[nGenLight]

Originally Posted by EveVendetta

Hmmm, I actually feel that it is fair to Iaguz if there is no re-game, due to 2 reasons.

1. He was also at fault for not knowing that the map was not in the map pool.
2. Like Eddie posted above, if the match actually led to Rev advancing to the next round (he did but in this case he got a walkover), and the following matches were played out, there wouldn't be any chance of a re-game happening as Rev would have played his next opponent already. Thus it shouldn't be any different in this case imo.

However, if Rev is more than happy to have a re-game, a completely new BO5 should be played out instead of just the final match, and maybe to compromise for Rev's disadvantage he could start the series 1-0 up?

Anyway guess the admins are gonna make the final decision, just my 2c.

Although I agree with the merits of the two reasons you brought up, saying it is fair to Iaguz here is a load of crap. He obviously got the short end of the stick by playing on a map that was not in the map pool, I don't see how you can say it was fair. Also regarding point 2, although a good point, there was no next match played, Iaguz realised the issue like one minute after the game, there was no previous ruling regarding this(hence the purpose of this thread), the admins made a call which I find questionable. (I honestly hate this attitude - a mistake was made, oh let's just run along with it, highly unprofessional). However, arguments made regarding the disadvantage for Revz upon a regame is dully noted.

Paroxysm: I'm not claiming this on the basis of precedence nor am I claiming the GSL/IPL cases were of a similar nature, I merely used those examples as an indicator of just how much of an extreme of a scenario could constitute a regame. My intention is for this discussion is to set a precedence for the future. Also I think you are underestimating the importance of a map. For example, I cringe at tournies with no vetos, because it usually means I have to play Metalopolis or Dual Sight, which I find ridiculously hard against Zerg (No way to cover all 3 bases). I would not want playing on this map to be the indicator of my skill level.

I obviously knew there were many different perpsectives to this issue, hence the poll and thread, and it was great to hear many of them, whethere I agree with them or not. If this could be seen as the "Event Report" Baldie speaks of, let this be it.

[nGenLight]

^ Good, strong point.

[BaKaiNu]

We (the admins of seasl) are having a discussion over the situation at the moment. We will post the result of the discussion hopefully by tomorrow night. As far as I can tell, it can go either ways, regame or result staying as it is. If it is a regame, we will decide on a date next week for the regame to be played, and a map choice (from the map pool) by Revenant.

That being said, future qualifiers, regarding map pool choices by the loser will have to go through the admin first, to avoid such incident again.

I personally apologize to the parties involved in this incident, and we will do our best to run future qualifiers and tournaments as smoothly as possible.

Regards,
BakaInu

Quick Comments

	PiG:
	Baldie:
	nirvAnA:
	Nemo:	Baka !
	ROOTPetraeus:	baka the hero <3
	x5_dot:

[PiG]

I'm tired so im going to tread carefully here and not fall into the trap of using stupid examples and throwing my opinion around. Like I said I'm open to changing my mind here but so far am not being swayed too far.

I completely disagree with the idea of blindly following rules. This is because I don't feel the rules in any way were made to cover this situation. A judge's job is to interpret both the purpose of a law as well as its technical aspects of said laws.

The idea that this match just didn't happen or is invalid because it was on a map not in the pool does in no way mean that there should be a regame. Both players hosted this game, invited each others and casters and sat down and played a full game of starcraft. Afterwards Iaguz realised it wasn't in the map pool. He was investigating because he felt that the map led to him choosing a build which happened to be a bad choice versus the build Revenant chose. At this point he realised and complained to friends and admins, who told him there was to be no regame.

Let's imagine it was decided as a regame immediately (this way we can ignore the problems of a delayed regame, though I agree in formulating a rule we need to cover this). Iaguz could rechoose his build more wisely and potentially fix the many errors in his gameplay. Revenant on the other hand who has most likely been elated and celebrating for the past few minutes now is told "hey, your win doesn't count", you have to play again. The consequences are massive in that rev has to rethink his whole gameplan and his winning strategy and play from the previous game is potentially useless in a regame.

I feel that Iaguz has copped the short end of the straw in this situation and I wish there was a way to fix that original error. But I think stripping winners of their title and making them regame due to a wrong map after the finalisation of a victory is even more of a blow to the winner than it is to the guy who lost, in part cos of a crappy map.

Originally Posted by xGKingMafia

Yes he beat his opponent on a map that is invalid in the tournament how does that mean he deserves a win? If the roles were reversed and iaguz chose Antiga and won with Antiga not being in the map pool do you think he deserves the win

I think if he played a full game and won it then yes, I do.

