[nGenLight]

This is a questionable event that took place in the SEASL Qualifier #2 SemiFinals, with the winner of this series securing a spot in the SEASL.

Iaguz managed to win game 4 of his BO5 series against FlashRevz, bringing the score to 2:2 with Revz to pick the next map. The ensuing map picked was Metalopolis, a map that is NOT in the listed map pool. I am 100% certain that Revz(honest mistake) nor anybody else, including Iaguz and the casters, were aware that Metalopolis was not in the map pool.

After some crappy play and a crappy build. Revz beats Iaguz on Metalopolis convincgly. Shortly after Iaguz realised Metalopolis was infact not in the map pool and began protesting - exclaiming how much he hates Metal and to remake on Steppes of War (joke). ArnorZC the admin was brought in to make the decision, and because he was a relatively newer admin, he consulted some more experienced admins(Not revealed) and they made the call "game stands, no regame".

As a competitor myself, I know just how important a map/ map pool is towards my odds of winning. I also am a firm believer of a Justice and abiding by the rules. A game was played that was outside of the map pool, it should have been deemed an illegitimate game.

The fact that there is no regame is very questionable and sets a very bad precedence for future events. SEASL is not some 25$ tournament, it is a prestigious event that will represent SEA on a global scale that has a prizepool of over $1000. It is not the first time the organisation/decision making of SEASL qualifier has been called into question with an admin managing to completely messing up the seeds for the 1st qualifier which players spent hours on the ladder to secure. That and this current set of events has all came down to the decision of basically "well, its done, so let it go?". Saves time? Probably. Professionalism? You be the judge.

Here are some of the recent examples of professional games that were called to regame.

(1) IPL4 - Nestea vs Squritle - Regame despite Nestea in losing position because his keyboard stopped working.

(2) GSTL - MKP vs Parting - Regame with MKP in a losing position because the computers messed up.

I have absolutely no ill feelings towards Revz, his a great guy and probably just didn't read the map pool properly. Although I do believe it is part of the player's (Iaguz) responsibility to ensure the map played is a legitimate map, I do believe he is entitled to a regame - the map played was not legitimate! This is why I question the decision made and implore the community for your opinion/discussion.

This is more than me sticking up for a mate, it hinders the professionalism of SEA-run tournaments. Let's hear your thoughts.

Rayray

EDIT: My thread title was edited without my permission.

EDIT 2: Some good points raised by PiG, Dippa and Eddie for Revenants sake.

"I still disagree that it should be a regame as I think that disadvantages revenant more than metalopolis disadvantaged iaguz"

"both players agreed to play the match beforehand; it's not like Iaguz was tied down and threatened with a pair of clippers and shaving cream to play on Steppes of War, for example."

"Once the series is done, results stand imo. What happens if this occurred mid tournament, player A realises 1 hour later, wrong map was selected, you can't reset all the games that follow, and delay things for everyone else. I know doesn't apply as much this time - but if you are setting a precedent, you have to look at the bigger picture!"

I take back my aggressive tone, as I think it is less about professionalism and more about, what the correct ruling here should be. Had I read many of these arguments earlier, I would have been far more neutral in my OP.

[iM MaFia]

Should be a regame cause you can't play on a map that's not even in the tournament.

Quick Comments

	TAEdgE:
	VoxMSI.Rogue:
	inFeZa:	exactly this.

[TABottles]

I don't see why not

[Dox]

It's a sticky situation... I'd be all for rematching since technically it was played on an invalid map. It was an honest mistake and only picked up after the game though, and with the theme of "robbed victories" in global events lately, I'd hate to see one more victim from our own community added to the list. It's a difficult decision to make and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make it!

Quick Comments

TACeeSerps:

[nGenLight]

It probably is too late to change the result as it is now, but a ruling should be done for future events.

Quick Comments

	NvRossi:
	TAXanT:
	xGKingdelete:

[NvPinder]

The options of the poll are kinda weird, cos i agree with both.

I mean that in the sense that at the time the decision should've 100% been a re-game without a doubt in my mind. Like if the options were "Should have it been a re-game or not" it should've been yes, however now that it's decided what's done is done.

It's the players (and admins) responsibility to choose a map that's in the map pool. Regardless of how it happened it should be a re-game in this circumstances.

It's hard to tell where the majority of the blame lies for this. On iaguz has obviously done nothing wrong and a re-game was 100% in his right. I'm not sure if an admin pm'd rev the wrong map list (100% admin fault) or if rev just made on metal assuming it was in the map list(more-so rev's fault than anyone elses). But either way placing blame isn't really particularly important, this should always be a re-game.

