[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

Taking out of this, it seems that a rule which measures games over 2-3 seasons would be good. Intense activity doesn't seem to be as important as consistent activity. I don't think the amount of games should matter hugely (make in reasonable yet highish) ie 100-150, but really would you ever say 200 is 'participating' and 150 isn't? Don't forget finally we also want them to play on KR ladder, they can't be expected to take extreme requirements and push people alway because they don't devote 100% of their time here, we just want it to be preventative of 'hit and ring' style problems.

That is the problem with objective measures like this. What is enough? I believe that you have to go overboard to ensure that you keep out the people that are just interested in the tournaments. Consistent activity is the key, but the number still needs to be high to ensure that it is not consistent but just enough to get into the tournaments.

The issue that people have with systems like this is the players that play 100 games exactly just so they can enter the tournament and never play on the server again. If you increase it to 200 or 250 then these players will just play the extra games. If you force them to be consistent over a period of time they are more likely to be part of the community participating on ladder instead of getting to the arbitrary limit and then stopping.

Originally Posted by Rage

For example, if we have a 100 games requirement, and a Korean nobody has heard of or spoken to joins, say, Nerve, and plays his 100 games and then uses that to compete in every SC2SEA event from then on without doing any more ladder games, I think that the admins need the power to say "I don't CARE if you technically met the requirements, you are obviously not interested in participating in this community and so you are barred from entry."

This is a very dangerous system and I personally would not advocate it. This would mean that you add subjectiveness to an objective measure. This is one of the reasons why the objective measure needs to be so high.

I am curious though, enough that I'll skim through the rest of this thread, where are the opinions of the players that this decision will affect? If they are not present in the discussion do they want to be a part of the community or do they just want to know if they are allowed to come and win our league?

[Peleus]

Originally Posted by Bugalugs McScruffin

One last question for PeleusSPR, where are your players in this discussion? What are their thoughts on all of this? If I've missed them, feel free to point them out, I haven't read the entire thread.

I'm guessing by 'your players' you're meaning the players in SPR that are largely effected by this. A few answers
a) I don't know, I don't keep tabs on them
b) I think regardless of how relevant the topic is for them, language barriers will a lot of the time prevent discussion from occurring / they will be more reluctant because they can't carry a conversation / debate very well - also why I'm against 'sc2sea.com' posting requirements.
c) They may simply be less active and haven't checked sc2sea today.

Having directly answered the question I'll also raise what I think is an important point, don't focus on SPR members. This isn't an aim to deflect any scrutiny on 'our' situation as a clan (I don't speak on behalf of SPR with these posts) but rather the inclusion of all foreign players. It may be a SPR member this week, but it may also be a NA player next week, or a EU player the next month. Looking at individual cases is a red herring.

Originally Posted by Rage

I personally support having an objective benchmark - 100 games, or 200 games, or whatever, but then COMBINING that with an admin veto system.

Rather than giving admins the power to allow people to play, give them the power to veto people who meet the technical requirements but who we don't believe are members of the community.

Strongly disagree. I'd be ok with admin veto's for allowing people, but NOT for excluding people*.
a) It brings subjectivity into it, bringing us back to square 1 and fails to whole system, exactly what we're looking to avoid
b) The requirements set (whatever they are) should be the definition of what it takes to be counted as part of our community. Therefore there should never be by definition someone who can pass these technical requirements, but not be a part of our community.

*This is not to say admins should be or would be powerless. If players need to be banned for whatever reason, cheating, racism, BM, whatever of course they can. I'm limiting the grounds to eligibility through participation within SEA. If you think they can achieve the 'technical' requirements but not be a member, argue for higher technical requirements.

Originally Posted by Bugalugs McScruffin

That is the problem with objective measures like this. What is enough? I believe that you have to go overboard to ensure that you keep out the people that are just interested in the tournaments. Consistent activity is the key, but the number still needs to be high to ensure that it is not consistent but just enough to get into the tournaments.

