[nGenLight]

Redirected from here as to not spoil BalloonSPR's introduction thread. http://www.sc2sea.com/showpost.php?p=59623&postcount=32 (being good at starcraft gets you alot of priviledges and fans that will defend you)

I will save the introduction and theory as we have been through this stuff many times and get right to the question:

My original post:

First of all, welcome to SC2SEA BalloonSPR.

Not intending to bring a negative tone to such a warming thread. But somebody had to bring this subject up. I'm going to have negs reps fired my way, but this discussion needs to be had.

Considering the OP is at the subject of whether or not he was permitted to play in the SEACL, does writing an introduction thread and playing 100 ladder games very quickly put him in the same category to someone like SoulmanSPR whos been around for a while.

I am not trying to convince anybody to change his status in SEACL, just wanted to discuss with everyone - hearing the thoughts of everyone about acheiving SEACL eligibility after such very simple requirements (introduction thread + 100 ladder games), because this is what MasterSPR was advocating for the rest of his original SPR lineup - of how to become an "active" member of SEA.

I firmly believe if he continues to play alot and be involved in the scene, there would be no question of his eligibility for the next SEA event. But the sudden eligibility to play in SEACL just makes the introduction thread a little less transparent.

If I am wrong and Balloon has actually been involved in the scene for yonks and I'm just clueless, I apologize and please disregard my post.

Since this is a new thread and I don't have to pretend to be kind, I'm just going to lay it out pretty flat: What does it take for a NON-SEA Citizen/Resident to achieve egibility at SC2SEA events?

For precedence: (1) We have allowed all NON-SEA Citizens/Residents to participate in the SEACO with no limits to them. (2) Eddie's Master Cup has a 100 ladder game rule.

During the debate with MasterSPR: Numerous members have brought up how easily 100 ladder games can be achieved, especially by these StarCraft machines and have unanimously revoked that idea of achieving "community status" for eligibility to the SEACL.

So is the rule: 100 ladder games on SEA + Posting on SC2SEA.com? Because if that was the case MasterSPR would have taken that option in a heartbeat. Or is it, 100 ladder games on SEA + Make people/mods from SC2SEA/Admins like you enough to accept you by the "admin discretion rule". (Taking nothing away from Balloon's introduction thread, it is authentic and warmful, it just came at a controversial timing, with his sudden eligibity to play in the SEACL creating a question mark for myself, for reasons of purely political correctness.)

A ground rule should be set in stone, like Eddie's Master Cup of 100 ladder games is set in stone. Otherwise the "admin discretion rule" is going to completely break the argument many of us used against MasterSPR - Its too easy and simple to ladder 100 games and post a thread (An initiation to achieve activeness at SEA should not be counted as proven part of the communtiy). NON-SEA Citizens/Residents needs to be proven part of the community to achieve eligibility to major SEA events - Committing to SEA right before a tournament is not proof that this person is going to continue to be a part of this community. In this case, I feel the "admin discretion rule" was given to BalloonSPR with the benefit of the doubt that he will continue to be apart of the SEA community - To whether he will or not, I won't discuss this as I do not know him apart from the first impression via the introduction thread, which is very nice I must say. My only question is, why would this stop all members of MasterSPR's original SPR lineup to decide to do exactly what balloon did here? You guys do remember disagreeing to that right? Was the inclusion of a post on SC2SEA the difference? I am not trying to take a side, I just think some things should be set in stone.

Discuss.

Quick Comments

	Maynarde:	Good thread
	AxSGRiM:

[TargA]

let them all play..

The koreans bring in more viewers, more hype, better competition and instead of blind countering everything your opponent does you actually have to scout vs these guys.

Quick Comments

FvRsolis:

this.

[TAEdgE]

Originally Posted by TargA

let them all play..

The koreans bring in more viewers, more hype, better competition and instead of blind countering everything your opponent does you actually have to scout vs these guys.

Not everyone is as good as you and owns Thorzain daily on EU kristy
bringing in unknown koreans won't bring in as many viewers anyway, or even lesser known top tier players, even though I think now letting non-progaming team players play (i.e balloon) is ideal.

[TargA]

Originally Posted by EdgE

Not everyone is as good as you and owns Thorzain daily on EU kristy
bringing in unknown koreans won't bring in as many viewers anyway, or even lesser known top tier players, even though I think now letting non-progaming team players play (i.e balloon)

i think they will bring in more viewers, when you make the posts on TL pretty much nobody will care if its a SEA event, but if you marked it such as we have motherfucking good koreans playing in this shit yo, then perhaps a lot of guys will tune in.

I know i never watched a sea event before i moved to australia and i rarely pay attention to any events that im not playing in, cause for me they are really boring.

Quick Comments

	Dox:	MOTHERFUCKIN GOOD KOREANS N SHIT YO
	AxSGRiM:

[TAEdgE]

Originally Posted by TargA

i think they will bring in more viewers, when you make the posts on TL pretty much nobody will care if its a SEA event, but if you marked it such as we have motherfucking good koreans playing in this shit yo, then perhaps a lot of guys will tune in.

I know i never watched a sea event before i moved to australia and i rarely pay attention to any events that im not playing in, cause for me they are really boring.

So basically letting EVERY Korean play is saying 'SEA is so boring we need Koreans to artificially boost competition'. Unless advertised heavily, not many people will even know 'Soulman' or 'yCh' are playing, they played in masters cups etc. and the viewer count was not extraordinary and there wasn't a sudden boost to SEA outside of it. Dunno, feels that way

I think SPR has a good idea for future tournaments like this that I like though, but for this one the way Master initially acted to get all of them to play is what annoyed me.

edit: personally, I enjoy victory and with TA being unable to use Mafia, Light, deth and Pinder, we can't just (not saying Master did EXACTLY this for all members) go on Korea, ask someone to play 100 games and viola, we have new ace players! No. I like the competition to be as fair as possible, of course some teams may be slightly more stacked such as xGKing or TA before the player losses, but even then they are home grown and the best from SEA. I just don't like one team getting all these players 'because then perhaps a lot of guys will tune in'

[TargA]

Originally Posted by EdgE

So basically letting EVERY Korean play is saying 'SEA is so boring we need Koreans to artificially boost competition'. Unless advertised heavily, not many people will even know 'Soulman' or 'yCh' are playing, they played in masters cups etc. and the viewer count was not extraordinary and there wasn't a sudden boost to SEA outside of it. Dunno, feels that way

I think SPR has a good idea for future tournaments like this that I like though, but for this one the way Master initially acted to get all of them to play is what annoyed me.

masters cup is marketed as a SEA event, if we lied a little and told everyone it was a korean masters cup I think it would get a lot of viewers

Quick Comments

TAEdgE:

Global Masters Cup League

[TAlkori]

make them play a minimum of 300 games, that way it shows that they actually spent some time on the SEA server...

Quick Comments

nGenLight:

I'm giving you rep because I miss you

[Nemo]

I don't think unknown Koreans will bring more viewers. If you bring MC and Nestea certainly, but if not I don't think so.

I f you want to play different players than the usual suspects you get in ladder, you always can play on Server or NA Server.

Semi-pro SEA players need the money from the local tournaments to increase their low income at the beginning and build a fan base at home (viewers, students, etc.) that is increase when you have success at your local tournaments.

[nGenLight]

Guys I'm loving the theory discussion. However, I am primarily interested in a "set ground rule" here. We've been through this theory discussion many times - this is not what I'm interested in. I am sure your opinions can go well to back up your answers.

P.S: I personally like an "invite" only system, with justification as why this non-resident is invited. If not a community member, strong reasoning needs to be given for his inclusion to SEA events - Not just "Oh he introduced himself, seems very nice and played 100 ladder games".

Quick Comments

PiG:

good man keeps thread on track

[Dox]

As long as the "unknowns" have some sort of history, people will watch. You just gotta tell a compelling story. Throw around words like "ex-fOu" and "SlayerS" and suddenly you get a lot more attention. Derailing, but just something to consider. It's all about how you market the event.

Quick Comments

	nGenLight:	I'm giving you rep even though you don't need anymore
	inFeZa:	like day9daily x2 veteran? D:
	AxSGRiM:
	Reere:

[ROOTPetraeus]

Personally, I think 100 games is acceptable. Any more than that and it gets a bit complicated. That amount of games is no small commitment, especially for players who don't usually play on our server. Anyway, thats just my thoughts.

[faithHunter]

The main problem is when the "foreigners" play 100 games in our server, then stops playing on our server and only start playing again when there's a tournament he wants to join.

IMO we should, other than making them play at least 100 games in our server, also make sure that the last game they played on our server is at least during the last 3 weeks or so.

[ROOTPetraeus]

Originally Posted by neozxa

The main problem is when the "foreigners" play 100 games in our server, then stops playing on our server and only start playing again when there's a tournament he wants to join.

IMO we should, other than making them play at least 100 games in our server, also make sure that the last game they played on our server is at least during the last 3 weeks or so.

Going by that logic, they could just play 1 game every 3 weeks after their first 100 games. I think a certain amount of trust is required for this.

[Peleus]

I suppose I'll bring up a few points since I was the one who originally bought up the topic of asking for balloon (and others) to play.

Firstly - intro thread. This was never a requirement for him to play. No one on sc2sea asked him to do it, no one in SPR asked him to do it, he was already deemed eligable before he made the post. It's simply being nice and trying to make friends in the sea community (hell ask anyone in the spr channel lately with balloon pestering everyone to introduce him to TA members, giving out his email for real id, etc). Balloon never asked me to make the thread asking for him to play.

The post had nothing but good intentions so let's not misrepresent it as some sinister attempt to hoodwink the community.