[x5.Revenant]

Originally Posted by NvPinder

The options of the poll are kinda weird, cos i agree with both.

I mean that in the sense that at the time the decision should've 100% been a re-game without a doubt in my mind. Like if the options were "Should have it been a re-game or not" it should've been yes, however now that it's decided what's done is done.

It's the players (and admins) responsibility to choose a map that's in the map pool. Regardless of how it happened it should be a re-game in this circumstances.

It's hard to tell where the majority of the blame lies for this. On iaguz has obviously done nothing wrong and a re-game was 100% in his right. I'm not sure if an admin pm'd rev the wrong map list (100% admin fault) or if rev just made on metal assuming it was in the map list(more-so rev's fault than anyone elses). But either way placing blame isn't really particularly important, this should always be a re-game.

It's my folly and wholeheartedly my fault for picking Meta as I used the ladder map pool as a reference, instead of the tournament thread. For it, I apologize for my carelessness.

I do agree with what Light wrote, but I guess that the admins' decisions were based on the game already being finished, rather than(with reference to Light's case studies), being in the midst of the game. Also, I will agree if a remade is needed.

Quick Comments

	ROOT`iaguz:	That's pretty decent of you. Cheers mate.
	nGenLight:	Top bloke
	Dox:	this guy is so cool i think i wanna keep some of his hair in a jar
	TABottles:
	ToRPandarine:
	RicocheT:
	EveVendetta:
	TAriiChard:
	asdfSchnitzel:	So manner bear ♥
	[TA]LoSt:
	xGKingdelete:

[Dox]

Actually yeah, after reading Pinder's post I gotta agree. If it's Rev's mistake, then he should face the penalty of a rematch. But if an admin told him the wrong map, then it's not his fault and he shouldn't be forced to do so. (However if he chose to do so that'd be totally fine & honorable and all that)

[nGenLight]

^ Yes, you are right, it should have been "Should there have been a regame".

I can't edit it though

[dippa]

This is a semi-final; surely the admins knew the game was taking place, right?

A look at the bracket says that the other semi-final was pretty much a roflstomp. The score was 3-0, and while the games might have all been really close, my point is that the semi-final involving Targa would have undoubtedly finished before this game had started.

So casters would have had their eye on this game at least; admins would have known it was taking place at the very least.

The truth in this matter is that players have enough shit on their minds. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that Revz hosted on Metalopolis intentionally. (Furthermore, I've been wondering when/if players would confuse Metalopolis for Metropolis, but I doubt that happened here either.)

If you want someone to blame, it's the admins fault. If this was one of the earlier rounds you could cite the player's since there's obviously too many games for the admins to keep a close eye on each one but considering this was the only game being played in the tournament at the time - they should have made sure it was the right one.

I've been here before a long time ago. It sucks for everyone involved, but shit like this happens. I don't think we need to go overboard in attacking people's professionalism - humans make mistakes, after all. What's important is how people act to clean things up in the future.

The result should stand (this is also a precedent from incidents that have happened in other scenes, like Call of Duty and Counter-Strike, when matches were played on the wrong maps), tbh, and admins just need to be a little more vigilant in the future to prevent this from happening again.

Edit: If Revz was to agree to a regame, that's even better - but if he chooses not to, people shouldn't belt the shit out of him, as he won the game fair and square (even if Metal is a bullshit map).

Quick Comments

	x5.Revenant:	Thanks for understanding :)
	nirvAnA:
	xGKingdelete:

[BAD.BiGbiRd]

If a map is not in the pool and a game is played on said map then when the mistake is realised it should 100% be a re-game, no question. Wrong maps seem to cause a few problems in tourney's (Ones i have been involved in anyway, as few as they are) and the admin and players need to find out what maps are available and what are not beforehand to stop errors like this happening. I understand during the early stages of a bracket there are a lot of games going on and a lot of questions being asked of admin so they might miss something but in a final that is, in my opinion, completely unacceptable and Iaguz has every right to feel jipped/annoyed. However i agree the same as Pinder with "What is done is done" and mind games and reading/countering each others play with certain builds and styles make up a great part of a BO5 series so now they could not possibly play JUST the last map. Seeing as it was 2-2 before the last map i think the best decision would be to replay the entire series again from scratch. Fairest decision that could come of it in my opinion

[nGenLight]

^ Humans make mistakes, but its not for other people to pay for it, at least when we can control it. "Shit happens" just doesn't cut it for me - The players shouldn't be punished when the Admins could have easily made things right to correct their negligence of what was going on. Also it was a roflstomp, thanx for pointing that out, Alex.