I will refer you back to this... http://xkcd.com/810/

I'm not trying to be a smart a*$@, but my genuine point is if they have completed X amount of games that we as a community has defined as becoming part of it, who cares what their further motive is, our 'goal' of having a level of participation within the community is achieved.

The issue that people have with systems like this is the players that play 100 games exactly just so they can enter the tournament and never play on the server again. If you increase it to 200 or 250 then these players will just play the extra games. If you force them to be consistent over a period of time they are more likely to be part of the community participating on ladder instead of getting to the arbitrary limit and then stopping.

Reading this you may be referring to the 'straight x amount of games period', in which case I agree, but thats why I think the majority seem to accept a 'over 2 seasons' approach. With the number though, I suppose see my above point.

I am curious though, enough that I'll skim through the rest of this thread, where are the opinions of the players that this decision will affect? If they are not present in the discussion do they want to be a part of the community or do they just want to know if they are allowed to come and win our league?

Once more a few points
a) Some may not be aware of sc2sea's existence yet. We're (hopefully) discussing the rules for years into the future, not just current members / borderline cases. The EU pro who wants to be part of the community 9 months from now can't post here at the moment.

b) This post has only been active a few hours, in the other eligibility post there was some contribution from 'borderline' members.

c) Language barriers as I said in a post above will often preclude them from participating in this type of discussion. Nothing against Balloon, but clearly his English is good enough for posting a "Hi guys" type thread, but he is not going to be able to convey his thoughts as many others can.

Again - don't focus on the red herrings of particular cases, set a framework in place that works for both current members and future ones.

[RyooMakSPR]

I just wanted to post my own personal opinion.
I haven't read every single post above in detail so I don't mean to go against nor offend anyone in anyway.

All people who buy the game have the right to play on that server, and it is their equal right to not play as well.The fact that people are discussing and wanting "proof" whether or not a player will be active in the future is ridiculous in my opinion.
Just as an example, if Balloon were to decide to quit sc2 after and stop playing on SEA after the tournament, it would perfectly be in his own right. But that should have nothing to do with his eligibility to play in tournaments beforehand.
Eligibilty to play in tournaments shouldn't be based on participation, ground rules should be non-biased and straight foward, which they already are, unless its an event like SEA-community all-stars or something like that.
In any case if someone's activity is questioned on these forums - because it's an event based on and hosted by this site sc2sea.com, active status in the "community" should be rather determined by site participation in my opinion- when someone joined the site, how many posts he had etc.
In this case it is a clan league, any active clan members of any clan that is part of the SEA community should theoretically be eligible to play- only exception to korean-pros who would take the fun out of a community event.
The problem probably arose because SPR is very lenient with clan members. Many clan members have friends in korea, whom we easily welcome them to be a part of SPR if the come to play on SEA. This is where I believe master made a mistake, trying to get non-active clan members to play.

Not everyone wants to play here, but no one should bar people who actually desire to play here.

You say a hundred games is too easily achieved.. so what? Its not like every foreigner would suddenly come on this server and play a hundred games to play in this tournament. In this case its only one player - balloon. A hundred games in my eyes should be just viewed more as a bare minimum quota set by the admins, just to have a non-biased standard, a minimum commitment just to prove that you actually play here - not to prove you are active.

I would think balloon (who already actively played here) suddenly feels forced to play a hundred games, but I would think he is already willing to accept any criteria that you give him, wanting to prove himself to you guys - probably playing those games right now....

Lets just play and have fun

Quick Comments

	TAEdgE:	where was this english when vsing me on ladder a few months ago t.t
	Xenomorph:	This guy is such a baws

[FaDeBadger]

Originally Posted by RyooMakSPR

A hundred games in my eyes should be just viewed more as a bare minimum quota set by the admins, just to have a non-biased standard, a minimum commitment just to prove that you actually play here - not to prove you are active.

I agree with this, and I'd also like to point out what Frogmite said. The admins had a discussion and decided that for this season the rules outlined i.e 100 game minimum, and not a member of a pro team will suffice and we would take feedback from everybody and adjust if necessary for next season.

