[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.