Oh and making mistakes, is not professional. If you can't do the job, don't do it. So yes, even though my attack on certain professionalism may be abit harsh, I stand by my point.

I agree though that it's probably too late to change the result, I just wanted a discussion and for Iaguz to have a voice, he was obviously wronged - This should not go unspoken.

[dippa]

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

^ Humans make mistakes, but its not for other people to pay for it, at least when we can control it. "Shit happens" just doesn't cut it for me - The players shouldn't be punished when the Admins could have easily made things right to correct their negligence of what was going on. Also it was a roflstomp, thanx for pointing that out, Alex.

i didn't even read who the opponent was at the time (small screen at work so i minimise the shit out of everything so it fits), sorry dude - but you know that i wasn't really making a comment on the quality of the games, which I couldn't have seen since I'm at work.

and while i agree that this was a simple error that could have been avoided, sometimes it can be difficult to make simple errors depending on the conditions. i don't have enough information about how the tournament was running and what environment the admins/players were under to make an informed judgement on that, however.

dont h8 me pls ray :|

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

No one is remotely belting or saying anything bad about Revenant, what the heck are you about Alex.

i'm predicting future scenarios. been here before as a player and admin and seen players/teams get lynched for taking the win when it was the admins who should have been burned at the stake.

sc2 scene is nicer than others i've been in but everyone gets a little sketchy when it comes to money (and especially invites to big tournaments), so just throwing a little caution to the wind.

[ROOT`iaguz]

If you wanna regame can we do it tomorrow? My brain is abotu to turn off and my wrist feels like a cement mixer.

Also for references sake

• MLG Tal’darim Altar LE by HemLocK
• MLG Shakuras Plateau by HemLocK
• GSL Daybreak by HemLocK
• GSL Antiga Shipyard by LS Prime
• GSL Dual Sight by wonderland
• GSL Bel’shir Beach (Winter) by Rain
•GSL Metropolis by LSPrime
•GSL Entombed Valley by SungInSPR
• Cloud Kingdom LE by SUPEROUMAN

[nGenLight]

No one is remotely belting or saying anything bad about Revenant, what the heck are you about Alex.

[neKo]

Regame, if there is money on the line you have to be 100% professional about it and you can't just let things this big slide. We have seen with the GSTL rematch how ******* shit and heartbreaking regames can be but it has to happen.

[nGenLight]

Fair enough. I don't hate you, it's okay to have different perspectives.

[dippa]

should add that i don't think the admins in this situation need to be burned at the stake either; it was just a turn of phrase, if you will.

[PiG]

Sticky spot. But I think it's unfair to take away revs win. He had to play a game and work for that win. For that to count for nothing is just as bogus as the game being played on the wrong map in the first place.

Iaguz and Revenant, have the map pool open in your browser in future guys. I know it's a pain but I have people try to host wrong maps all the time and have to call them on it. Also I host maps I want to play on only to be told they aren't in the pool all the time. It's just a complication of all tournaments having constantly changing map pools.

I don't see the purpose of this thread other then to stir crap and have a go at Arnor/revenant.

(EDIT: thnx to light and dippa for making me understand the purpose of the thread a bit better. Rather than just being "GIVE IAGUZ A RM, ARNOR/REV screwed up!" I re-read it more closely and see the validity to your argument. I still disagree that it should be a regame as I think that disadvantages revenant more than metalopolis disadvantaged iaguz)

If revenant decides to regame than sure thing. But he should in no way feel like he has to do this to save face or whatever.

Quick Comments

	x5.Revenant:
	nirvAnA:
	EveTechtron:	bo3 rev starts 1 - 0?

[iM MaFia]

He played a game and won. But how can it count as a win on a map that's not even in the map pool or meant to be played in the first place.

[PiG]

Originally Posted by xGKingMafia

He played a game and won. But how can it count as a win on a map that's not even in the map pool or meant to be played in the first place.

Because he beat his opponent in a game of Starcraft

[Peleus]

Originally Posted by PiG

Because he beat his opponent in a game of Starcraft

Say hypothetically a tournament existed with the most absolutely retarded rule ever of no air units allowed by any race. A player participates in this tournament and is later found to have used air units to attack his opponent and win, should he get the victory?