Also, as has been stated earlier why should we make non-SEA residents play more games than some of our top SEA players do?

~Edit: Good discussion so far, please keep it going

[syfChadMann]

imo... Set the requirements to SEA Residence status and be done with it. This means, people like TargA and Frogmite, can play as they spend the majority of their time living in Australia or Singapore (respectively).

Then, in extreme cases, allow people with exceptional community involvement the privilege of participation, such as everyone's favourite French resident, Nemo. Someone that HAS don't alot for this community. I don't understand why people can't accept the non-SEA eligibility. This whole event is a SEA event, to build the SEA scene and SEA players.Not Koreans. No offence, I love the fact that Korean's are challenging the SEA ladder and giving SEA players high quality opposition. But this event, in my opinion, is for SEA.

This would solve all the issues about 100 games? 200 games? no, come and LIVE in SEA.
Blunt I know, and probably not a popular opinion, but this league is about SEA. Plus the debate can end, the players are not on the SPR roster, and the rosters are closed for this season.

Quick Comments

Nemo:

Thanks for the compliment ^^

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

Reading this you may be referring to the 'straight x amount of games period', in which case I agree, but thats why I think the majority seem to accept a 'over 2 seasons' approach. With the number though, I suppose see my above point.

The reason I advocate a high number that seems unfair in comparison to SEA residents is because it is a deterrent for players who just want to enter the tournament and nothing else. This is also why I mentioned the probation system for members who may have just joined the community and not had enough time to establish themselves.

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

Again - don't focus on the red herrings of particular cases, set a framework in place that works for both current members and future ones.

The reason I bring up this specific case is because it is happening right now and gives a precedent. Also, as I said it was more of a curiosity thing. Most of the posts in here have been between yourself, Light and Petraeus.

Originally Posted by RyooMakSPR

All people who buy the game have the right to play on that server, and it is their equal right to not play as well.The fact that people are discussing and wanting "proof" whether or not a player will be active in the future is ridiculous in my opinion.
Just as an example, if Balloon were to decide to quit sc2 after and stop playing on SEA after the tournament, it would perfectly be in his own right. But that should have nothing to do with his eligibility to play in tournaments beforehand.

I totally agree with this. If he decided after SEAL that he has had enough of SC2 then he can drop it and no hard feelings. The issue is whether he is active enough before it starts and during his participating in the league. Or anyone else for that matter. Let's not limit it to Balloon.

Originally Posted by RyooMakSPR

In any case if someone's activity is questioned on these forums - because it's an event based on and hosted by this site sc2sea.com, active status in the "community" should be rather determined by site participation in my opinion- when someone joined the site, how many posts he had etc.

The only issue with this is minimum post counts can encourage people to spam posts instead of contributing something constructive.

Originally Posted by RyooMakSPR

only exception to korean-pros who would take the fun out of a community event.

This is think is the centre of the issue. People do not what foreigners coming in and taking away from the tournament just because they can.

Originally Posted by RyooMakSPR

You say a hundred games is too easily achieved.. so what? Its not like every foreigner would suddenly come on this server and play a hundred games to play in this tournament. In this case its only one player - balloon. A hundred games in my eyes should be just viewed more as a bare minimum quota set by the admins, just to have a non-biased standard, a minimum commitment just to prove that you actually play here - not to prove you are active.

This is an interesting take that does bear considering. As far as I am aware Balloon is in. If it gets changed later, I would hope he is still in. More games would just ensure that only people like Balloon, who really want to join in, would. It would keep out the people who just want to play the tournament or league that has caught their eye.

Originally Posted by RyooMakSPR

Lets just play and have fun

Sounds like a good plan.

[Peleus]

ChadMann, I'm a little disappointed in your response, not because it doesn't align with what I've been putting forward but because it seems at least like you haven't read through some of the pretty productive discussions we've had here.