Secondly - eligibility. Yes I agree clear rules should be made, as most people here know I was pushing for them constantly before I even asked about some players specifically. At least now clear guidelines have been set down. One of the biggest issues I see though is the perception that 'ladder games mean nothing'. To begin with there are very few metrics involved in determining community involvement, so unfortunately the ones we have most likely won't be perfect, but what do you guys really want before they will be accepted? Tiger and yCh for example have played in tons of sea tournaments, and despite being barred from the majority of them still joining the ones they can (I.e. latest masters cup). With all that however its still not enough apparently to be classed as involved in the community, hence denied entry into seal. No worries, I don't have a problem with that, but suddenly were reaching situations where a) ladder games are meaningless b) joining tournaments is meaningless c) even making efforts to post in a non-native language on a forum and buying a sc2 account on a foreign server is being called into question.... Well - wtf do you want?

Suddenly they aren't part of the community until they play more ladder games here than 95% of other players, and even then it will be called into question because they are 'KR awesome players and 50000 games is easy for them?'

Sorry for the angry tone, but I'm really starting to get super frustrated with roadblock after roadblock being thrown up for people that try and integrate into our community then others wondering why our isolated SEA server doesn't start getting exposure on other servers.

Quick Comments

	nGenLight:	You have good intentions, but cool your head buddy, noone is attacking anyone.
	TAEdgE:	good points :) agree with ray though

[ROOTPetraeus]

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

I suppose I'll bring up a few points since I was the one who originally bought up the topic of asking for balloon (and others) to play.

Firstly - intro thread. This was never a requirement for him to play. No one on sc2sea asked him to do it, no one in SPR asked him to do it, he was already deemed eligable before he made the post. It's simply being nice and trying to make friends in the sea community (hell ask anyone in the spr channel lately with balloon pestering everyone to introduce him to TA members, giving out his email for real id, etc). Balloon never asked me to make the thread asking for him to play.

The post had nothing but good intentions so let's not misrepresent it as some sinister attempt to hoodwink the community.

Secondly - eligibility. Yes I agree clear rules should be made, as most people here know I was pushing for them constantly before I even asked about some players specifically. At least now clear guidelines have been set down. One of the biggest issues I see though is the perception that 'ladder games mean nothing'. To begin with there are very few metrics involved in determining community involvement, so unfortunately the ones we have most likely won't be perfect, but what do you guys really want before they will be accepted? Tiger and yCh for example have played in tons of sea tournaments, and despite being barred from the majority of them still joining the ones they can (I.e. latest masters cup). With all that however its still not enough apparently to be classed as involved in the community, hence denied entry into seal. No worries, I don't have a problem with that, but suddenly were reaching situations where a) ladder games are meaningless b) joining tournaments is meaningless c) even making efforts to post in a non-native language on a forum and buying a sc2 account on a foreign server is being called into question.... Well - wtf do you want?

Suddenly they aren't part of the community until they play more ladder games here than 95% of other players, and even then it will be called into question because they are 'KR awesome players and 50000 games is easy for them?'

Sorry for the angry tone, but I'm really starting to get super frustrated with roadblock after roadblock being thrown up for people that try and integrate into our community then others wondering why our isolated SEA server doesn't start getting exposure on other servers.

I have no idea why this thread exists. I thought it was already decided by admins that 100 games was fine.

[nGenLight]

Originally Posted by Petraeus

I have no idea why this thread exists. I thought it was already decided by admins that 100 games was fine.

Just because admins said so doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it. I am well aware that a large proportion of the community does not agree with the "100 games" means your an active SEA player rule. I've played 100 games in less than 24 hours before.

Also, afaik, the 100 games rule was created for Eddie's Master Cup. I did not see a clear carry over from this to the SEACL. The only ruling in the SEACL writes that "Foreginers are not allowed to attend - unless admin gives special permision" - Not exact words but pretty much this.

Clarity is needed, and discussion is good way to find clarity. Don't you enjoy a good discussion anyway? It's not like anyone is being rude or anything

Quick Comments

	Apth:	There should always be discussion.
	Zanderax:	One game ever 14 minutes with no breaks. 100 in a day :D

[nGenLight]

Peleus: Read my post carefully before you decided I am misrepresenting his post as some sinister attempt to hoodwink the community. You are infact, misrepresenting my intention - I do not want to sabotage Balloon in anyways (I am most welcoming of better players in our server), I am here to encourage discussion into creating ground rules for situations such as this - The entire reason we are having these conversations are the lack of ground rules.

The 100 games rule was adopted for the Masters Cup. During the debate with MasterSPR, the 100 game to be "active player" rule was unanimously considered unacceptable and too easily achieved. If the 100 games rule is indeed the standard we wish to hold future foreigners entering SC2SEA events by, the debate that many of us had with MasterSPR now would seem extremely hypocritical as we were so against it, and now adopt it - catering to whoever we feel we wanted to.

If you can't keep a calm mind and a sense of clarity while discussing this, don't say anything at all - You end up sounding like an irrational prick who didn't bother reading what people had to say, and think everyone has an agenda or someshit.

[ROOTPetraeus]

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

Read my post carefully before you decided I am misrepresenting his post as some sinister attempt to hoodwink the community. You are infact, misrepresenting my intention - I do not want to sabotage Balloon in anyways (I am most welcoming of better players in our server), I am here to encourage discussion into creating ground rules for situations such as this - The entire reason we are having these conversations are the lack of ground rules.

The 100 games rule was adopted for the Masters Cup. During the debate with MasterSPR, the 100 game to be "active player" rule was unanimously considered unacceptable and too easily achieved. If the 100 games rule is indeed the standard we wish to hold future foreigners entering SC2SEA events by, the debate that many of us had with MasterSPR now would seem extremely hypocritical as we were so against it, and now adopt it - catering to whoever we feel we wanted to.

If you can't keep a calm mind and a sense of clarity while discussing this, don't say anything at all - You end up sounding like an irrational prick who didn't bother reading what people had to say, and think everyone has an agenda or someshit.

Ok I stick with my first post then.

Quick Comments

nGenLight:

That post was directed at PeleusSPR, should have been more clear sorry.

[ROOTPetraeus]

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

Also, afaik, the 100 games rule was created for Eddie's Master Cup. I did not see a clear carry over from this to the SEACL. The only information in the SEACL writes that "Foreginers are not allowed to attend - unless admin gives special permision" - Not exact words but pretty much this.

To quote frogmite on the SEACL foreigner situation:
We've spoken with the admins concerning those three players,

We'll accept players IF they don't belong to a korean pro team and IF their activity on the SEA ladder is high enough (at least 100 games).

So to resume:

yCHSPR: NO (reason: part of a korean pro team http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/KingKong)
TigerSPR: NO (reason: part of a korean pro team http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-k...ers/2842_Tiger )
BalloonSPR: OK BUT must play a minimum of 100 ladder games before playing in SEACL. He's not active enough on SEA at the moment.

[nGenLight]

Originally Posted by Petraeus

To quote frogmite on the SEACL foreigner situation:
We've spoken with the admins concerning those three players,

We'll accept players IF they don't belong to a korean pro team and IF their activity on the SEA ladder is high enough (at least 100 games).

So to resume:

yCHSPR: NO (reason: part of a korean pro team http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/KingKong)
TigerSPR: NO (reason: part of a korean pro team http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-k...ers/2842_Tiger )
BalloonSPR: OK BUT must play a minimum of 100 ladder games before playing in SEACL. He's not active enough on SEA at the moment.

Fair enough, I've missed this - This only begs the question of whether this minimum of 100 ladder games will be the future standard (since many of us openly/unanimously disagreed with during the debate with MasterSPR).

My own opinion is that its too easily achieved.

Quick Comments

ROOTPetraeus:

exactly

[ROOTPetraeus]

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

My own opinion is that its too easily achieved.

Exactly minus this :P
Please suggest some more balanced guidelines to be achieved.

[nGenLight]

Well, I've stated some before. My personal opinion is that - I am much more inclined to allow players who are proven to be apart of the community like SoulmanSPR than towards a player who has just begun to intiate as part of the community. To me, 100 ladder games is an indication that a player is initiating to become part of the community, but 100 ladder games is far too less to prove that this player is/will continue to be part of the community. 100 games is achievable in a couple of days, to say this is proof of community involvement is an exaggeration.

I certainly don't disagree with "admin discretion". Because admin discretion is necessary for situations where a brain is going to be more useful than written words. However, I am disagreeing with this 100 games rule as the future standard.

Hence, if my suggestion would be the "invite-only" system where admins invite players of their own accord with announcement of why they are invited if they are not SEA regulars. This makes things alot more transparent.

Please keep in mind that I have absolutely no opinion of whether SEA tournaments should expose to the world/foreign players or not, I simply wouldn't care if SEACL was open to foreigners (probably great exposure/challenge as said) - But if we are going to keep the event specifically for SEA - Then yes these grounds rules needs to be set. It further doesn't bother me whether I play a SongheeSPR or BalloonSPR if I do get to play in the SEACL (In my current condition I'd be lucky to take a game off anybody). The only reason I am on this issue is because of politically correctness, and not wanting for SEA to sound/look hypocritical in how we handle things.

[ROOTPetraeus]

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

Hence, if my suggestion would be the "invite-only" system where admins invite players of their own accord with announcement of why they are invited if they are not SEA regulars. This makes things alot more transparent.

To be honest, I like this idea a lot. However, how would you achieve non biased decisions? Who would decide the invites?

[nGenLight]

The admins of SC2SEA do a pretty good of not being biased. However, it could be improved by including community leaders(Clan leaders like - Del, Jump. Prominent figures like - Benji, Dox) from all over SEA as part of the voting comittee to decide on important things like - whether a player is hacking/ruling etc.

