[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.

[TargA]

Originally Posted by tgun

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.

Its the players fault, you are always supposed to read the rules.. Also admins fault for not noticing.

Anyways, shouldnt be a regame.

Quick Comments

deL:

[|Erasmus|]

Originally Posted by TargA

Its the players fault, you are always supposed to read the rules.. Also admins fault for not noticing.

Anyways, shouldnt be a regame.

It is partially the players fault. But most of the players will be playing in quite a few tournaments, all with different map pools. I don't feel it is right to believe that at 2-2 in a Bo5 with a fairly important prize up for grabs that it is incomprehensible for Iaguz to not be realising that this is the one tournament that luckily excludes one of the more annoying maps for TvZ.

I don't think a regame should occur several days after the tournament, and it sucks that iaguz misses a seed because he had to play on a wrong map, but I think the initial decision should stand for now.

But what is important, is that their should be a clear policy on this for future tournaments. At exactly what point is it too late for the player to realise they've been made to play on a wrong map and expect to get a regame? As soon as they've left? As soon as their opponent has an advantage?

Then at least there will hopefully be less drama next time.

[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.

[nGenLight]

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

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.

I would not call this an argument as everybody has been very sensible and polite in this thread, throwing in very good arguments that all have merit. My creation of this thread has 3 main purposes, I will list them in terms of the priority I see them:

1) To bring the scenario to awareness, so that we can discuss it, and avoid it in the future.
2) I felt like Iaguz got the short end of the stick here, he deserves at least a voice and an appeal, which is what this is.
3) To argue a logistic question - a point raised by Tgun/Xeen, when we start sidestepping and breaking rules to accomodate for things on discretion, where does it end? How professional is this? (Legitimate question, not being sarcastic).
4) For abit of drama, because it isnt SC2SEA if there isn't some now and then.

So as you can see, my main focus is the same as yours. Its mainly -> What should happen in the future? However we must first discuss "What should have happened?" and "What is going to happen now?" before we can set in stone exactly what we will do in the future.

FYI : http://www.sc2sea.com/showpost.php?p=87101&postcount=5 clearly shows my focus isn't on securing a regame, but moreso on discussion and prevention.

Quick Comments

	Bash:	i love you
	TAEdgE:
	mGGDaedalus:	Liked for your sexy counting skills

[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.