Quick Comments

	nirvAnA:
	Asrathiel:	Agreed.

[Peleus]

Originally Posted by PiG

I feel that Iaguz has copped the short end of the straw in this situation and I wish there was a way to fix that original error. But I think stripping winners of their title and making them regame due to a wrong map after the finalisation of a victory is even more of a blow to the winner than it is to the guy who lost, in part cos of a crappy map.

Hey Pig,

First I think this is a legitimate counter argument with merit, and if it was a simple situation we'd all be calling for one ruling or the other, not seemingly split down the middle as we all are, so don't take this as a dismissal as to what you've said.

Secondly before I continue I want to make sure that people know I do NOT think that Rev cheated / tried to gain unfair advantage in any way deliberately, and I think it was an honest mistake.

Saying that, I think stripping a win from Rev is pretty harsh, but I think it's neccessary considering it can be summed up that he won the game while having an unfair advantage. This is the biggest thing in my opinion which makes the win invalid and a regame necessary. Big or small he got to choose a map that he preferred when it was outside the map pool, granting him more of an advantage than would otherwise be possible. I hope this isn't a poor analogy but imagine they played on a custom map which had mules cost 25 energy. The Terran genuinely doesn't notice this but get's the advantage of extra mules throughout the game and wins. The opponent notices in the replay after what has happened and asks for a regame, should the result stand?

I'd say most people would agree no it wouldn't stand, because although the Terran won it was through an unfair advantage. My analogy demonstrates a different type of advantage than Rev / Iaguz experienced, but I don't think you can argue that Rev didn't have an unfair advantage in the match.

Yes it's harsh making them regame, both players suffer with loss of strategies they used etc (no doubt Rev suffers a little more), but it would be the same situation in a hardware fault 6-7 minutes in. Sucky for all but not preventing a regame.

[UHF]

I think what's most important is that an admin was involved.

Initially, the fault lies with the player for choosing an incorrect map. IMO it should have been called a regame directly after it was played - as many would agree.
However, if an admin was consulted and a ruling was made for the result to stand, then the fault no longer lies with the player. If it turns out it was the wrong decision after the fact, then the admin have to wear that - and not the player.

[zendex]

Players' responsibility to know the map pool beforehand. I thought this was basic?

[Paroxysm]

To be honest, you can't claim this on the basis of 'precedence' and argue with the GSL/IPL cases. The circumstances of those two events greatly differ from Iaguz' case. In neither of them were the games restarted because of an issue regarding human error, they were restarted because of hardware faults. Because these cases are not sufficiently relevant, they cannot be argued with regards to this case.

^ Bit of law for everyone

I think though, that had Iaguz realised mid game and said, 'my beard sense is tingling' and went on to explain that meta wasn't in the map pool, that would result in a regame. But, given the circumstances, it seems more as an excuse as to why he lost and a second chance at taking a spot on the tournament (despite everyone knowing him and that seeming unlikely, its how it looks) You cannot give someone a second chance after the game has been played, it just isn't fair to Revz, who won his game. There are two sides to it though. If I won a game like this only to (possibly) get a game taken off me and have to regame (Revz), I would be a little bit confused and disappointed at the system.

At the time of the game, both players were under the impression that they were playing a game on the right map pool, and it should have reflected their skill no matter what. Yes, map imba plays a part, but you guys get what i'm getting at?

Quick Comments

	nirvAnA:
	x5.Revenant:
	JaFF:
	deL:	This
	x5_dot:

[Xeen]

Playing a game on pretty much any map is 'fair', but that's not the point when I look at the situation. If people can simply step outside the tournament rules, there is little point in defining them at all. Accepting a different map simply because players agreed on it is problematic for a few reasons:

A) If players are unaware of key information related to the agreement (ie: they agree because they think it is in the map pool when it is actually not), the agreement would be voided anyway.
B) This logic extends to absolutely anything map-wise, meaning if my opponent was moronic I could get him to play me on Shrinkage, and it would be 'fair' because it's an agreed game of Starcraft.
C) It is not the authority of the players in the first place, but of the tournament admin, to decide whether or not a different map is acceptable.
D) If Revenant is given a win on Metalopolis, it is unfair for other players who may have been better prepared to play on Meta against their own opponents, but did not have the opportunity to use the map because they followed the rules.