"The debate can end, the players are not on the SPR roster, and the roster is closed for the reason" - Well yes, but as we've said many times this isn't about a specific case. It's not about the SPR players, it's about where do we go in the future.

Extreme cases - what do you draw the line? Are you saying that no matter what RyooMak does he shouldn't be eligible to play? What about 100 constructive posts later on sc2sea? What about 1000? When about if he's contributed more than Nemo? I'm sure in some of those cases you'd say yes, in that case he should play.

So really - you're not against foreign players playing, you just have different requirement opinions than other people. There is nothing wrong with this. Saying that, it's very important in my opinion to be able to measure that, rather than it simply turning once more into a popularity contest. If you think the benchmark should be sc2sea participation then please outline how you can measure it so it can be fair to everyone in the future.

[TAEdgE]

Although I keep to the fact that the tournaments sc2sea and others host are SEA tournaments, I have been thinking and in Playhem on NA and EU, and even things like GSL, anyone from out of country can come participate. In TL Open, Koreans play, and in Playhem Violet has some stupid amount of wins (double figures). The reason I can see myself and a few others may be turned off is that compared to NA, SEA has much less depth, and therefore bringing in even the lower pool of top Koreans just puts us to shame.

I however have come to a realisation that i would love them to play, but I just feel that the team 'SPR' will not be 'SPR' if they win. It won't feel the same. I feel that SPR should have had something like two Tier 1 teams, one for SEA based players and 1 for KR based players. I just like the best team winning, and if SPR wins I won't help but feel that they are not the best team in SEA (with all due respect, i love SPR and the members, and respect the skill). SEACL at heart is competition, which is what i've looked forward to all along, but I do like a just and fair winner, so i've just been thinking about SPR winning and although the motives of Balloon, Soulman and RyooMak are completely innocent and completely in love of competition, they take the glory and possibly money and it just feels 'weird'. Not wrong, but weird.

However i've come to feel that feeling 'weird' does not constitute me saying that they can't participate. What I just wrote may not make much sense and things do not connect but I am just confirming that my opinion sort of leans to 'let them play'. I still believe that for THIS tournament, the players need to be active as they are representing TEAMS, not themselves.

SEA has grown since the 5th-9th masters cups and will continue to grow with the LAN events getting much bigger, and the skill level intensifying in my opinion. Dox Cup had invites and was amazing, and I think more tournaments should advertise to koreans, maybe playing off of Lights invite idea - invite 8 koreans to sign up, and first come first serve. The more active ones will most likely see the invite first anyway so just throwing ideas around.

[Rage]

My point with having an administrator veto on anyone wanting to be included is that I beleive it to be impossible to engineer a set of objective, set rules governing who is part of the community.

A set of rules that both include everyone who deserves to be included and excludes those who do not is an impossible pipe dream - you'll always either end up with rules that are too lax that let people through who shouldn't, or rules too strict that bar someone who should be allowed.

"part of the community" is a subjective thing and cannot be defined objectively.

[ROOTPetraeus]

Originally Posted by EdgE

Although I keep to the fact that the tournaments sc2sea and others host are SEA tournaments, I have been thinking and in Playhem on NA and EU, and even things like GSL, anyone from out of country can come participate. In TL Open, Koreans play, and in Playhem Violet has some stupid amount of wins (double figures). The reason I can see myself and a few others may be turned off is that compared to NA, SEA has much less depth, and therefore bringing in even the lower pool of top Koreans just puts us to shame.

I however have come to a realisation that i would love them to play, but I just feel that the team 'SPR' will not be 'SPR' if they win. It won't feel the same. I feel that SPR should have had something like two Tier 1 teams, one for SEA based players and 1 for KR based players. I just like the best team winning, and if SPR wins I won't help but feel that they are not the best team in SEA (with all due respect, i love SPR and the members, and respect the skill). SEACL at heart is competition, which is what i've looked forward to all along, but I do like a just and fair winner, so i've just been thinking about SPR winning and although the motives of Balloon, Soulman and RyooMak are completely innocent and completely in love of competition, they take the glory and possibly money and it just feels 'weird'. Not wrong, but weird.