However the main idea here isn't aimed at completely eliminating biasedness, but to make things more transparent. Instead of saying "You played 100 games, we now consider you active" which I consider weak. My opinion.

[Peleus]

Ok, so I'm posting on my laptop now instead of the iphone, hopefully I can explain what I mean a little more and articulate my thoughts better.

Light - I apologise if it seemed like I was taking pot shots at you, I'll try and explain what I was getting at a little better.

In your post you state

So is the rule: 100 ladder games on SEA + Posting on SC2SEA.com? Because if that was the case MasterSPR would have taken that option in a heartbeat.

Taking nothing away from Balloon's introduction thread, it is authentic and warmful, it just came at a controversial timing

Drawing links between a post made at 8:09PM, and a decision that was made at 1:32PM was invalid, which was why I was pointing out that Balloons post had nothing to do with eligibility. I don't see it as a controversial timing because it was after any decision was made. If he posted it a day before I asked independently if he could play - you'd perhaps have a very reasonable point.

Ok, the 100 games. Firstly I wasn't here for the master debate with regards to anything taking place in the masters cup, so I apologise if ground was covered there and I'm missing some context. I can say however that I have been involved in the rather large healthy debate about eligibility specifically for SEAL located here - http://www.sc2sea.com/showthread.php?t=3202

You say that 100 games in itself is not a high enough bar for entrants, no problems I can accept your opinion on this matter. The much harder question is - what do you (and the same question for the rest of the community) find acceptable?

I can think of three independent metrics associated with the SEA community.
1) Total games played on the SEA server:

Although it appears this is what the admins have decided to do in this case, it still meets a lot of resistance. There is a perception that ladder games mean nothing, and KR people can simply play 100, 200, 500 games for the sake of eligibility. I'd actually argue that once you do complete 100, 200, 500 games then in some ways you've actually been more active on SEA than many other players on our server, and if anything you could say their contribution has been higher than many 'native' SEA players, but regardless that's the issue thats commonly raised this this metric, making it in some minds, ineligible for measuring.

2) Tournament participation:

Well, it would make sense that people commonly playing within tournaments would be considered part of the SEA community. Let's look at track record though, no one would deny that yCh and TiGer have played in many SEA tournaments, to a point where playing in them itself was the issue. Even when banned from a certain amount of them they still sign up for those which are available to them (i.e. masters cup), yet as we saw in the latest admin decision it wasn't enough to be deemed as 'community involvement'. Therefore it seems as though tournament participation is deemed as irrelevant, before we even get to the fact that it's hardly a fair metric considering many players are bared from entry in the first place.

3) Posting on sc2sea.com

It seems like this is the only metric people are willing to accept, and it boils down to "how many friends do you have here". I'd say this isn't a metric at all, and it's only popularity contest. I also got a little upset in my initial posting because it seemed as though (perhaps incorrectly) even this metric was being called into question with Balloons posting being 'controversial'. I'm sure you can appreciate my frustration if for example someone is told out of the 3 metrics (1) is irrelevant, (2) is insufficient and even when trying to do (3) it's questionable, hence my "Well what do you want?" comment.

I agree completely that clear, objective rules are needed for eligibility. I have been pushing for them quite clearly in other posts. The community however is going to have to accept that no matter what objective rules you post, someone can ALWAYS try and break the system and only complete the bare minimum to be eligible, so a level of trust is going to be needed no matter what. If we can't agree on the trust then we're going to be setting eligibility requirements so high that 95% of SEA players would never meet them, simply to ensure that "someone doesn't slip through" which I think is silly.

Make a reasonable amount of games the metric in my opinion. If you want to ensure it's not a "smash them out" situation then set a minimum of 100 games for the preceding season also. If someone is simply trying to "game" the system by playing 100 games in two consecutive seasons, I'd say they are simply actually being part of the community.

I think this is highly relevant.

http://xkcd.com/810/

[ROOTPetraeus]

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

However the main idea here isn't to complete eliminate biasedness, but to make things more transparent, instead of saying "You played 100 games, we now consider you active" which I consider weak. My opinion.

Its not so much the amount of games, in my mind. Its the time the solidarity of it. Most of the other suggestions have been quite vague and in my opinion, solid rules being put in place will avoid a lot of arguing. Then again, if nothing but a committees decision is mentioned, then there is nothing to argue against. But its almost impossible to not be biased with that sort of thing.

I personally don't see this as a big enough deal that 100 Games won't suffice. However, others do.

I'm not entirely sure about this 'committee' but I would support the idea of invite only, if it was thought out well.

[Stallion]

i think a time rule would be better over a games rule as said they could pump those games out easy. like y not see them active over say the 2 months( a season) before a masters cup that allows the korean players. The big problem with this is what do you deem active? id say 30 games a week would be fine as an active player. This would be 30x8 (assuming there are 8 weeks) = 240 games or make it something like 400 games total if not over that time to force them to really play on our server i feel 100 is really light for a korean player.

Quick Comments

	nGenLight:	Good direction!
	asdfSchnitzel:

[ROOTPetraeus]

Originally Posted by cruxStallion

i think a time rule would be better over a games rule as said they could pump those games out easy. like y not see them active over say the 2 months( a season) before a masters cup that allows the korean players. The big problem with this is what do you deem active? id say 30 games a week would be fine as an active player. This would be 30x8 (assuming there are 8 weeks) = 240 games or make it something like 400 games total if not over that time to force them to really play on our server i feel 100 is really light for a korean player.

If your going to have a rule based purely on the amount of time/games spent on SC2, then that amount just isn't fair. So many SEA players don't play that and to make a foreign player commit to that many games is near impossible. The idea of a 'foreign player' means they don't play mainly on our server.. Either have a small amount of games to play or use another method that they have to prove themselves in.

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by Petraeus

If your going to have a rule based purely on the amount of time/games spent on SC2, then that amount just isn't fair. So many SEA players don't play that and to make a foreign player commit to that many games is near impossible. The idea of a 'foreign player' means they don't play mainly on our server.. Either have a small amount of games to play or use another method that they have to prove themselves in.

I think this is the issue though. You have a couple of different standards. You have the SEA residents who get automatic registration no matter what. And then you get the Korean players coming in just for the tournaments and then leaving again. The burden is on the foreigners to prove that they are part of the community. It's the difference between participating in a community event, which the SEAL is, because you are part of the community and coming in to win some prizes and then leaving again.

One question I would ask is whether we would consider Nemo or Frogmite to be foreigners? Sure they're from France, but I consider them to be part of this community because of the time and effort they put into building this community. The biggest problem is that this is a subjective measure.

If you want an objective measure of ladder games it is always going to be tipping against foreigners. It will always look unfair compared to residents of SEA because it is. This is no disputed, residents and foreigners are under different eligibility requirements. I think that one of the better ways to have an objective measure is to base it on ladder games over time like Stallion suggested. It's much greater than what many SEA residents play, but that's the point, the foreigner needs to prove they are committed to the community/ladder. If they're not committed then they can find tournaments elsewhere.

Two cautions in all of this. Firstly, post count minimums on SC2SEA are not a good idea because it promotes spamming of posts, reducing the quality of the site. Secondly, I believe it will be very rare when there is a disputed case where a player believes they have contributed to the community and they are still refused entry into a tournament. In most, if not all, cases it will be obvious either way.

I think the best situation is to have two different routes of eligibility. Either active on the server, as Stallion suggested, or a variety thereof. Or an active member of the community on the site, ie. Nemo or Frogmite.

One last question for PeleusSPR, where are your players in this discussion? What are their thoughts on all of this? If I've missed them, feel free to point them out, I haven't read the entire thread.

[Peleus]

Also, the issue I see with an 'invite' system is that it's simply no different to an admin decision system, in the sense of it's largely a popularity contest and there will always be bias' etc with any human interaction system.

Any time a player cannot look at a rule sheet, and instantly tell whether or not they are eligible there is a level of subjectiveness involved, and hence a level of controversy. Don't forget if we do implement an objective system (i.e. XXX games over Y seasons) and it appears that it becomes broken due to ineffective benchmarks (i.e. games set to low, seasons not long enough) then we can simply change the rules to be more effective / accurate of what the community wants.

This is why however I'm against any 'invite', 'admin decision', 'what the community thinks' type decisions, because subjectiveness always leaves room for controversy and perceived bias in decisions.

[TAEdgE]

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

Also, the issue I see with an 'invite' system is that it's simply no different to an admin decision system, in the sense of it's largely a popularity contest and there will always be bias' etc with any human interaction system.

Any time a player cannot look at a rule sheet, and instantly tell whether or not they are eligible there is a level of subjectiveness involved, and hence a level of controversy. Don't forget if we do implement an objective system (i.e. XXX games over Y seasons) and it appears that it becomes broken due to ineffective benchmarks (i.e. games set to low, seasons not long enough) then we can simply change the rules to be more effective / accurate of what the community wants.

This is why however I'm against any 'invite', 'admin decision', 'what the community thinks' type decisions, because subjectiveness always leaves room for controversy and perceived bias in decisions.

Can't give rep but yeh this is very true.

Quick Comments

nGenLight:

I can give you rep for agreeing with you but

[nGenLight]

PeleusSPR:

Good I love this attitude much more as we are getting into some discussion.

"Drawing links between a post made at 8:09PM, and a decision that was made at 1:32PM was invalid".

I apologise, I can understand why drawing a link can be considered offensive, I didn't look at the timing either. However my point still stands - would making such posts (authentic or with agenda) help your case on eligibility?