Unfortunately, it's now impractical to have a regame, but this does not reflect well on the tournament administration that simply let players bend the rules. Furthermore, stating ignorance of the rules (in this case, the players of the map pool) is not a valid defense against anything, and thus the requirements of playing on a map in the map pool should have held.

I would have required a regame.

Quick Comments

	nGenLight:	Generally the position I'm taking, except I'm a little bias for my teammate.
	iM MaFia:

[deL]

It's the duty of both players to ensure the map being played is correct so the result should stand.

[iM tgun]

I'm not going to reply specifically to you guys, but I have to reference that admins have taken a very harsh line with map-pools historically: I remember a while back in brood war, for instance, Idra played MaNa on a map that wasn't in the map-pool and was forced to regame.

The difference in the maps was the same as the difference between MLG Metalopolis and IPL4 Metalopolis: absolutely nothing but the branding of the name, yet they were forced to regame.

The problem, as applied to this thread, is if a map that isn't in the pool is played, as per rules, it needs to be re-gamed. Strictly speaking, if we break the rules here (allowing maps not in the pool to be played), where do we stop? Do we allow players to re-game at their will (see: Demuslim v Scarlett at IPL4, demuslim re-gamed w/ scarlett because she dropped evo instead of spawning pool), which can (and will) lead to match fixing.

It's a shit spot for the admins, but I think it's a regame.

[deL]

Originally Posted by tgun

I'm not going to reply specifically to you guys, but I have to reference that admins have taken a very harsh line with map-pools historically: I remember a while back in brood war, for instance, Idra played MaNa on a map that wasn't in the map-pool and was forced to regame.

The difference in the maps was the same as the difference between MLG Metalopolis and IPL4 Metalopolis: absolutely nothing but the branding of the name, yet they were forced to regame.

The problem, as applied to this thread, is if a map that isn't in the pool is played, as per rules, it needs to be re-gamed. Strictly speaking, if we break the rules here (allowing maps not in the pool to be played), where do we stop? Do we allow players to re-game at their will (see: Demuslim v Scarlett at IPL4, demuslim re-gamed w/ scarlett because she dropped evo instead of spawning pool), which can (and will) lead to match fixing.

It's a shit spot for the admins, but I think it's a regame.

But was that in a tourney where they had the event or sponsor name in the map name or loading screen?

[iM tgun]

Originally Posted by TAdeL

But was that in a tourney where they had the event or sponsor name in the map name or loading screen?

That's a minor difference: it's more to the fact that the games were played on almost identical maps yet re-gamed because they have to be played on xyz maps. If you were that worried about your sponsors, you'd plug them more and/or put an overlay up.

[deL]

Originally Posted by tgun

That's a minor difference: it's more to the fact that the games were played on almost identical maps yet re-gamed because they have to be played on xyz maps. If you were that worried about your sponsors, you'd plug them more and/or put an overlay up.

Sponsors change everything - you can't compare that with general rules. For mine every scenario and rule will never be written so all you can ask for is consistency. It was the player's responsibility to ensure they play on the right map and the admin's responsibility to do the same but once the game is played the result has to stand. If midway through a player had mentioned it was not in the map pool then obviously they would regame from that point.

The fact that admins weren't hosting and checking the games and maps this far in to the tournament suggests the map pool was not intended to be a strict, priority rule. As Eddie mentioned both players were playing as if it were a legitimate map and and if the players had done any kind of special practice or training on the maps of the tournament that would mean deviating from it would disadvantage them significantly they would have picked up that the map was not available.

Though I don't usually like placing the responsibility on one of the players I feel if Revenant offered a regame it would be acceptable.

[iM tgun]

Originally Posted by TAdeL

It was the player's responsibility to ensure they play on the right map .

I keep seeing people say this. It's not. The players have way more than enough on their mind: admins are there to run the tournament, settle disputes and ensure maps are made/played. If you have ever seen the playhem daily, admins are constantly making games for players, esp. those games which are to be streamed.

Stop putting the fault on the players. It's not the players fault.

[Paroxysm]

Originally Posted by Peleus

Saying that, I think stripping a win from Rev is pretty harsh, but I think it's neccessary considering it can be summed up that he won the game while having an unfair advantage. This is the biggest thing in my opinion which makes the win invalid and a regame necessary. Big or small he got to choose a map that he preferred when it was outside the map pool, granting him more of an advantage than would otherwise be possible.

I'm curious as to how you can claim it as an unfair advantage? Both players legitimately thought that Metalopolis was a part of the map pool before and during the game, and thus had even footing while playing. Rev may have preferred the map, but Iaguz agreed to it, and made no objection until after he lost.