Perhaps still a little silly but a different example - Plunder Down Under which was RvR, a player out of habit picks their main race just before the countdown ends and they play the match and win as their main, should the win be counted?

My point with these is simply to highlight that victory in a vacuum independent of circumstances cannot be the only factor. Rev won his match outside of the rules of the tournament, although some would argue over how major / minor those rules are (valid maps). My view is however than any time it's outside the rules you cannot declare it to be a valid victory.

[BAD.BiGbiRd]

Originally Posted by PiG

Because he beat his opponent in a game of Starcraft

That's kind of silly in my opinion. Say for example game 5 had been on Steppes as Iaguz joked and Iaguz won would that be fine because "He beat his opponent in a game of Starcraft"?? I don't take anything away from Revz win and he obviously played well, but the fact that it was played on a map that was not in the pool means that the game should not have counted. As i said before seeing that the score had been 2-2 and the last map was a **** up i think they should re-game the entire series from even ground, IE 0-0 with the same starting map.

[dippa]

Originally Posted by BiGbiRd

That's kind of silly in my opinion. Say for example game 5 had been on Steppes as Iaguz joked and Iaguz won would that be fine because "He beat his opponent in a game of Starcraft"?? I don't take anything away from Revz win and he obviously played well, but the fact that it was played on a map that was not in the pool means that the game should not have counted. As i said before seeing that the score had been 2-2 and the last map was a **** up i think they should re-game the entire series from even ground, IE 0-0 with the same starting map.

I think PiG is coming from the point of view that it's fair because both players agreed to play the match beforehand; it's not like Iaguz was tied down and threatened with a pair of clippers and shaving cream to play on Steppes of War, for example.

[BAD.BiGbiRd]

Originally Posted by dippa

I think PiG is coming from the point of view that it's fair because both players agreed to play the match beforehand; it's not like Iaguz was tied down and threatened with a pair of clippers and shaving cream to play on Steppes of War, for example.

I never said he was, how could you say something so horrible??? I know what you mean but my point still stands. Yes it has already been played but if something like this happens and nothing is done it will happen again. What are the point of rules, map pools, admin etc if when something goes wrong they say "Ahh well, it's too late now". Of course this situation favours Iaguz more than Rev as he gets a second chance and will be able to prepare different builds and styles but any other decision defeats the purpose of having competition and if i was Iaguz i would feel a lot more annoyed than Rev will.

[Peleus]

Originally Posted by dippa

I think PiG is coming from the point of view that it's fair because both players agreed to play the match beforehand; it's not like Iaguz was tied down and threatened with a pair of clippers and shaving cream to play on Steppes of War, for example.

I think agreeing implies that there was an informed choice to be made with acceptance. If Iaguz didn't think he had a valid reason for rejecting the match I wouldn't say playing it counted towards 'agreeance' to playing on an invalid map.

[Eddie]

Regame is fine, if it happens during or immediately after the series.

Once the series is done, results stand imo. What happens if this occurred mid tournament, player A realises 1 hour later, wrong map was selected, you can't reset all the games that follow, and delay things for everyone else. I know doesn't apply as much this time - but if you are setting a precedent, you have to look at the bigger picture!

Just an unfortunate thing, where both players and admins didn't notice in time.

(1) IPL4 - Nestea vs Squritle - Regame despite Nestea in losing position because his keyboard stopped working.

(2) GSTL - MKP vs Parting - Regame with MKP in a losing position because the computers messed up.

I may be wrong, but weren't these live events, rather than playing from home/separate locations?

Technical difficulties are a completely different thing than slight map selection error i think. Also a lot easier to notice, and in those cases, live support crew were on hand to fix/swap/repair and regame? Also they didn't wait until a fair while after their series to remake the games? - I don't think those examples best support the arguement for a regame in this case.

Quick Comments

	nirvAnA:
	NvRossi:

[iM MaFia]

Originally Posted by PiG

Because he beat his opponent in a game of Starcraft

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

[dippa]

Originally Posted by PiG

I don't see the purpose of this thread other then to stir crap and have a go at Arnor/revenant.

It's fair to call out people for their mistakes, as long as the intention is to prevent them from occurring in the future - which is more than reasonable considering ACL Sydney's taking place next weekend.

SC2 scene in SEA hasn't had the development time that other games have had to work out issues of interpretation and procedure like other games, so discussion around incidents like this for the next 3 or 4 years (not joking here) is perfectly healthy.