However i've come to feel that feeling 'weird' does not constitute me saying that they can't participate. What I just wrote may not make much sense and things do not connect but I am just confirming that my opinion sort of leans to 'let them play'. I still believe that for THIS tournament, the players need to be active as they are representing TEAMS, not themselves.

SEA has grown since the 5th-9th masters cups and will continue to grow with the LAN events getting much bigger, and the skill level intensifying in my opinion. Dox Cup had invites and was amazing, and I think more tournaments should advertise to koreans, maybe playing off of Lights invite idea - invite 8 koreans to sign up, and first come first serve. The more active ones will most likely see the invite first anyway so just throwing ideas around.

That was very confusing :P However I like your ideas of having a separate Korean team/Korean invites. As I still don't like the idea of having Koreans play a set amount of ladder games, this seems like a better option.

[nirvAnA]

To answer your question light - yes there are "guidelines" in place. Its not belonging to a korean professional team and having at least a 100 games. Still we aren't a merciless unflinching bureaucracy so there is still room to evaluate certain players on a case by case basis if the need for it arises for e.g soulman who belongs to a pro-team will still be allowed to play.

To give you some background info, we have a group of the 11 SEAL admins on skype where we discuss the rules, formats and decisions for the league. So we already have that "committee" and yes deL and Chadmann are inside too. As for this Ballon case, I personally felt 100 games was way too little myself but the majority of the admins felt it was reasonable enough and hence froggy made that post http://www.sc2sea.com/showpost.php?p=59379&postcount=99. If the majority of people feel a certain way I almost always let go of my personal preferences and support their decision.

Yeap so as froggy said lets focus on the league now!

[Peleus]

Edit: to rage, others posted after

Without trying to get into a word play here, I'll try and explain my opinion.

In this decision, with rules being outlined or not, there will ALWAYS be subjectivity. How many games constitute being a member of the community? How many posts? Etc.

Saying that, I think its the lessor of evils to subjectively decide once, then objectively apply the standard accross multiple cases then it is to make a subjective decision every time.

Both having a perfect ruleset and making perfect decisions every time is a pipe dream. May as well clearly outline what the current thibking is though so people know where they stand and adjust it later if needs be.

[syfChadMann]

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

In this decision, with rules being outlined or not, there will ALWAYS be subjectivity. How many games constitute being a member of the community? How many posts? Etc.

Saying that, I think its the lessor of evils to subjectively decide once, then objectively apply the standard accross multiple cases then it is to make a subjective decision every time.

Both having a perfect ruleset and making perfect decisions every time is a pipe dream. May as well clearly outline what the current thibking is though so people know where they stand and adjust it later if needs be.

The problem with setting a specific number of games or posts on the community site suggests, quantity, not quality. Its seems a definitive rule is being sought so that particular number can be attained and force the involvement of foreign players. I'll explain myself further, while its nice to have all people form all over the world playing together, this specific league is about the SEA scene, and its overriding goal is to promote and invest into the SEA talent pool, so eventually we can become more and more competitive in the international eSports scene. Allowing an all Korean team to dominate the league would just show the world that SEA can't compete.

A better benchmark of community involvement, something that Frogmite and Nemo pass - and perhaps even TargA. Is a greater involvement in the SEA scene than any other scene. So if Korean pros want to turn their attention to developing the SEA scene, then I welcome them. I doubt any of the Koreans would spend more time playing in SEA and being part of the SEA scene than they do with their domestic scene. So they should develop a similar league for Korean's to play in - then they can deny us and we'd know what its like .

However, I hope everyone enjoys this season! lets put SEA on the SC2 map!

[iSt]

I agree with setting specific definition of being 'active' in SEA server from now on.

Personally, I think having 100 games as the only standard to determine a player's activity is clearly insufficient.