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

Paroxysm: I'm not claiming this on the basis of precedence nor am I claiming the GSL/IPL cases were of a similar nature, I merely used those examples as an indicator of just how much of an extreme of a scenario could constitute a regame. My intention is for this discussion is to set a precedence for the future. Also I think you are underestimating the importance of a map. For example, I cringe at tournies with no vetos, because it usually means I have to play Metalopolis or Dual Sight, which I find ridiculously hard against Zerg (No way to cover all 3 bases). I would not want playing on this map to be the indicator of my skill level.

I obviously knew there were many different perpsectives to this issue, hence the poll and thread, and it was great to hear many of them, whethere I agree with them or not. If this could be seen as the "Event Report" Baldie speaks of, let this be it.

I understand the importance of a map, but in a game where both players agree to the map selection, under the belief that it is in the map pool with no conflicting mindsets at the time, then the final result should stand. As I said earlier, if Iaguz, bless his beard, realised in the middle of the game that it was not in the map pool, a regame would be viable. Even if it was the instant the game finished.

I personally believe that an Event Report has to be written by the admins of the event, to ensure that no problems like this occur again. But I also think that people need to adhere to management and admin decisions. There is absolutely nothing more frustrating than running a tournament and having people argue with you while you are trying to organise 125 other people to play their games etc. I understand that this may be a bit exaggeration, but you catch my drift. Iaguz initially asked for a rematch, which is a fair call. The admins discussed it, and came to the conclusion that it was not a viable outcome. DONE. Case Closed. That shit is like NCIS. Sure its bad that he copped the short straw, but someone had to either way it went. He hasn't posted in this thread (apologies if I missed it) which makes it seem as though he is no longer interested in what happened. If this is a case then 'sticking up for your teammate' does not warrant a thread to discuss what you think are 'poor' admin decisions.

If we are going to discuss poor decisions, we should ask what constitutes a poor decision? Perhaps this will help us to avoid it in the future
In this case, the admins are RUNNING THE TOURNAMENT. THEY ARE IN CHARGE OF WHAT HAPPENS. Their decision should be considered final, and shouldn't be questioned. You may not agree with what they say, but that doesn't make it a bad choice.

EDIT: JUST WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW I AM NOT AIMING TO SOUND RUDE IN ANY OF THESE POSTS. ALSO JUST READ LIGHT'S LATEST COMMENT AND I THINK WE SHOULD RENAME THE THREAD, AND DELETE SOME USELESS POSTS AND LEGITIMATELY DISCUSS HOW WE CAN AVOID THIS SITUATION FROM HAPPENING AGAIN. TO DO THIS WE COULD USE PRECEDENCE (I.E. PRO REMATCHES), EVENT REPORTS AND PROBABLY A FEW OTHER THINGS AS WELL.

[nGenLight]

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

I'm curious as to how you can claim it as an unfair advantage? Both players legitimately thought that Metalopolis was a part of the map pool before and during the game, and thus had even footing while playing. Rev may have preferred the map, but Iaguz agreed to it, and made no objection until after he lost.



I understand the importance of a map, but in a game where both players agree to the map selection, under the belief that it is in the map pool with no conflicting mindsets at the time, then the final result should stand. As I said earlier, if Iaguz, bless his beard, realised in the middle of the game that it was not in the map pool, a regame would be viable. Even if it was the instant the game finished.

I personally believe that an Event Report has to be written by the admins of the event, to ensure that no problems like this occur again. But I also think that people need to adhere to management and admin decisions. There is absolutely nothing more frustrating than running a tournament and having people argue with you while you are trying to organise 125 other people to play their games etc. I understand that this may be a bit exaggeration, but you catch my drift. Iaguz initially asked for a rematch, which is a fair call. The admins discussed it, and came to the conclusion that it was not a viable outcome. DONE. Case Closed. That shit is like NCIS. Sure its bad that he copped the short straw, but someone had to either way it went. He hasn't posted in this thread (apologies if I missed it) which makes it seem as though he is no longer interested in what happened. If this is a case then 'sticking up for your teammate' does not warrant a thread to discuss what you think are 'poor' admin decisions.

If we are going to discuss poor decisions, we should ask what constitutes a poor decision? Perhaps this will help us to avoid it in the future
In this case, the admins are RUNNING THE TOURNAMENT. THEY ARE IN CHARGE OF WHAT HAPPENS. Their decision should be considered final, and shouldn't be questioned. You may not agree with what they say, but that doesn't make it a bad choice.

Their decision should be considered final - no doubt, they are the ones in charge.

However this does not mean that we cannot question or challenge the decisions made. Arguments and precedence raised by myself and others have created plenty of plausibility to bring this scenario into discussion. Furthermore, this discussion is far more beneficial than it is damaging to the prospect of future tourney operations. A post-event review done by the admins is a sure thing, however this doesn't mean a neutral-third party cannot weigh in on the matter either, especially when that third party is very well affected by the outcome of these decisions.

There should always be a channel to appeal, discuss and challenge, I am doing this through the forum, in polite way that is not breaking any rules. This isn't an aristocracy, lay off the Admin is GOD notion.

Also, just because a map was played that a player really dislikes (say Metal for me and Iaguz, thumbs down for the last year). Doesn't mean we get to choose to not play it because if the map played is within the map pool/rules of the tournament, we have no choice but to play it, there is NO possibility for a disagreement to not play that map. I'm also cynical about just how much you really understand the importance of a map is to us players.

[Paroxysm]

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

Their decision should be considered final - no doubt, they are the ones in charge.

However this does not mean that we cannot question or challenge the decisions made. Arguments and precedence raised by myself and others have created plenty of plausibility to bring this event into discussion. Further this discussion is far more beneficial than it is damaging to the prospect of future tourney operations.

There should always be a channel to appeal, discuss and challenge, I am doing this through the forum, in polite way that is not breaking any rules. This isn't an aristocracy, lay off the Admin is GOD notion.

Also, just because a map was played that a player really dislikes (say Metal for me and Iaguz, thumbs down for the last year). Doesn't mean we get to choose to not play it because if the map played is within the map pool/rules of the tournament, we have no choice but to play it, there is NO possibility for a disagreement to not play that map. I'm also cynical about just how much you really understand the importance of a map is to us players.

I play the game just as much as anyone else in this forum, if not more. Of course I understand the importance of maps, and to be honest, my knowledge of maps isn't really that relevant. I know enough about the maps to be able to argue my opinion and justify my views.

I also agree that there should always be a chance to appeal, but only to a certain extent. It is beyond the chance of re game now, yet we are still arguing for it. If it is beyond a re game, why not try and discuss how to ensure the same event doesn't occur again?

Regarding the precedence and previous cases: None of them were really that relevant. Sure they resulted in a regame, but the circumstances differed by an incredible amount, and the admins cannot make decisions based on insufficiently relevant precedence. I understand where you are coming from, and what you are trying to argue, but I don't think you have enough evidence.

I may be totally out of line here, and if I am I apologise, but this is my opinion. As for the outcome, we don't have much of a say. I believe the admins are making a post tonight about the game? If this is the case, I will await their verdict.

[Peleus]

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

I'm curious as to how you can claim it as an unfair advantage? Both players legitimately thought that Metalopolis was a part of the map pool before and during the game, and thus had even footing while playing. Rev may have preferred the map, but Iaguz agreed to it, and made no objection until after he lost.

My belief that he has an unfair advantage is following this logic -

Assumption #1 - Different maps (perhaps slightly) favour different races. There are some maps that are hard(er) for race X to play vs race Y. For example ZvT is very difficult on Antiga Shipyard. Some would argue that Metal is a Zerg favoured map. Therefore intrinsically by playing on a certain map it will give an advantage to a particular race or player (Edit: Regardless of mindset).

Assumption #2 - When you have a choice in maps you'll choose the map that favours you the most, be it proven in the long run to be statistically biased towards your race (i.e. Antiga once more as T) or you feel the most comfortable on.

I think these are both fair and valid assumptions. Long story short if you're going to pick a map you pick a map you think gives you the most advantage. For Rev in the situation he was in, that pick was Metalopolis. From this we draw that any map chosen in the map pool would have given him less of an advantage (degree is arguable) than metalopolis, because you don't go and choose your 2nd best map. Ergo, Rev gained more of an advantage than would have been possible if he was playing within the defined map pool, hence an unfair advantage as this is outside the tournament rules.

"Agreement" is also a red herring. Playing on a map doesn't mean you agree to play something outside of the map pool - it means you didn't at the time think that you had a valid reason to reject the choice. Clearly Iaguz would have rejected the map choice if he realised it wasn't in the pool, everyone slipped up by making the mistake of allowing it played, regame fixes the situation.

[TargA]

if its regame i will play finals %)