[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.

[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.

[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:

[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:

[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.

[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.

[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.

[TargA]

if its regame i will play finals %)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.