Quick Comments

PiG:

that's true. I think either decision is crap though. need to stop it happening in the first place more importantly.

[nGenLight]

Pig: I'm not trying to stir crap at Arnor or Revenant - Don't know where you are reading this from. I'm trying to create a discussion and have a say for Iaguz. Please don't misjudge my intention.

Fair argument, I easily understood there was a multitude of perspective towards this scenario, hence the thread and the poll. I'm not calling anybody out, I'm asking for community discussion/opinion.

Obviously the biggest gain from the existence of this thread is awareness of such an issue, which supports your suggestion that prevention is better than either crappy decisions. That doesn't suggest what happened need not to be carefully analysed. It would suck to be in Iaguz's shoes, I'm sure you understand that.

[PiG]

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

Pig: I'm not trying to stir crap at Arnor or Revenant - Don't know where you are reading this from. I'm trying to create a discussion and have a say for Iaguz. Please don't misjudge my intention.

Fair argument, I easily understood there was a multitude of perspective towards this scenario, hence the thread and the poll. I'm not calling anybody out, I'm asking for community discussion/opinion.

Obviously the biggest gain from the existence of this thread is awareness of such an issue, which supports your statement in saying prevention is better than either crappy decisions. That doesn't suggest what happened needs to be carefully analysed. It would suck to be in Iaguz's shoes, I'm sure you understand that.

Agree, original post edited.

Super tough situation.


@peleus, yeah that wording makes it clearer to me why the majority seem to be agreeing that a rematch is in order. However do we blindly follow rules or do we look to do what is most right and fair? Putting myself in the shoes of either of these players I would be mad. If I lose a deciding match with a prize I would be pissed. But if I were to win and then have it taken away and have to regame I think I would possibly be even more furious.

"Following from the simple logic of "Must be within the tournament rules for it to be a valid game -> Outside the rules therefore game invalid" I think the match should be replayed."

This situation has happened to me in the past where I've lost on invalid maps and I've just taken it and left. But maybe a regame was valid? I dunno I just always felt it was wrong to ask for a regame.

Summary: I still feel a regame is more wrong, but I'm no longer so dogmatic in my view.

Quick Comments

nGenLight:

Iaguz was willing to suck it up, but I fight for him.

[Peleus]

Originally Posted by PiG

However do we blindly follow rules or do we look to do what is most right and fair?

Honestly, blindly follow rules. The rules are there to create a subjective framework for people to follow. When 50% will agree with a decision while 50% will disagree (aka this situation) the only thing you have to fall back on is the rules in place for the tournament. Now if you truly think the ruling is incorrect you can certainly change the rules for future tournaments, but making subjective decisions (which sometimes may even contradict existing rules) is a sure way to invite a shitstorm.

Quick Comments

mGGSouth:

[zenabi]

If rematch is in order, maybe organise it so the score is 1-1 instead of 2-2 so that the result isnt pinned down to one match and then things may seem fairer. Just an idea if both players have the time to do something like this.

[Peleus]

Super tough situation.

One hand - Iaguz and Rev both at fault, Rev for hosting on an invalid map, and if the map pool and avoiding metal was truly so important for Iaguz then he would be aware of what's in the map pool and bring up the error before the game was completed. Both parties at fault, along with the admins, but hey it's understandable.

On the flip side the rules are the rules. The map pool is the range of maps you can play on for a valid tournament set. If the game wasn't played on a valid map then it shouldn't be counted, regardless of the outcome or how long ago the match occurred.

Following from the simple logic of "Must be within the tournament rules for it to be a valid game -> Outside the rules therefore game invalid" I think the match should be replayed.

[dippa]

OK, since this has gone down the path of looking towards the future, here's something to think about: what do you do in situations where a regame actually isn't possible?

Say Revz wins the game, but life/family/scheduling issues means he can't actually play another game of Starcraft for the forseeable future (or at least not at a time when it would be reasonable to play a tournament match).

Would it still be fair to force a re-game then?

Whatever decision is made now needs to be applicable to a wide range of situations; this should be thought through carefully.

[Peleus]

Originally Posted by dippa

OK, since this has gone down the path of looking towards the future, here's something to think about: what do you do in situations where a regame actually isn't possible?

Say Revz wins the game, but life/family/scheduling issues means he can't actually play another game of Starcraft for the forseeable future (or at least not at a time when it would be reasonable to play a tournament match).

Would it still be fair to force a re-game then?