I don't exactly know what is "acceptable" and hence this is why I am trying to encourage discussion into this topic. You listed 3 main points of which I completely agree with and I tend to think a mix of 2-3 of these is usually good enough in demonstrating involvment in SEA. The common similarity all these points have together is - Time. Players like yCH and SoulmanSPR are instantly recognised as SEA regulars because of the immense time they've spent on ladder, tournaments (even disregarding posting on sc2sea).

My concern is that 100 ladder games can be achieved way too quickly - especially if they are all played right before a tournament requiring you to play those number of games. This does not prove that a player is a part of the community, because a quick number of 30 games days is not an indication that the player has spent much meaningful time on the SEA server/community, merely that the player has just begun to intiate into the communty. Whether a player is already a part of the community or whether the player has just begun to play within the community are very different in my opinion - 100 ladder games certainly cannot deferentiate that boundary.

"Make a reasonable amount of games the metric in my opinion. If you want to ensure it's not a "smash them out" situation then set a minimum of 100 games for the preceding season also. If someone is simply trying to "game" the system by playing 100 games in two consecutive seasons, I'd say they are simply actually being part of the community."

This is a great example of the type of answer I am looking for in this thread, I thank you for this. May the discussion continue.

[nGenLight]

I'm taking back my "invite-only" idea after consideration of some insightful posts. I feel like the quickest/simplest answer lies within an metric system of ladder games + activeness in previous seasons.

I propose that player has to be active for the last 2-3 seaons (150-200games) including the current season. Meaning if the player was active in season 2, 3 and 4, and skipped 4 seasons and wants to rejoin a tournament in season 8. He better have a good reason for admins discretion. This shows that the player is active in the SEA ladder scene and can be considered a SEA regular. An introduction post like what Balloon did would help immensely too.

My only concern would be if players used their accounts to boost up the number of games. However that would be an integrity issue which we will leave to another discussion.

[|Erasmus|]

I like a metric system for the sole reason that players know where they stand. They don't put in what they see as a reasonable effort to 'be involved' only to be stuck in limbo waiting for an admin to 'decide' if it's good enough with the possibility of rejection.

As long as they know where they stand so they aren't putting in effort specifically to try and be eligible only to be rejected, I don't care. Cause that's just mean...

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by |Erasmus|

I like a metric system for the sole reason that players know where they stand. They don't put in what they see as a reasonable effort to 'be involved' only to be stuck in limbo waiting for an admin to 'decide' if it's good enough with the possibility of rejection.

As long as they know where they stand so they aren't putting in effort specifically to try and be eligible only to be rejected, I don't care. Cause that's just mean...

I take to long to write my posts.

Quick point about the stuck in limbo waiting for an admin to decide. For the few players that would be unsure either way, and believe it would be only a few the Admins should be able to give suggestions as to what would improve someones contribution to the community. If there is not enough time before the start of the season and they are a border line case then there would be the possibility to join on a probationary term with specific increased community involvement being the requirement beyond a certain number of weeks.

[Maynarde]

God I love this site sometimes, I saw the thread up in the corner and went "UH OH, DRAMA INC" but I've read through it's so sensible and structured I think I'm going to cry manly tears T_T excellent discussion guys.

Us admins were having a REALLY hard time deciding how to quantify a good amount of activity on the SEA ladder that would keep everyone happy. I initially thought that showing a good amount of activity for something like.... 4 seasons in a row would be a good indicator but it was decided not to be. We were initially at 200 games, dropped it to 100, and I personally feel like this discussion is necessary to help us help you.

Keep it going guys Excellent thread Light.

Quick Comments

AxSGRiM:

[xpaperclip]

I've never been a fan of this "x ladder games this season" criteria, because as many have pointed out it doesn't indicate long term activity. It has also been pointed out that the criteria would be one which many SEA pros would fail because they either play customs, or ladder on KR or another server. Demonstrating activeness on SEA should be achieved by playing "many" ladder and custom games over a suitably long period. Unfortunately, this information is somewhat difficult to extract quickly. I like Light's idea of ladder activeness over a number of seasons, as long as they remain as short as they are now (around two months).

A lot of the debate is also around how to define "many", with somewhat arbitrary numbers being thrown around and argued to be too high or too low or both by different people. I think a fair method would be to compare them to other high level players in SEA (i.e. the grandmaster league). I realise the GM league is flawed, but for the purposes of this I think it is OK. In fact, being GM (+ bonus pool) already imposes some form of activity constraint (although probably nowhere near enough).

The benchmark could be set to be having a comparable number of games being played to some percentile of the GM league by the start of the registration date (details can be worked out by admins later on). The pros on SEA are particularly suitable because we don't have a totally messed up GM league, and they also play customs for practice and frequently ladder on another server (KR), so the amount of games is not concentrated into ladder making the number infeasible as a "secondary server player".

Finally, admin discretion can be used to accept those which may fail this criteria but are nonetheless accepted as part of the community, (but never reject someone who has passed it). This allows for flexibility as well as a well-defined criteria which players can use to guarantee them entry.

[Frogmite]

I feel i need to post here as i am the one who posted to accept BalloonSPR in SEACL.

First of all, all the decisions are taken within admins, most of the time we're not all in agreement but we always take the decision of the majority.

Decisions of admins:
In a first time we authorized/refused korean players in SEACL according to admin's judgement only, and there were drama because there were no clue for clans to know which player was eligible or not.
We set some conditions, drama again because we shouldn't quantify the number of ladder game to play and that admins should only invite players.
Admins always have to take that kind of decisions. If we are proven wrong with this season, we will make everything possible to rectify it for next season. There will be a feedback thread at the end of the season to help us improve.
This thread is a perfect tool for us to help us which decision to take for next season .

Player impact/entry restriction:
One player play ONE game for ONE match. It means that one player will only represent 20% of the match. There is no all-kill, so the impact to have or not a good player to play against is reduced.
As soon as you restrict the entry to a tournament, you cannot guaranty that the restrictions will be respected. A player can still borrow the account of his friends to play under his name. So to resume you can refuse any player, there will always be a way for them to play in it.

Last point is a bit harsh, i hope no one will be ofended, but i am sure that if we were training instead of wasting our time making drama, we would beat those koreans. They are not more talented than SEA, they just play more.

Quick Comments

alwaysdryToT:

They are not more talented than SEA, they just play more.^^

[nGenLight]

To RyoomakSPR: Hello, and welcome sir. You make some pretty good points and I can see that you are a really nice and reasonable guy. However, you are missing the point of this thread and my intention, and perhaps expectedly so as you even said yourself that you didn't read all the posts within this thread. No one is questioning you, BalloonSPR or anyones rights to buy a SEA account and play on the SEA Server. Infact, I personally love player against tougher competition, as before I stopped playing I regularly got beaten ten times a day by Korean GMs. I am with Edge and Targa's opinion(summarised here: http://www.sc2sea.com/showpost.php?p=59781&postcount=48) in that I believe we should allow everyone to play, it doesnt bother me but rather excites me.

However, this isn't the issue, the issue that is at hand is that of foreigners eligibility to play in the SEACL, which has a rule that states:

7. You may not include players based outside of Southeast Asia or Oceania in your team unless an admin grants special consideration.

Proposing that is infact a tournament to promote the SEA scene and SEA players, which has their own argument and merit, summarised by Chadman's post here: http://www.sc2sea.com/showpost.php?p=59804&postcount=53. Regardless of whether BalloonSPR is the nicest/friendliest guy in the world, he is not classified as a regularly involved in the SEA Server and therefore scrutiny will take place when 100 games(in less than 2 weeks) will instantly classify him as a regular of SEA - therefore this discussion is taking place. This does not take away our love for you guys' skills and our welcome towards nice people such as yourselves. BalloonSPR's desire to play here is noted and appreciated - But this not change the issue at hand, which is one completely revolving around political correctness, and saying and doing what we said and meant.

To Frogmite:

Originally Posted by Frogmite

Last point is a bit harsh, i hope no one will be ofended, but i am sure that if we were training instead of wasting our time making drama, we would beat those koreans. They are not more talented than SEA, they just play more.

Unfortunately, I did get offended by this statement. As you started being rude to me, I don't feel like holding back about the statements I am about to make. How am I wasting time "making drama" when this was an issue that was obviously not resolved to satisfaction, felt by a large proportion of the community. I enjoy posting and debating politics moreso than I enjoy playing StarCraft II. What is it to you?

Noone has stated the reason we don't want "Koreans" to play is because of them being more talented - The reason we are being so difficult is because of this rule:

7. You may not include players based outside of Southeast Asia or Oceania in your team unless an admin grants special consideration.

This rule obviously aimed at protecting the SEA scene from foreign players whilst special considerations for players that is apart of the SEA scene - This is all fine. Then MasterSPR stirred the scene by submitting an SPR lineup filled with many players that are not considered part of the SEA community. MasterSPR tried to use the "100 ladder games rule" (Originally designed for Eddie's Master Cup) to demonstrate these players are "active" for the tournament. This argument/"rule" was completely obliterated unanimously by the community for being way too easy to achieve (Details of this debate can be found here: http://www.sc2sea.com/showthread.php?p=57030#post57030).

However, after all that debate, the final ruling for the SEACL was still that "100 ladder games" to be the required number for foreign players' eligibility in the SEACL. This not only makes the SEA community look hypocritical in that it's using the same ruling it was very publicly against, but it also is a pretty pathetic of a ruling to try determine a foreign's players involvement in the community, as it fails to address issues like foreign players "smashing out" 100 ladder games in a couple of days, the longevity of these players' continued involvement in the community after the tournament. As you've probably gathered, I am strongly cynical of this "100 ladder games rule" and felt it was decided without ample thought. I am sure a large part of this community feels that this ruling was insufficient, including Nirvana himself who tended towards the higher vote count of his staff. Any player can bypass this "100 ladder games rule" with 2 weeks to go in the tournament - Does 2 weeks of involvment in the scene really spell a player to be apart of the community? I think not.

