building that the marine cannot shoot. One player is unable to change the game state and the other is unwilling. The situation in beasty verse avilo game 2 was not such a scenario. Both players were able and willing to change the game state. The state of the game was simply being changed very slowly. "Because I feel like it" is not a valid reason for a re-game. What precedence does forcing off-racing create? That creates a terrible precedence. How would players know when they are or are not going to be forced to play different races? What precedence does declaring the match a draw due to time constraints create? This creates an acceptable precedence. Players understand that someone has to win in an elimination tournament. Ensure beforehand that players are aware of the time constraints. Including penalties for stalling is acceptable too. Stalling is possible in Starcraft. A player could refuse to surrender a game and drag it out and try to bank on the results of the first game. But this "stalling" needs to be clear. One player needs to be in a distinct and clear advantage to be declared the winner. Playing defensively is an acceptable strategy. Completely agree with everything you said. | ||
|
UnholyRai
720 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:10 Torai wrote: If thats ripping into.. then you have been living a very protected life so far - saying "oh here's avilo on cam - seems like hes gonna fall over" i can see thats SOOO harsh! edit: Typo It's extremely insulting in the situation it was used in and completely unprofessional. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17127 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:10 Torai wrote:oh here's avilo on cam - seems like hes gonna fall over i read that a loud in the chat room comments it was not my comment unfortuantely, we'll have to MOD our chat rooms more carefully...which sucks. and if you watch the VOD you'll see we decided to pull the chat room comments OUT of the stream view in the top right hand corner because of it. you'll also notice we interiviewed the other finalist, Gomas, and he stated Avilo probably should have won the Best-of-3 series with Avilo. therefore, we absolutely did welcome contrasting opinions. and most viewers should put more weight on Gomas' opinion of a game then mine. i can barely make Diamond... Gomas is a far far better player. | ||
|
BloodNinja
United States2791 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i read that a loud in the chat room comments it was not my comment Come on man. We know you don't like Avilo. You made it a point to twice talk about how supposedly BM he is. At this point just admit you made a lapse in judgment with your comments during the match and lets move on. Also my feelings regarding the whole re-game were said much better than I could by smurphy a few posts back but I am not gonna quote that whole block as a courtesy. | ||
|
Torai
Denmark195 Posts
| ||
|
Puremiss
United States232 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:05 Smurphy wrote: I can judge an entire series tournament based on this one event because the occurrence was so outrageous. The rules of Starcraft were changed mid-game. The rules of Starcraft were changed for no logical reason. The reasoning behind the changes was ludicrous. How was the reasoning ludicrous? It was 1:00am, and the tournament had to potential to go through the night into the morning. The admins have jobs, its a weekday, you can not possibly believe that running SC2 tournaments is going to bring the paycheck every month. They had to find some way of finishing it. Also the other finalist was in the same position and would've had to wait whoever knows how long to play for $20. You are barely considering the main factor. I partially agree with your points made about the decision itself and its repercussions. And ive said somewhere in this thread that I believe a reschedule of the finals would have done them much more good. However these kinds of decisions are bound to happen from time to time. Some are wrong, some are right, some are extremely controversial, but it does not, at least to me, jeopardize the entire tournament from week to week. On a much larger scale I am reminded of the OSL finals i believe between Flash and Jaedong (forgot what year T.T fail SCBW fan) where in one of the games, a blackout occured, the game could've gone either way, and it couldve been argued that Jaedong did not have the advantage. However the game was given to Jaedong, which obviously caused immense controversy. But let me ask you now, does that jeopardize the integrity of all past and future OSLs? Definitely not for me despite the fact that I did not agree with the call. | ||
|
LonGSworD
Canada174 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote: also, keep in mind Avilo DC-ed in a game against NeverForget earlier in the event. a judgement call was required and a re-game was issued. Avilo could've been DQ-ed at this point...long before this series with BeastyQT began. d/c'ing from a match doesnt matter unless you have 0 workers and basically no army. other then that the game will be remade 100% of the time. find another argument. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17127 Posts
d/c'ing from a match doesnt matter unless you have 0 workers and basically no army. other then that the game will be remade 100% of the time. find another argument. you really need to reference the CraftCup rules before making a comment like this. you're making comment with no references. http://www.bitsperbeat.com/sc2/rules/ "Disconnecting: Freewin/Walk-Over will be granted if a) the one who disced was behind, b) the player who did not disc actually wants a walk over. Otherwise rematch." "was behind" is not the same as 0 workers OR "basically no army". had CCup admins determined "in their judgement" avilo was merely "behind" he would have been DQ-ed at that point. | ||
|
UnholyRai
720 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:23 Puremiss wrote: How was the reasoning ludicrous? It was 1:00am, and the tournament had to potential to go through the night into the morning. The admins have jobs, its a weekday, you can not possibly believe that running SC2 tournaments is going to bring the paycheck every month. They had to find some way of finishing it. Also the other finalist was in the same position and would've had to wait whoever knows how long to play for $20. You are barely considering the main factor. I partially agree with your points made about the decision itself and its repercussions. And ive said somewhere in this thread that I believe a reschedule of the finals would have done them much more good. However these kinds of decisions are bound to happen from time to time. Some are wrong, some are right, some are extremely controversial, but it does not, at least to me, jeopardize the entire tournament from week to week. On a much larger scale I am reminded of the OSL finals i believe between Flash and Jaedong (forgot what year T.T fail SCBW fan) where in one of the games, a blackout occured, the game could've gone either way, and it couldve been argued that Jaedong did not have the advantage. However the game was given to Jaedong, which obviously caused immense controversy. But let me ask you now, does that jeopardize the integrity of all past and future OSLs? Definitely not for me despite the fact that I did not agree with the call. This has been discussed already, how does re gaming make sense when you're pushed for time? If anything that will massively increase the time of the tournament, unless of course they forced Avilo to play off-race, which they're actually claiming was a joke now even though the admin said it to Avilo in the transcript of the contact between them. In my opinion the admins of this cup need to seriously up their game. No more fucking ridiculous decision making and fooling around (telling Avilo he has to off race) during a match. No more allowing a caster to cast drunk. You can continue to do all that by all means if you want to but first you should ask TL to unfeature you. | ||
|
Smurphy
United States374 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:23 Puremiss wrote: How was the reasoning ludicrous? It was 1:00am, and the tournament had to potential to go through the night into the morning. The admins have jobs, its a weekday, you can not possibly believe that running SC2 tournaments is going to bring the paycheck every month. They had to find some way of finishing it. Also the other finalist was in the same position and would've had to wait whoever knows how long to play for $20. You are barely considering the main factor. This paragraph is precisely why I find the decision ludicrous. They had to find a way of finishing it. Their decision to finish it is to re-game. Their decision to come to a quick decision is to start over. That's ludicrous. As I explained, if time is the issue declare game 2 a stalemate and advance avilo. | ||
|
LonGSworD
Canada174 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote: you really need to reference the CraftCup rules before making a comment like this. you're making comment with no references. http://www.bitsperbeat.com/sc2/rules/ "Disconnecting: Freewin/Walk-Over will be granted if a) the one who disced was behind, b) the player who did not disc actually wants a walk over. Otherwise rematch." "was behind" is not the same as 0 workers OR "basically no army". had CCup admins determined "in their judgement" avilo was merely "behind" he would have been DQ-ed at that point. I love how admins get to play god when there's no clear player in the lead. but then again when players question this . all you guys ever say is. "we dont get paid for this, so you HAVE to respect what we say" | ||
|
UnholyRai
720 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote: you really need to reference the CraftCup rules before making a comment like this. you're making comment with no references. http://www.bitsperbeat.com/sc2/rules/ "Disconnecting: Freewin/Walk-Over will be granted if a) the one who disced was behind, b) the player who did not disc actually wants a walk over. Otherwise rematch." "was behind" is not the same as 0 workers OR "basically no army". had CCup admins determined "in their judgement" avilo was merely "behind" he would have been DQ-ed at that point. That's great dude, but what happened earlier on in a tournament has absolutely zero relevance to the event we're discussing. They're two separate events, and should be judged as such. | ||
|
Arkansassy
358 Posts
I watched the Beasty v Avilo game closely. I also heard a caster say that prior to the match, Beasty said, “I never lose on Steppes of War.” He must have been totally irate to have lost that first game to Avilo. More than likely that’s why he was so BM toward him, which admin didn’t deem necessary to DQ Beasty at that point, or even give him a warning. Yes, there are people making a big deal of this, yet according to Mr. Raynor, et al – a big deal over nothing. I, for one, know how devoted Avilo is to his game. (As are most hardcore SC players) I know the long, hard hours he puts in to play the best he can – and I might add under some grueling circumstances, which he never whines about. Yet he perseveres. For casters to make jokes like “I’m going to take a nap, wake me if this ever ends” is not only unprofessional, but just plain wrong. The consensus of opinion, it seems to me, is that admin made a pretty bad call. Some argue that Gomas was waiting and the game was taking too long. Imo, the final game should have been postponed. I’m sure after the first 50 minute game both bad mannered Beasty and moving-too-slow Avilo were both drained as well. Nevertheless, when admin bases their decision on someone “taking too long” and his opponent is whining, it puts me in absolute rage mode. The referees, admin, the casters of ImbaTV all conducted this particular game unprofessionally. And it might not be a big deal to some, but I’m sure it is to the players. When Avilo told the admin that he was about to wrap it up, admin should have said, “Okay, you have 10/15/20 minutes to end this game.” That is how this should have been done, that is what would have been fair. A warning. Not “Either leave now or get DQd” Especially not an hour into the game. And, Mr. Raynor, when players struggle and devote 8 to 10 hours a day practicing, it is a big deal to be DQd. If devoted players continue to compete in CraftCup, then some new rules should be put in place, because nothing in the rules at the moment state “If player takes too long we have the right to discontinue the game.” This was a total fiasco! | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17127 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:13 UnholyRai wrote: It's extremely insulting in the situation it was used in and completely unprofessional. "in that situation" the previous video shows that same comedian... this is Nathan Barnatt...an icon in video gaming comedy sub-culture with this in mind i do not even know if the guy in the chat room should've been banned. sounds like someone is just looking be "feel insulted". therefore, the guy in chat saying "avilo is going to fall over etc etc" may well have been complimenting him in the same way people call another guy "The_Pwnerer" as a reference to the Purepwnage series and it is a compliment to that player. Gomas was this days CraftCup winner and he has won 2 CraftCup events. furthermore, we invited Gomas and he stated Avilo should've won that series with BeastyQT. He also stated he'd probably lose to Avilo. Here is the guy being referred to as "Avilo" would it have been insulting if we started calling Avilo "Teh_Pwnerer Jeremy" of the Pure Pwnage series? lighten up dude.. its a small scale for-fun event. looking back now .. i dont think we'd ban the guy in chat that said most of that stuff | ||
|
UnholyRai
720 Posts
And yes, ok, i see, you were complimenting Avilo. Oh right, I get it now... yeah.... no. Look there's really no point you trying to defend this to me, I urge people to simply watch the vod and make their own minds up. | ||
| ||