Whatever decision is made now needs to be applicable to a wide range of situations; this should be thought through carefully.

Yes. The rules should be followed to determine the situation on it's own merits regardless of what external factors (players availability etc) are. There is a correct decision to be made based off the rules, you make that decision. Further problems, such as availability need to be worked on reasonably with both players, and if Rev couldn't play in the foreseeable future then he would be required to forfeit (a crap situation admittedly).

[Baldie]

Coming from an Event Management background myself I have a few things which could be of service.

___________________________

TL;DR
An Event Report be it large or small makes a huge difference to future planning of the same event and/or similar events. A document which outlines what worked, what didn't work, what there is to improve on and the key steps to ensuring what didn't work doesn't happen again. This document is then used as a guide for the next event of it's type. It promotes event growth, event stability and also makes future planning a lot easier.

___________________________

Although granted my work with festivals/sporting events and non esports events is totally different in content to that of running an online tournament, the basics are transferable.

Like many have suggested, we as humans are inevitably going to make mistakes, especially in events where so many things are happening at once. However it is how you deal with mistakes going forward which will either be the foundation for event prosperity and growth.. or will lead to the events demise.

In my experience one of the biggest pitfalls event organisers/admin bodies fall into is a lack of post analysis documentation (aka an Event Report). A document which outlines what worked, what didn't work, what there is to improve on and the key steps to ensuring what didn't work doesn't happen again. This document is then used as a guide for the next event of it's type. It promotes event growth, event stability and also makes future planning a lot easier. Given it is "more work" over what is required after an event it is of no surprise it rarely is done.

What is common for a small to moderate sized event is for it to run, any issues are dealt with as they come up and although future initiatives may be suggested, often they are not written down and quickly forgotten in future events with only major issues being resolved.

I am not saying this is the case here and for all I know a document may be in place. But whenever something such as this is brought up it needs to be discussed and steps to ensure it doesn't happen need to be put in place - as well as looking into how it could show up in other areas like Dippa stated.

I would be more than happy to bring my experience in Event Management into the running of said events, after all it is a vision of mine to manage international sc2 esport events. But if nothing else, as long as event planners/admin bodies are pro-active in their approach to dealing with issues, an event has a viable future.

♥♥ Thanks to those who read it all ♥♥

Quick Comments

	nGenLight:	I read it all :)
	PiG:	wise
	EveVendetta:	good ol' after action review
	nirvAnA:

[RicocheT]

I'm pretty unsure about the decision here.
I would be annoyed as Rev to have to re-game, but also pissed as Iaguz for not getting a re-game. Props to both of these guys, Rev for being willing to re-game and for Iaguz for willing to let it slide.

Just like to say that hopefully when we come to a decision, it can set the precedent for incidents like this in the future. Basically what I'm saying is that if this situation crops up again, what the admins decided here will again apply to those two unfortunate parties in the future, and should follow the same decision that they came across in this incident.

[nGenLight]

I agree that a regame would definitely disadvantage Rev more than Iaguz. But as it is now, it isn't fair to Iaguz at all. Maybe a compromise?

Whats great to see is that both parties are class acts.

Iaguz was willing to suck it up and Revz willing to regame, speaks volumes of the kind of character we have behind our players.

Quick Comments

PiG:

[EveVendetta]

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

I agree that a regame would definitely disadvantage Rev more than Iaguz. But as it is now, it isn't fair to Iaguz at all. Maybe a compromise?

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.

Quick Comments

	nirvAnA:
	EveTechtron:
	JaFF:

[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 %)

[nGenLight]

Let me reiterate that this thread isn't trying to lay the blame on the players, the question is pretty simple - What should have happened? What should happen now? What can we do about this in the future? As I see it is pretty divided down the line right now, both sides delivering pretty good arguments. However said, Tguns latest post introduced peices of precedence that probably favours a regame.

[ROOT`iaguz]

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 realised it was the wrong map immediately after the end.

[Paroxysm]

Originally Posted by xGKingiaguz

I realised it was the wrong map immediately after the end.

My mistake. Either way though, I still think that both players were under the belief that metalopolis was in the map pool with no conflicting mindsets at the time.

[deL]

It is the player's fault, the admins don't have 100 pairs of eyes and obviously can't police each game. They make the threads with the map pool, repeat the map pool to the players in chat, repeat the map pool when asked in the channel. Once the information is out there it's the player's responsibility to play it on that map in the Ro512 just as in the Ro4. It just so happens that maps are something that can be easily confused, unlike similar playing guidelines like the appropriate server, time or game mode.