Regardless, as you have said, whats done is done and let us focus on the tournament and have a good time. Just know that the precedence has been set and I feel that this may lead to the complete abolishment of the non-foreign player rule, which I feel is probably beneficial to SEA anyway.


To iStSPR: Your sentiments (http://www.sc2sea.com/showpost.php?p=59848&postcount=54) are completely in-line with an answer that I have in mind. The three main component of activity in the SEA server can be broken down to: (1) Ladder activity - measured moreso by quantity and time. (2) Activity on SC2SEA.com - measured moreso by quality and time. (3) Extra-curricular activities like streaming, pariticipation in SEA clans and joining tournaments - time. What they all have in common is that they all require huge amounts of time invested in the SEA scene. I do not believe you need more than even one of the above component to be considered active in the SEA scene (although having multiple components does help your case), just ample amount of time. As you have said, someone who has all three components covered like SoulmanSPR had not a shroud of doubt whether he was a regular on the SEA server.

What I propose for the purpose for the future of SEA tournament eligibility is a metric system that covers a timespan of more than 2-3 seasons of ladder in either of the three components: (1)150 Games in 2-3 seasons (yCh). (2) Continued SC2SEA.com activity across 2-3 seasons (Nemo). (3) Known to do extra curricular ideas for SEA scene across 2-3 seasons (More vague, but definitely expandable). Intro posts like what BalloonSPR only help to define himself as part of the server and can be considered into category 2. However, to be honest, I forsee the future of SEA tournaments to be openly avaible to the world as this is probably the better direction to head towards, and trying to protect the SEA scene with 100 ladder games is, as you said, utterly insufficient. Alas, I do not doubt this proposal will stand to no value as the emphasis should now be placed on the actual running of the tournament.

Quick Comments

	Bash:
	Frogmite:	good points

[Peleus]

On iPhone again, so I'll put a more detailed response later but one quick point frogmite.

Firstly id agree by and large there was a little drama to begin with because clans didn't know who was / wasn't eligable.

Id disagree a little with your second point though. I don't think drama was created because admin laid down an objective rule for people to follow and others wanted an invite system (light has actually changed his mind on that now), but rather because it seemed as though objective rules were put in place (a VERY good thing) but rather some members of the community feel like they didn't have a chance to have input into what that objective rule was, hence this discussion.

Taking out of this, it seems that a rule which measures games over 2-3 seasons would be good. Intense activity doesn't seem to be as important as consistent activity. I don't think the amount of games should matter hugely (make in reasonable yet highish) ie 100-150, but really would you ever say 200 is 'participating' and 150 isn't? Don't forget finally we also want them to play on KR ladder, they can't be expected to take extreme requirements and push people alway because they don't devote 100% of their time here, we just want it to be preventative of 'hit and ring' style problems.

Last point (this was meant to be brief *eye roll*) don't focus hugely on SEACL and that one decision. Yes it may have been a catalyst for the discussion, but I personally believe we're discussing the groundwork for the potential hundreds of tournaments to come on sc2sea. Focusing on one case will be to the detrement of others.

Quick Comments

	Xenomorph:	well said
	Maynarde:	Such a good post. I believe time on ladder > amount as well.

[Rage]

I personally support having an objective benchmark - 100 games, or 200 games, or whatever, but then COMBINING that with an admin veto system.

Rather than giving admins the power to allow people to play, give them the power to veto people who meet the technical requirements but who we don't believe are members of the community.

This allows us to have a fairly attainable rule that isn't too draconian for those who are genuinely interested in becoming a part of the community - such as Soulman has done, as well as BalloonSPR appears to be doing.

But it also allows us to screen out those who don't really want to join the community.

For example, if we have a 100 games requirement, and a Korean nobody has heard of or spoken to joins, say, Nerve, and plays his 100 games and then uses that to compete in every SC2SEA event from then on without doing any more ladder games, I think that the admins need the power to say "I don't CARE if you technically met the requirements, you are obviously not interested in participating in this community and so you are barred from entry."

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

Taking out of this, it seems that a rule which measures games over 2-3 seasons would be good. Intense activity doesn't seem to be as important as consistent activity. I don't think the amount of games should matter hugely (make in reasonable yet highish) ie 100-150, but really would you ever say 200 is 'participating' and 150 isn't? Don't forget finally we also want them to play on KR ladder, they can't be expected to take extreme requirements and push people alway because they don't devote 100% of their time here, we just want it to be preventative of 'hit and ring' style problems.

That is the problem with objective measures like this. What is enough? I believe that you have to go overboard to ensure that you keep out the people that are just interested in the tournaments. Consistent activity is the key, but the number still needs to be high to ensure that it is not consistent but just enough to get into the tournaments.

The issue that people have with systems like this is the players that play 100 games exactly just so they can enter the tournament and never play on the server again. If you increase it to 200 or 250 then these players will just play the extra games. If you force them to be consistent over a period of time they are more likely to be part of the community participating on ladder instead of getting to the arbitrary limit and then stopping.

Originally Posted by Rage

For example, if we have a 100 games requirement, and a Korean nobody has heard of or spoken to joins, say, Nerve, and plays his 100 games and then uses that to compete in every SC2SEA event from then on without doing any more ladder games, I think that the admins need the power to say "I don't CARE if you technically met the requirements, you are obviously not interested in participating in this community and so you are barred from entry."

This is a very dangerous system and I personally would not advocate it. This would mean that you add subjectiveness to an objective measure. This is one of the reasons why the objective measure needs to be so high.

I am curious though, enough that I'll skim through the rest of this thread, where are the opinions of the players that this decision will affect? If they are not present in the discussion do they want to be a part of the community or do they just want to know if they are allowed to come and win our league?

[Peleus]

Originally Posted by Bugalugs McScruffin

One last question for PeleusSPR, where are your players in this discussion? What are their thoughts on all of this? If I've missed them, feel free to point them out, I haven't read the entire thread.

I'm guessing by 'your players' you're meaning the players in SPR that are largely effected by this. A few answers
a) I don't know, I don't keep tabs on them
b) I think regardless of how relevant the topic is for them, language barriers will a lot of the time prevent discussion from occurring / they will be more reluctant because they can't carry a conversation / debate very well - also why I'm against 'sc2sea.com' posting requirements.
c) They may simply be less active and haven't checked sc2sea today.

Having directly answered the question I'll also raise what I think is an important point, don't focus on SPR members. This isn't an aim to deflect any scrutiny on 'our' situation as a clan (I don't speak on behalf of SPR with these posts) but rather the inclusion of all foreign players. It may be a SPR member this week, but it may also be a NA player next week, or a EU player the next month. Looking at individual cases is a red herring.

Originally Posted by Rage

I personally support having an objective benchmark - 100 games, or 200 games, or whatever, but then COMBINING that with an admin veto system.

Rather than giving admins the power to allow people to play, give them the power to veto people who meet the technical requirements but who we don't believe are members of the community.

Strongly disagree. I'd be ok with admin veto's for allowing people, but NOT for excluding people*.
a) It brings subjectivity into it, bringing us back to square 1 and fails to whole system, exactly what we're looking to avoid
b) The requirements set (whatever they are) should be the definition of what it takes to be counted as part of our community. Therefore there should never be by definition someone who can pass these technical requirements, but not be a part of our community.

*This is not to say admins should be or would be powerless. If players need to be banned for whatever reason, cheating, racism, BM, whatever of course they can. I'm limiting the grounds to eligibility through participation within SEA. If you think they can achieve the 'technical' requirements but not be a member, argue for higher technical requirements.

Originally Posted by Bugalugs McScruffin

That is the problem with objective measures like this. What is enough? I believe that you have to go overboard to ensure that you keep out the people that are just interested in the tournaments. Consistent activity is the key, but the number still needs to be high to ensure that it is not consistent but just enough to get into the tournaments.

I will refer you back to this... http://xkcd.com/810/

I'm not trying to be a smart a*$@, but my genuine point is if they have completed X amount of games that we as a community has defined as becoming part of it, who cares what their further motive is, our 'goal' of having a level of participation within the community is achieved.

The issue that people have with systems like this is the players that play 100 games exactly just so they can enter the tournament and never play on the server again. If you increase it to 200 or 250 then these players will just play the extra games. If you force them to be consistent over a period of time they are more likely to be part of the community participating on ladder instead of getting to the arbitrary limit and then stopping.

Reading this you may be referring to the 'straight x amount of games period', in which case I agree, but thats why I think the majority seem to accept a 'over 2 seasons' approach. With the number though, I suppose see my above point.

I am curious though, enough that I'll skim through the rest of this thread, where are the opinions of the players that this decision will affect? If they are not present in the discussion do they want to be a part of the community or do they just want to know if they are allowed to come and win our league?

Once more a few points
a) Some may not be aware of sc2sea's existence yet. We're (hopefully) discussing the rules for years into the future, not just current members / borderline cases. The EU pro who wants to be part of the community 9 months from now can't post here at the moment.

b) This post has only been active a few hours, in the other eligibility post there was some contribution from 'borderline' members.

c) Language barriers as I said in a post above will often preclude them from participating in this type of discussion. Nothing against Balloon, but clearly his English is good enough for posting a "Hi guys" type thread, but he is not going to be able to convey his thoughts as many others can.

Again - don't focus on the red herrings of particular cases, set a framework in place that works for both current members and future ones.

[RyooMakSPR]

I just wanted to post my own personal opinion.
I haven't read every single post above in detail so I don't mean to go against nor offend anyone in anyway.