No body in this community argues against the fact that Soulman is active in SEA.

There are few things that Soulman did that differs from other players who are willing to be active in SEA server.

1. Number of games > 100;

2. Streaming;

3. Posting on this site; and

4. Time spent on this server.

I do not think 2. streaming and 3. posting on this site should be the main critieria to determine whether someone is active or not, however do believe that these 2 criterias can be a supportive factor in reaching a decision.

I believe time spent on this server is quite important. A person can play 100 games in 2-3 days if he or she decides to so. However, we cannot call someone who played 2-3 days in this server as being active merely because he or she passes the 100 games requirement.

Accordingly, I think, a player should play 100 ladder games for a month (evenly distributed over the month, as opposed to playing 100 games in 2-3 days and not logging in for the rest of the month), to be active in this server.

The person who has the authority to determine whether a player has played his or her games evenly throughout the month should be the admins as opposed to granting a complete authority to admins to decide whether someone is active or not. Granting a complete discretion to the admins is bound to cause further disagreements among the community members.

Some members may think that a month is too long, however, I think, imposing a strict criterion against a foreigner willing to join this community is necessary. After all, it is them who are willing to join this community and they should do their best to satisfy the rules that the community imposes. Mere 100 games is way too lenient.

Additionally, I would like to note that if any rules are adopted by this community, it should apply to members who are newly introduced from the time that the rule began to operate. The only rule that was given to Balloon from this community, (despite the disagreements between the members) was 100 games.

I think this is the best way to deal with the situation.

Quick Comments

	FaDeBadger:
	asdfSchnitzel:	Great solution
	nGenLight:	This is exactly what I was getting at, I really respect the way you thought this through

[Cordance]

OK so Ive done a lot of reading...

My ballpark figure for number of games is around 25 per week. Given 5 min cheesy games that is 2 and a bit hours per week. If you are playing 30 min macro games its 12.5 hours. This should be consistent the season before and current seasons to so you active not spam gaming. The only problem is its not easy to keep track of this weekly.

I think pro/non pro is determined purely on tournament rules aka admins. Clearly Clan league you having a pro house to practice with gives you a bit of an edge on other clans in SEA. Masters/Dox Cups seems like a more reasonable location to have pros playing but depending on the admins of said tournaments seems like the best ruling on that.

Joining a clan should be an important factor in being a part of the community. I would go so far as to say after one season of competing if the person has not joined a clan their community involvement should be questioned. There are going to be reasons but admins should be letting the player know how this is negatively effective them. As part of a clan members are able to see their activity a little easier for boarder line issues.

Special rulings should always be there for people who are active on SC2SEA.com activity and contribution via the website is purely subjective so should be judged by admins of the site. Getting in via the site is really about getting noticed for your work. This is the backdoor into tournaments via hard work and dedication.

Time lived in SEA should be another consideration point. If you are a non citizen living in SEA then well you are living there it seems reasonable to let you play under the same rules of citizens of SEA. Once you move away Im not sure if putting you in the same boat as non SEA players is fair because the chances are you have friends etc and are a part of the community. Would probably be entrance via the SC2SEA.com participation with admin approval.

Finally those who say 100 games on SEA not enough. The statement is not very useful with out quantifying what you think is enough. Also well done for keeping this mostly mannered. We need some kind of catchy slogan for the sea server like "MANer up and play on SEA."

[Peleus]

This is probably going in circles a little, I'm really tired after a shitty week at work and I suppose that not much will change unless the admins want it to anyway, so I'll probably make this my last post on the subject.

If we start getting into a X games per week type deal, I think we're over thinking it wayyyyy to much. Admins need to be able to jump on sc2ranks.com or the starcraft 2 client, and be able to check within 30 seconds how much was played this season and last. Done, dusted, settled. No one is realistically going to be going through keeping tabs of the foreigners of the server and creating a weekly account, or producing a rolling weekly average of what GM players are playing and comparing it against it etc.

Seriously XXX games over 2 seasons addresses almost every concern of anyone who isn't for outright banning of overseas players. It covers the main points of playing over a period of time, and having an acceptable level of activity, while also being objective and leaving room for bullshit as to "yes you're popular enough" or "no you're not popular enough".

Really though, do people actually think that if we set down a rule of 100 games per season there will be an invasion of pro's coming into sea tournaments? You really think they are going to go and spend 2+ months of their lives going through just to be eligible for relatively minor tournaments? Chances are you'll find a few people put the effort in to make the cut, a few won't and in that case it's no big deal but we can forever move on as to what people accept as eligible players and what people don't.

Anyway, unless Nirvana actually wants it to change it's all for nothing (not saying he does / doesn't). I think i'll have a break from sc2sea for a while, getting a bit to involved with everything.

[Rage]

Measuring a subjective thing ("part of a community") with objective rules is always going to be nigh on impossible.

I'm not sure why we're bothering to try.

[Eddie]

Fwiw TigerSPR has never played in a Masters Cup before despite some people saying he has.

This Sundays open event will be his first. He would have been eligible under the old rules of active = about 100 games on SEA that season.

The Masters Cup has changed from the International but active entry ok rules, to the current system of 2/3 just for SEA and the 3rd an open one, don't have to be active. Our reasons for this change have been documented elsewhere around the site, and so far it seems the majority support this change.

KingKong and Soulman were the regular MC guys.

I liked Balloons Intro post. Hopefully he can post/contribute more here, and enjoy his time laddering on SEA. Both are great ways of showing he wants to be a part of the community.

Quick Comments

	nirvAnA:
	Nemo:	Wise

[nGenLight]

To RyoomakSPR: Hello, and welcome sir. You make some pretty good points and I can see that you are a really nice and reasonable guy. However, you are missing the point of this thread and my intention, and perhaps expectedly so as you even said yourself that you didn't read all the posts within this thread. No one is questioning you, BalloonSPR or anyones rights to buy a SEA account and play on the SEA Server. Infact, I personally love player against tougher competition, as before I stopped playing I regularly got beaten ten times a day by Korean GMs. I am with Edge and Targa's opinion(summarised here: http://www.sc2sea.com/showpost.php?p=59781&postcount=48) in that I believe we should allow everyone to play, it doesnt bother me but rather excites me.

However, this isn't the issue, the issue that is at hand is that of foreigners eligibility to play in the SEACL, which has a rule that states:

7. You may not include players based outside of Southeast Asia or Oceania in your team unless an admin grants special consideration.

Proposing that is infact a tournament to promote the SEA scene and SEA players, which has their own argument and merit, summarised by Chadman's post here: http://www.sc2sea.com/showpost.php?p=59804&postcount=53. Regardless of whether BalloonSPR is the nicest/friendliest guy in the world, he is not classified as a regularly involved in the SEA Server and therefore scrutiny will take place when 100 games(in less than 2 weeks) will instantly classify him as a regular of SEA - therefore this discussion is taking place. This does not take away our love for you guys' skills and our welcome towards nice people such as yourselves. BalloonSPR's desire to play here is noted and appreciated - But this not change the issue at hand, which is one completely revolving around political correctness, and saying and doing what we said and meant.

To Frogmite:

Originally Posted by Frogmite

Last point is a bit harsh, i hope no one will be ofended, but i am sure that if we were training instead of wasting our time making drama, we would beat those koreans. They are not more talented than SEA, they just play more.

Unfortunately, I did get offended by this statement. As you started being rude to me, I don't feel like holding back about the statements I am about to make. How am I wasting time "making drama" when this was an issue that was obviously not resolved to satisfaction, felt by a large proportion of the community. I enjoy posting and debating politics moreso than I enjoy playing StarCraft II. What is it to you?

Noone has stated the reason we don't want "Koreans" to play is because of them being more talented - The reason we are being so difficult is because of this rule:

7. You may not include players based outside of Southeast Asia or Oceania in your team unless an admin grants special consideration.

This rule obviously aimed at protecting the SEA scene from foreign players whilst special considerations for players that is apart of the SEA scene - This is all fine. Then MasterSPR stirred the scene by submitting an SPR lineup filled with many players that are not considered part of the SEA community. MasterSPR tried to use the "100 ladder games rule" (Originally designed for Eddie's Master Cup) to demonstrate these players are "active" for the tournament. This argument/"rule" was completely obliterated unanimously by the community for being way too easy to achieve (Details of this debate can be found here: http://www.sc2sea.com/showthread.php?p=57030#post57030).

However, after all that debate, the final ruling for the SEACL was still that "100 ladder games" to be the required number for foreign players' eligibility in the SEACL. This not only makes the SEA community look hypocritical in that it's using the same ruling it was very publicly against, but it also is a pretty pathetic of a ruling to try determine a foreign's players involvement in the community, as it fails to address issues like foreign players "smashing out" 100 ladder games in a couple of days, the longevity of these players' continued involvement in the community after the tournament. As you've probably gathered, I am strongly cynical of this "100 ladder games rule" and felt it was decided without ample thought. I am sure a large part of this community feels that this ruling was insufficient, including Nirvana himself who tended towards the higher vote count of his staff. Any player can bypass this "100 ladder games rule" with 2 weeks to go in the tournament - Does 2 weeks of involvment in the scene really spell a player to be apart of the community? I think not.

Regardless, as you have said, whats done is done and let us focus on the tournament and have a good time. Just know that the precedence has been set and I feel that this may lead to the complete abolishment of the non-foreign player rule, which I feel is probably beneficial to SEA anyway.


To iStSPR: Your sentiments (http://www.sc2sea.com/showpost.php?p=59848&postcount=54) are completely in-line with an answer that I have in mind. The three main component of activity in the SEA server can be broken down to: (1) Ladder activity - measured moreso by quantity and time. (2) Activity on SC2SEA.com - measured moreso by quality and time. (3) Extra-curricular activities like streaming, pariticipation in SEA clans and joining tournaments - time. What they all have in common is that they all require huge amounts of time invested in the SEA scene. I do not believe you need more than even one of the above component to be considered active in the SEA scene (although having multiple components does help your case), just ample amount of time. As you have said, someone who has all three components covered like SoulmanSPR had not a shroud of doubt whether he was a regular on the SEA server.

What I propose for the purpose for the future of SEA tournament eligibility is a metric system that covers a timespan of more than 2-3 seasons of ladder in either of the three components: (1)150 Games in 2-3 seasons (yCh). (2) Continued SC2SEA.com activity across 2-3 seasons (Nemo). (3) Known to do extra curricular ideas for SEA scene across 2-3 seasons (More vague, but definitely expandable). Intro posts like what BalloonSPR only help to define himself as part of the server and can be considered into category 2. However, to be honest, I forsee the future of SEA tournaments to be openly avaible to the world as this is probably the better direction to head towards, and trying to protect the SEA scene with 100 ladder games is, as you said, utterly insufficient. Alas, I do not doubt this proposal will stand to no value as the emphasis should now be placed on the actual running of the tournament.

Quick Comments

	Bash:
	Frogmite:	good points

[Frogmite]

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

Unfortunately, I did get offended by this statement. As you started being rude to me, I don't feel like holding back about the statements I am about to make. How am I wasting time "making drama" when this was an issue that was obviously not resolved to satisfaction, felt by a large proportion of the community. I enjoy posting and debating politics moreso than I enjoy playing StarCraft II. What is it to you?

Yeah sorry to have posted that, i was a bit stressed with work and posted that without really thinking twice. That was not really smart from me sincere apologies to all i offended.

And as i said in my post too, this thread is a very good material for us to help us make a better SEACL season 3.

Quick Comments

	nGenLight:	Apologies accepted, sorry for being rude myself. You are a good man and done so much for this community.
	nirvAnA:	w0w0w0w group hug santa frog!