If the map pool affects players so much then surely they'd pay more attention to it before the tournament starts.

Quick Comments

	JaFF:
	Nemo:	Indeed

[nGenLight]

One of the main reasons noone noticed they were playing on a map not in the map pool is because Metalopolis has been a pretty standard map in tournaments for a very long time. Revz obviously picked it because he thought it was PROBABLY in the map pool, and although disgruntled, Iaguz played through the map because he probably thought it was in the map pool too.

This however, does not change the fact that the map was not within the tournament.

BTW THANK YOU FOR REMOVING METAL ADMINS

[Paroxysm]

No, of course it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't in the map pool. BUT, we cant force a regame, it just wouldnt work. Now, the only step is to discuss how to PREVENT this from happening again.

[Paroxysm]

Also, it is a mix between the players and the admins fault for not realising. Neither party is 100% liable, but both of them could have checked to make sure that the map was right. When I play in tournaments I check to make sure the map is in the map pool every game, and it is a good habit to get into.

[nGenLight]

Just wanted to also say, I understand how tough a situation and question this is - which puts the admins at a very tough spot. This is obviously seen through the divided opinion. I like to ask the tough questions, it generates dicussion, keeps my mind busy.

I appreciate everyone for being civil, well-spoken and entertaining this thread.

[inFeZa]

Regameeuuuuu

[iM MaFia]

There are rules in a tournament for a reason, otherwise why have rules at all?

C'mon guys

[Champi]

Revenant is being an honourable competitor has even said he would regame it, why is this even still being discussed?

regame it for crying out loud

If both players are fine with it being a regame (WHICH THEY ARE!)

then there is absolutely no reason why there should not be a regame, i see no other reason for there to be a discussion on the matter

[Xeen]

Originally Posted by TAChampi

If both players are fine with it being a regame (WHICH THEY ARE!)

then there is absolutely no reason why there should not be a regame, i see no other reason for there to be a discussion on the matter

Players shouldn't come into it at all, this is an admin decision.

[Champi]

Originally Posted by Xeen

Players shouldn't come into it at all, this is an admin decision.

i disagree,

yes it is the admins decision, but theres no reason they should ignore the fact that the player who won on the illegitimate map is willing to accept that a mistake was made and will regame.

rules were broken, accidentally or not, and to deliberately not rectify the situation when the person who is at the disadvantage accepts a regame is retarded

[UHF]

Originally Posted by TAChampi

i disagree,

yes it is the admins decision, but theres no reason they should ignore the fact that the player who won on the illegitimate map is willing to accept that a mistake was made and will regame.

rules were broken, accidentally or not, and to deliberately not rectify the situation when the person who is at the disadvantage accepts a regame is retarded

I disagree. It's ok if both players are willing & able to regame AND the admin is willing to overrule his decision.

HOWEVER, you shouldn't rag on the admin if he doesn't want to overrule his decision.

(That is of course unless you don't want anyone adminning anymore for fear of the community belting you up if you don't change your rulings to popular opinion.)

[Xeen]

No. If the player's opinion on the situation counts, then you're accepting that following the rules is optional based on what the player wants. You cannot have a situation with two different possible rulings because the players feel differently and still expect to have legitimacy in your rules.

In an organized competition, the role of the player is to play, anything beyond that needs to be handled by the admins for the sake of impartiality.

Quick Comments

	|Erasmus|:	Agreed... if the admin decision is that the rules require a regame... it doesn't matter what revenant is okay with.
	UHF:	This
	x5_dot:
	JaFF:

[iM tgun]

Originally Posted by Xeen

No. If the player's opinion on the situation counts, then you're accepting that following the rules is optional based on what the player wants. You cannot have a situation with two different possible rulings because the players feel differently and still expect to have legitimacy in your rules.

In an organized competition, the role of the player is to play, anything beyond that needs to be handled by the admins for the sake of impartiality.

So you're admitting (as previously noted) that it's not the players fault :|

That's the only thing I'm trying to put into this discussion, by the way: every large tournament you see, the players are presented a maplist by admins and the map is made by admins. I understand you obviously can't do this for every game online in a big tournament such as the CO, but when it gets to ro16+, it's feasible. It would avoid this whole issue :|

[Xeen]

Originally Posted by tgun

So you're admitting (as previously noted) that it's not the players fault :|

How did you come to that conclusion? If I said 'sentences should be given by a judge, not decided by the criminal itself' would you say 'then you admit it's not the criminal's fault?' You're confusing a discussion of the resolution with the cause of the issue.