All people who buy the game have the right to play on that server, and it is their equal right to not play as well.The fact that people are discussing and wanting "proof" whether or not a player will be active in the future is ridiculous in my opinion.
Just as an example, if Balloon were to decide to quit sc2 after and stop playing on SEA after the tournament, it would perfectly be in his own right. But that should have nothing to do with his eligibility to play in tournaments beforehand.
Eligibilty to play in tournaments shouldn't be based on participation, ground rules should be non-biased and straight foward, which they already are, unless its an event like SEA-community all-stars or something like that.
In any case if someone's activity is questioned on these forums - because it's an event based on and hosted by this site sc2sea.com, active status in the "community" should be rather determined by site participation in my opinion- when someone joined the site, how many posts he had etc.
In this case it is a clan league, any active clan members of any clan that is part of the SEA community should theoretically be eligible to play- only exception to korean-pros who would take the fun out of a community event.
The problem probably arose because SPR is very lenient with clan members. Many clan members have friends in korea, whom we easily welcome them to be a part of SPR if the come to play on SEA. This is where I believe master made a mistake, trying to get non-active clan members to play.

Not everyone wants to play here, but no one should bar people who actually desire to play here.

You say a hundred games is too easily achieved.. so what? Its not like every foreigner would suddenly come on this server and play a hundred games to play in this tournament. In this case its only one player - balloon. A hundred games in my eyes should be just viewed more as a bare minimum quota set by the admins, just to have a non-biased standard, a minimum commitment just to prove that you actually play here - not to prove you are active.

I would think balloon (who already actively played here) suddenly feels forced to play a hundred games, but I would think he is already willing to accept any criteria that you give him, wanting to prove himself to you guys - probably playing those games right now....

Lets just play and have fun

Quick Comments

	TAEdgE:	where was this english when vsing me on ladder a few months ago t.t
	Xenomorph:	This guy is such a baws

[FaDeBadger]

Originally Posted by RyooMakSPR

A hundred games in my eyes should be just viewed more as a bare minimum quota set by the admins, just to have a non-biased standard, a minimum commitment just to prove that you actually play here - not to prove you are active.

I agree with this, and I'd also like to point out what Frogmite said. The admins had a discussion and decided that for this season the rules outlined i.e 100 game minimum, and not a member of a pro team will suffice and we would take feedback from everybody and adjust if necessary for next season.

Also, as has been stated earlier why should we make non-SEA residents play more games than some of our top SEA players do?

~Edit: Good discussion so far, please keep it going

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

Reading this you may be referring to the 'straight x amount of games period', in which case I agree, but thats why I think the majority seem to accept a 'over 2 seasons' approach. With the number though, I suppose see my above point.

The reason I advocate a high number that seems unfair in comparison to SEA residents is because it is a deterrent for players who just want to enter the tournament and nothing else. This is also why I mentioned the probation system for members who may have just joined the community and not had enough time to establish themselves.

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

Again - don't focus on the red herrings of particular cases, set a framework in place that works for both current members and future ones.

The reason I bring up this specific case is because it is happening right now and gives a precedent. Also, as I said it was more of a curiosity thing. Most of the posts in here have been between yourself, Light and Petraeus.

Originally Posted by RyooMakSPR

All people who buy the game have the right to play on that server, and it is their equal right to not play as well.The fact that people are discussing and wanting "proof" whether or not a player will be active in the future is ridiculous in my opinion.
Just as an example, if Balloon were to decide to quit sc2 after and stop playing on SEA after the tournament, it would perfectly be in his own right. But that should have nothing to do with his eligibility to play in tournaments beforehand.

I totally agree with this. If he decided after SEAL that he has had enough of SC2 then he can drop it and no hard feelings. The issue is whether he is active enough before it starts and during his participating in the league. Or anyone else for that matter. Let's not limit it to Balloon.

Originally Posted by RyooMakSPR

In any case if someone's activity is questioned on these forums - because it's an event based on and hosted by this site sc2sea.com, active status in the "community" should be rather determined by site participation in my opinion- when someone joined the site, how many posts he had etc.

The only issue with this is minimum post counts can encourage people to spam posts instead of contributing something constructive.

Originally Posted by RyooMakSPR

only exception to korean-pros who would take the fun out of a community event.

This is think is the centre of the issue. People do not what foreigners coming in and taking away from the tournament just because they can.

Originally Posted by RyooMakSPR

You say a hundred games is too easily achieved.. so what? Its not like every foreigner would suddenly come on this server and play a hundred games to play in this tournament. In this case its only one player - balloon. A hundred games in my eyes should be just viewed more as a bare minimum quota set by the admins, just to have a non-biased standard, a minimum commitment just to prove that you actually play here - not to prove you are active.

This is an interesting take that does bear considering. As far as I am aware Balloon is in. If it gets changed later, I would hope he is still in. More games would just ensure that only people like Balloon, who really want to join in, would. It would keep out the people who just want to play the tournament or league that has caught their eye.

Originally Posted by RyooMakSPR

Lets just play and have fun

Sounds like a good plan.

[syfChadMann]

imo... Set the requirements to SEA Residence status and be done with it. This means, people like TargA and Frogmite, can play as they spend the majority of their time living in Australia or Singapore (respectively).

Then, in extreme cases, allow people with exceptional community involvement the privilege of participation, such as everyone's favourite French resident, Nemo. Someone that HAS don't alot for this community. I don't understand why people can't accept the non-SEA eligibility. This whole event is a SEA event, to build the SEA scene and SEA players.Not Koreans. No offence, I love the fact that Korean's are challenging the SEA ladder and giving SEA players high quality opposition. But this event, in my opinion, is for SEA.

This would solve all the issues about 100 games? 200 games? no, come and LIVE in SEA.
Blunt I know, and probably not a popular opinion, but this league is about SEA. Plus the debate can end, the players are not on the SPR roster, and the rosters are closed for this season.

Quick Comments

Nemo:

Thanks for the compliment ^^

[aLtShortizz]

Originally Posted by TAChadMann

imo... Set the requirements to SEA Residence status and be done with it. This means, people like TargA and Frogmite, can play as they spend the majority of their time living in Australia or Singapore (respectively).

Then, in extreme cases, allow people with exceptional community involvement the privilege of participation, such as everyone's favourite French resident, Nemo. Someone that HAS don't alot for this community. I don't understand why people can't accept the non-SEA eligibility. This whole event is a SEA event, to build the SEA scene and SEA players.Not Koreans. No offence, I love the fact that Korean's are challenging the SEA ladder and giving SEA players high quality opposition. But this event, in my opinion, is for SEA.

This would solve all the issues about 100 games? 200 games? no, come and LIVE in SEA.
Blunt I know, and probably not a popular opinion, but this league is about SEA. Plus the debate can end, the players are not on the SPR roster, and the rosters are closed for this season.

Im with Chad here.

Anyone remember this lineup and how everyone disagreed with it? How many of the debated players are offically included in the line up now?

SoongheeSPR
SunginSPR
MasterSPR
BalloonSPR
RyoomakSPR
FrapzSPR
Rapz
Hana
taeJa
MaSteR
SoulmanSPR
GGist

And Edge's post right here. http://www.sc2sea.com/showpost.php?p=56928&postcount=8

These Zenith guys have 3 clans afaik. One on their home server KR, NA and then now SPR. I know these becos one of the NA clan LG whom Bomba and some other zenith players participated in Clan wars tried to recruit me. Now im gonna assume most of the rest have their own clans on the KR server as well if not NA too. Some of these clans/teams claim to be ''Pro'' too, like the one soulman just joined btw. So the definition of not being on a 'KR Pro' team is very vague here.

So with the possiblity of incurring wrath, im gonna suggest the SEACL to be a 'SEA residents' only tournament. Why? Because this debate will never cease and new tournaments/Koreans will come along and it just goes on in cycles.

Yes while i agree that having these Koreans will raise the standard of play, but its foolish to think that they will increase ur viewership. If u want a tournament that has Koreans boosting ur viewership, call it the Clan League, not SEACL. Just like Dox cup 2, u can invite players + have an open bracket for sea players. And its not like every top SEA player doesnt have a KR account if they wanna have exposure and improve by playing with the korean players.

Can u guys imagine how stupid it is if i just get a random Korean GM to play some(100) games and then make a few post for him on sc2sea? Im not saying other SPR members are posting for them, im just saying its weird cos their english was never that good when talking to me in-game.

What happened to this being SEA's CL? I dont even know why SPR need these players. With players like Soulman, iSt, Soonghee and Sungin. Surely they have the talent to compete with the best of SEA? And how the hell am i suppose to know who is gonna play on Master's account cos thats like a clan shared account IIRC?

PS: This is solely my personal unbiased view. Not only am i good friends with Frogmite and Bryan, i also loves to play against these Koreans on ladder. However, this just isnt right for me.

Quick Comments

Zealo:

[Peleus]

ChadMann, I'm a little disappointed in your response, not because it doesn't align with what I've been putting forward but because it seems at least like you haven't read through some of the pretty productive discussions we've had here.

"The debate can end, the players are not on the SPR roster, and the roster is closed for the reason" - Well yes, but as we've said many times this isn't about a specific case. It's not about the SPR players, it's about where do we go in the future.

Extreme cases - what do you draw the line? Are you saying that no matter what RyooMak does he shouldn't be eligible to play? What about 100 constructive posts later on sc2sea? What about 1000? When about if he's contributed more than Nemo? I'm sure in some of those cases you'd say yes, in that case he should play.

So really - you're not against foreign players playing, you just have different requirement opinions than other people. There is nothing wrong with this. Saying that, it's very important in my opinion to be able to measure that, rather than it simply turning once more into a popularity contest. If you think the benchmark should be sc2sea participation then please outline how you can measure it so it can be fair to everyone in the future.

[TAEdgE]

Although I keep to the fact that the tournaments sc2sea and others host are SEA tournaments, I have been thinking and in Playhem on NA and EU, and even things like GSL, anyone from out of country can come participate. In TL Open, Koreans play, and in Playhem Violet has some stupid amount of wins (double figures). The reason I can see myself and a few others may be turned off is that compared to NA, SEA has much less depth, and therefore bringing in even the lower pool of top Koreans just puts us to shame.

I however have come to a realisation that i would love them to play, but I just feel that the team 'SPR' will not be 'SPR' if they win. It won't feel the same. I feel that SPR should have had something like two Tier 1 teams, one for SEA based players and 1 for KR based players. I just like the best team winning, and if SPR wins I won't help but feel that they are not the best team in SEA (with all due respect, i love SPR and the members, and respect the skill). SEACL at heart is competition, which is what i've looked forward to all along, but I do like a just and fair winner, so i've just been thinking about SPR winning and although the motives of Balloon, Soulman and RyooMak are completely innocent and completely in love of competition, they take the glory and possibly money and it just feels 'weird'. Not wrong, but weird.

However i've come to feel that feeling 'weird' does not constitute me saying that they can't participate. What I just wrote may not make much sense and things do not connect but I am just confirming that my opinion sort of leans to 'let them play'. I still believe that for THIS tournament, the players need to be active as they are representing TEAMS, not themselves.

SEA has grown since the 5th-9th masters cups and will continue to grow with the LAN events getting much bigger, and the skill level intensifying in my opinion. Dox Cup had invites and was amazing, and I think more tournaments should advertise to koreans, maybe playing off of Lights invite idea - invite 8 koreans to sign up, and first come first serve. The more active ones will most likely see the invite first anyway so just throwing ideas around.

[Rage]

My point with having an administrator veto on anyone wanting to be included is that I beleive it to be impossible to engineer a set of objective, set rules governing who is part of the community.

A set of rules that both include everyone who deserves to be included and excludes those who do not is an impossible pipe dream - you'll always either end up with rules that are too lax that let people through who shouldn't, or rules too strict that bar someone who should be allowed.

"part of the community" is a subjective thing and cannot be defined objectively.

[ROOTPetraeus]

Originally Posted by EdgE

Although I keep to the fact that the tournaments sc2sea and others host are SEA tournaments, I have been thinking and in Playhem on NA and EU, and even things like GSL, anyone from out of country can come participate. In TL Open, Koreans play, and in Playhem Violet has some stupid amount of wins (double figures). The reason I can see myself and a few others may be turned off is that compared to NA, SEA has much less depth, and therefore bringing in even the lower pool of top Koreans just puts us to shame.

I however have come to a realisation that i would love them to play, but I just feel that the team 'SPR' will not be 'SPR' if they win. It won't feel the same. I feel that SPR should have had something like two Tier 1 teams, one for SEA based players and 1 for KR based players. I just like the best team winning, and if SPR wins I won't help but feel that they are not the best team in SEA (with all due respect, i love SPR and the members, and respect the skill). SEACL at heart is competition, which is what i've looked forward to all along, but I do like a just and fair winner, so i've just been thinking about SPR winning and although the motives of Balloon, Soulman and RyooMak are completely innocent and completely in love of competition, they take the glory and possibly money and it just feels 'weird'. Not wrong, but weird.

However i've come to feel that feeling 'weird' does not constitute me saying that they can't participate. What I just wrote may not make much sense and things do not connect but I am just confirming that my opinion sort of leans to 'let them play'. I still believe that for THIS tournament, the players need to be active as they are representing TEAMS, not themselves.

SEA has grown since the 5th-9th masters cups and will continue to grow with the LAN events getting much bigger, and the skill level intensifying in my opinion. Dox Cup had invites and was amazing, and I think more tournaments should advertise to koreans, maybe playing off of Lights invite idea - invite 8 koreans to sign up, and first come first serve. The more active ones will most likely see the invite first anyway so just throwing ideas around.

That was very confusing :P However I like your ideas of having a separate Korean team/Korean invites. As I still don't like the idea of having Koreans play a set amount of ladder games, this seems like a better option.

[nirvAnA]

To answer your question light - yes there are "guidelines" in place. Its not belonging to a korean professional team and having at least a 100 games. Still we aren't a merciless unflinching bureaucracy so there is still room to evaluate certain players on a case by case basis if the need for it arises for e.g soulman who belongs to a pro-team will still be allowed to play.

To give you some background info, we have a group of the 11 SEAL admins on skype where we discuss the rules, formats and decisions for the league. So we already have that "committee" and yes deL and Chadmann are inside too. As for this Ballon case, I personally felt 100 games was way too little myself but the majority of the admins felt it was reasonable enough and hence froggy made that post http://www.sc2sea.com/showpost.php?p=59379&postcount=99. If the majority of people feel a certain way I almost always let go of my personal preferences and support their decision.

Yeap so as froggy said lets focus on the league now!

[Peleus]

Edit: to rage, others posted after

Without trying to get into a word play here, I'll try and explain my opinion.

In this decision, with rules being outlined or not, there will ALWAYS be subjectivity. How many games constitute being a member of the community? How many posts? Etc.

Saying that, I think its the lessor of evils to subjectively decide once, then objectively apply the standard accross multiple cases then it is to make a subjective decision every time.

Both having a perfect ruleset and making perfect decisions every time is a pipe dream. May as well clearly outline what the current thibking is though so people know where they stand and adjust it later if needs be.

[syfChadMann]

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

In this decision, with rules being outlined or not, there will ALWAYS be subjectivity. How many games constitute being a member of the community? How many posts? Etc.

Saying that, I think its the lessor of evils to subjectively decide once, then objectively apply the standard accross multiple cases then it is to make a subjective decision every time.

Both having a perfect ruleset and making perfect decisions every time is a pipe dream. May as well clearly outline what the current thibking is though so people know where they stand and adjust it later if needs be.

The problem with setting a specific number of games or posts on the community site suggests, quantity, not quality. Its seems a definitive rule is being sought so that particular number can be attained and force the involvement of foreign players. I'll explain myself further, while its nice to have all people form all over the world playing together, this specific league is about the SEA scene, and its overriding goal is to promote and invest into the SEA talent pool, so eventually we can become more and more competitive in the international eSports scene. Allowing an all Korean team to dominate the league would just show the world that SEA can't compete.

A better benchmark of community involvement, something that Frogmite and Nemo pass - and perhaps even TargA. Is a greater involvement in the SEA scene than any other scene. So if Korean pros want to turn their attention to developing the SEA scene, then I welcome them. I doubt any of the Koreans would spend more time playing in SEA and being part of the SEA scene than they do with their domestic scene. So they should develop a similar league for Korean's to play in - then they can deny us and we'd know what its like .

However, I hope everyone enjoys this season! lets put SEA on the SC2 map!

[iSt]

I agree with setting specific definition of being 'active' in SEA server from now on.

Personally, I think having 100 games as the only standard to determine a player's activity is clearly insufficient.

No body in this community argues against the fact that Soulman is active in SEA.

There are few things that Soulman did that differs from other players who are willing to be active in SEA server.

1. Number of games > 100;

2. Streaming;

3. Posting on this site; and

4. Time spent on this server.

I do not think 2. streaming and 3. posting on this site should be the main critieria to determine whether someone is active or not, however do believe that these 2 criterias can be a supportive factor in reaching a decision.

I believe time spent on this server is quite important. A person can play 100 games in 2-3 days if he or she decides to so. However, we cannot call someone who played 2-3 days in this server as being active merely because he or she passes the 100 games requirement.

Accordingly, I think, a player should play 100 ladder games for a month (evenly distributed over the month, as opposed to playing 100 games in 2-3 days and not logging in for the rest of the month), to be active in this server.

The person who has the authority to determine whether a player has played his or her games evenly throughout the month should be the admins as opposed to granting a complete authority to admins to decide whether someone is active or not. Granting a complete discretion to the admins is bound to cause further disagreements among the community members.

Some members may think that a month is too long, however, I think, imposing a strict criterion against a foreigner willing to join this community is necessary. After all, it is them who are willing to join this community and they should do their best to satisfy the rules that the community imposes. Mere 100 games is way too lenient.

Additionally, I would like to note that if any rules are adopted by this community, it should apply to members who are newly introduced from the time that the rule began to operate. The only rule that was given to Balloon from this community, (despite the disagreements between the members) was 100 games.

I think this is the best way to deal with the situation.

Quick Comments

	FaDeBadger:
	asdfSchnitzel:	Great solution
	nGenLight:	This is exactly what I was getting at, I really respect the way you thought this through

[Cordance]

OK so Ive done a lot of reading...

My ballpark figure for number of games is around 25 per week. Given 5 min cheesy games that is 2 and a bit hours per week. If you are playing 30 min macro games its 12.5 hours. This should be consistent the season before and current seasons to so you active not spam gaming. The only problem is its not easy to keep track of this weekly.

I think pro/non pro is determined purely on tournament rules aka admins. Clearly Clan league you having a pro house to practice with gives you a bit of an edge on other clans in SEA. Masters/Dox Cups seems like a more reasonable location to have pros playing but depending on the admins of said tournaments seems like the best ruling on that.

Joining a clan should be an important factor in being a part of the community. I would go so far as to say after one season of competing if the person has not joined a clan their community involvement should be questioned. There are going to be reasons but admins should be letting the player know how this is negatively effective them. As part of a clan members are able to see their activity a little easier for boarder line issues.

Special rulings should always be there for people who are active on SC2SEA.com activity and contribution via the website is purely subjective so should be judged by admins of the site. Getting in via the site is really about getting noticed for your work. This is the backdoor into tournaments via hard work and dedication.

Time lived in SEA should be another consideration point. If you are a non citizen living in SEA then well you are living there it seems reasonable to let you play under the same rules of citizens of SEA. Once you move away Im not sure if putting you in the same boat as non SEA players is fair because the chances are you have friends etc and are a part of the community. Would probably be entrance via the SC2SEA.com participation with admin approval.

Finally those who say 100 games on SEA not enough. The statement is not very useful with out quantifying what you think is enough. Also well done for keeping this mostly mannered. We need some kind of catchy slogan for the sea server like "MANer up and play on SEA."

[Peleus]

This is probably going in circles a little, I'm really tired after a shitty week at work and I suppose that not much will change unless the admins want it to anyway, so I'll probably make this my last post on the subject.

If we start getting into a X games per week type deal, I think we're over thinking it wayyyyy to much. Admins need to be able to jump on sc2ranks.com or the starcraft 2 client, and be able to check within 30 seconds how much was played this season and last. Done, dusted, settled. No one is realistically going to be going through keeping tabs of the foreigners of the server and creating a weekly account, or producing a rolling weekly average of what GM players are playing and comparing it against it etc.

Seriously XXX games over 2 seasons addresses almost every concern of anyone who isn't for outright banning of overseas players. It covers the main points of playing over a period of time, and having an acceptable level of activity, while also being objective and leaving room for bullshit as to "yes you're popular enough" or "no you're not popular enough".

Really though, do people actually think that if we set down a rule of 100 games per season there will be an invasion of pro's coming into sea tournaments? You really think they are going to go and spend 2+ months of their lives going through just to be eligible for relatively minor tournaments? Chances are you'll find a few people put the effort in to make the cut, a few won't and in that case it's no big deal but we can forever move on as to what people accept as eligible players and what people don't.

Anyway, unless Nirvana actually wants it to change it's all for nothing (not saying he does / doesn't). I think i'll have a break from sc2sea for a while, getting a bit to involved with everything.

[Eddie]

Fwiw TigerSPR has never played in a Masters Cup before despite some people saying he has.

This Sundays open event will be his first. He would have been eligible under the old rules of active = about 100 games on SEA that season.

The Masters Cup has changed from the International but active entry ok rules, to the current system of 2/3 just for SEA and the 3rd an open one, don't have to be active. Our reasons for this change have been documented elsewhere around the site, and so far it seems the majority support this change.

KingKong and Soulman were the regular MC guys.

I liked Balloons Intro post. Hopefully he can post/contribute more here, and enjoy his time laddering on SEA. Both are great ways of showing he wants to be a part of the community.

Quick Comments

	nirvAnA:
	Nemo:	Wise

[Rage]

Measuring a subjective thing ("part of a community") with objective rules is always going to be nigh on impossible.

I'm not sure why we're bothering to try.

[Frogmite]

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

Unfortunately, I did get offended by this statement. As you started being rude to me, I don't feel like holding back about the statements I am about to make. How am I wasting time "making drama" when this was an issue that was obviously not resolved to satisfaction, felt by a large proportion of the community. I enjoy posting and debating politics moreso than I enjoy playing StarCraft II. What is it to you?

Yeah sorry to have posted that, i was a bit stressed with work and posted that without really thinking twice. That was not really smart from me sincere apologies to all i offended.

And as i said in my post too, this thread is a very good material for us to help us make a better SEACL season 3.

Quick Comments

	nGenLight:	Apologies accepted, sorry for being rude myself. You are a good man and done so much for this community.
	nirvAnA:	w0w0w0w group hug santa frog!

[nGenLight]

I do less than 0.01% of what you do and I criticize so harshly, which is a pretty rude thing to do. Sorry. I know your intentions are in the best interest of the community. It's easy to sit on the sidelanes, critize and take the great things for granted, and I always forget that. I always feel bad afterwards after remembering the work you guys put in, I do appreciate you guys alot.

><

P.S: I think of what I'm gonna write in my post whilst I'm getting iT on, I think I have an issue.

Quick Comments

	FaDeBadger:	We still love you
	syfChadMann:	So manner! :)
	dippa:	i too approve of thoughts about gaming forums while mid-coitus

[nirvAnA]

I just wanna talk about this particular point

"(2) Continued SC2SEA.com activity across 2-3 seasons"

A lot of SEA residents do not even use this forum actively in the first place. They just like to "lurk" so to be fair to these guys the "non-sea" players shouldn't be punished for this, although it certainly HELPS ALOT if they are active on sc2sea.com. I guess what i'm saying is it shouldn't be a requirement but it can be one of the good indications of activity. Another measurement of activeness might be if people are familiar with them like how everyone knows Soulman etc cause he ladders so much and is active in our tournaments. And clearly alot of SPR guys hang out together and chat / idle with each other on SEA but stuff like that is so hard to measure.

Anyway thanks for sharing that light I know you always have good intentions at heart that's why you're an MVP and I hope to see more of that Mr. Manner Protoss Hero around!

Edit: Opps I should have read all of it was just skimming through the posts lol

Quick Comments

nGenLight:

I meant either of the three components Bryan, one or the other or both or thrice it doesn't matter.

[foxmeep]

100 wins or 100 games? You can ladder 100 games in 2 days, no sweat. The criteria should be based on what would classify someone as ACTIVE in the community.

My suggestion would be x number of games in the previous AND x number of games in the current season (pro rata depending on how far in). This would stop people simply grinding out sufficient games when they decide they want to join an upcoming tournament.

Edit: Though really, the best solution is to simply run tournaments on SEA (anyone with a SEA account can join), and for SEA (anyone with residency in a SEA country can join)

[Nemo]

If they want to play, they must play drunkcraft, even if calling from the Moon. Period.

Quick Comments

Frogmite:

You really have a microphone problem nemo <3

[NvJazBas]

imo just see how the thing goes. Like, if BalloonSPR becomes inactive(without a good reason) from SEA and shows no interest in future SEA events or community events(some even without prize pool such as race wars or KOTH that happened some time ago) after this SEACL, then we can say "BalloonSPR only played 100ladder games quickly just to participate and get money from SEACL".

But if he actually is still active on SEA and our community, (which also helps in promoting our region too imo) we can say "BalloonSPR played 100 ladder games so quickly because he was so passionate to join our community".

IMO

[nGenLight]

Originally Posted by xGKingJazBas

imo just see how the thing goes. Like, if BalloonSPR becomes inactive(without a good reason) from SEA and shows no interest in future SEA events or community events(some even without prize pool such as race wars or KOTH that happened some time ago) after this SEACL, then we can say "BalloonSPR only played 100ladder games quickly just to participate and get money from SEACL".

But if he actually is still active on SEA and our community, (which also helps in promoting our region too imo) we can say "BalloonSPR played 100 ladder games so quickly because he was so passionate to join our community".

IMO

Obviously this is what is going to happen this season since the ruling is final. As I have said, we should rule based on their previous commitment rather than "interest" or "potential commitment". All foreigners has the potential to join SEA tournies for one shot, without commitment, if this is the rule that we will set.

[dippa]

either force it so comps are SEA residents only or require other participants to have showed a consistent level of activity in the SEA scene over the last three seasons (so s3, s4 and s5 would be valid in this case).

level of activity could be defined by an mixture of x amount of ladder games (150-200), participation in x number of open tournaments (community opens should be open to all for this reason, otherwise there is no actual way to "prove" your activity beyond ******* about on ladder) and some credits for contributions towards the forums.

(just an idea, ofc)

(also, i miss you ray ray)

[Dox]

After tonight's Masters Cup results?

BRING ON THE WORLD.

[dippa]

Originally Posted by Dox

After tonight's Masters Cup results?

BRING ON THE WORLD.

settle down icarus

[Peleus]

Originally Posted by Dox

After tonight's Masters Cup results?

BRING ON THE WORLD.

Who would have thought after so much negativity about Korean's they could ever be beaten.

Quick Comments

	EveMassacrisM:	Dont like the tone of this.
	ROOTPetraeus:	counter rep!

[AxSGRiM]

with moonglade as final boss

[Strafe]

I just bumped into this thread and I skimmed through, so I apologize if I repeat a thing or two that someone already posted.

Personally I feel that SEA is a somewhat unique server compared to all others. Reason being that the general skill level on SEA is a lot lower than KR/NA/EU and most of the SEA residents cannot play on those other servers due to latency issues. Therefore some of us are limited to competition on this server only. When foreigners invade to scoop some easy to be won tournaments that can be frustrating.

However if you are in favor of stronger competition it seems counter intuitive to ban strong players from tournaments, because they are too strong. In fact we should welcome stronger players on the server in general.

You can achieve higher skill levels on SEA by forcing strong Korean players to be active on our servers. This will greatly help players from SEA to get practice vs players a lot stronger than themselves, which they otherwise would never be able to play. So when we force Koreans to play at least 500 or even a thousand ladder games before they can enter the tournament we actually increased the skill level on our ladder and therefore of our players and at the same time we prevented Koreans from coming in and scooping 'our' only chance of competing with each other in tournaments for $$$.

If you think 1000 games is a lot than you must think again. I played 1600 ladder games last season alone and MKP is said to play 3k-4k ladder games per season. Also these Koreans that are really good easily get this number. I know it seems like a high number, but you must realize we want these players to contribute to our competition on the ladder.

So I feel we should even invite Koreans for our tournaments and encourage them to become active on our ladder. This will make us SEA players stronger and eventually boost stronger players we can send to competition internationally. Just my 2 cents.

Quick Comments

nirvAnA:

1600 ladder games strafe you are a beast!!!