It's the fault of all parties involved, the players for screwing up and the admins for not catching it, but that's not relevant - what's important is how the problem gets resolved, and that's entirely in the hands of the administration.

[Champi]

Bottom line:

a mistake was made, therefore a rule was broken. so the game was illegitimate and the only appropriate thing to do is regame the final match.

if they choose to not rectify mistakes then this league is delegitimised by not following rules

[Asrathiel]

Originally Posted by xGKingiaguz

I realised it was the wrong map immediately after the end.

Hmm. It's easy to say what I think the admins should have done, and what I would have done, at that point in time.

As far as this particular situation goes, Revz has agreed to a regame, and they should roll with that.

As far as setting a precedent goes... if it's realised during the game, or right after the game (ie before the next round etc is played) then I think a regame should be granted, but if it's let slide at that point then the result should stand...

Players should be aware of the map pool, but at that stage in a tournament admins should also be aware of what's going on.

Not putting any blame on anyone, stuff happens, admining is hard.

[DM.MCZ.Shondy]

Anyway to change my vote on the poll, voted wrongly.

[nGenLight]

The unprofessional angle I used was harsh, and probably abit out of line, but it wasn't without context.

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 do apologize for calling out the admins that made the decision without considering all the factors that made them make such a decision (such as Revz being disadvantaged in a regame). But as Xeen said, allowing bending of rules could easily be viewed as unprofessional, so please tread carefully.

[mGGDaedalus]

The poll asks should there be a regame. If the decision was to be made now I would say no. If the decision was to be made during or immediately after the game was played though, I would say yes.

[BaKaiNu]

Hello everybody,

As promised, I will announce the decision that we have made. We decided that the result of the match stays as it is, and that there would not be a regame.

The reason for it is:
- The match has ended, and it would be unfair to take away a win from someone who worked hard for it.
- The map has been considered balanced for many previous tournaments (Although it isn't, but I would assume that it is played and mastered by most people who is interested in playing high level sc2).
- The players have the responsibility to make sure the map they played on is in the map pool, as it is completely fair to assume that the admin of the tournament (Chris alone) is unable to make sure everything goes perfectly.
- Regame would be unfair to one or the other players in the match, Rev being unprepared mentally, or iaguz having not enough time to practice on the map chosen, or choose a better build to go against Rev on the map chosen, etc.
- I would assume that the tournament has ended, and iaguz reported the results after the finals has ended, making us unable to retract the match results of the previous round.

As a result of this, we would be implementing a new rule for future qualifiers and COs.

If any player or casters or admin notices that they have played on a map not in the tournament map pool, during or right after the match, it is an immediate regame. However, if the player advancing to the next round has played and finished at least 1 match of the next stage of the bracket, the results stay as it is, as it would be unfair to the other player involved.

The final say for this decision was rested upon me, thus I will take full responsibility on this decision.

If anyone is unhappy with this decision, feel free to shoot me a PM to talk through it. However, the decision I made is final, and there is no chance of it to change.

I personally apologize again to any party that is affected by this incident and by the result of my decision. I hope that you guys will still get involved in this community as everyone of you are the most awesome people I know, and loved throughout my time here. I will personally work to oversee future qualifiers and finals of SEASL, and make it run as smoothly as possible from here on out, and hopefully make it a regular tournament that SEA region can be proud of and love for years to come.

Thank you for taking your time to read this post.

Regards,
BakaInu
Admin of SEASL

Quick Comments

	ToRSpartaz:	Nice call
	DeNile:	ADMIN SUPPORT
	deL:
	JaFF:	wouldn't expect anything else
	Reere:
	Nemo:	Great !
	nirvAnA:
	sheepy:
	TCPLemminks:
	x5_dot:

[nGenLight]

So in summary:

What should have happened - A regame should have taken place immediately. However, since a decision was made was with many meritable causes,

What will happen - There will be no regame, the tournament(qualifier) is essentially over. We do learn from this experience in the future so that,

What will happen in the future - A regame would take place immediately if the bracket has not advanced.

Can't say I'm not a little dissappointed and sad for Iaguz, but fair call.

Thank you for handling this professionally.

Quick Comments

	nirvAnA:
	Nemo:	Wise
	TCPLemminks:
	x5_dot:
	Eddie: