Way to miss the point. Look at what I was responding to.
Are you going to rely on this everytime you're given an answer you dislike?
How can using an illegal move NOT affect the rest oft he bracket?
If you win the match due to using an illegal move, you dump the loser into the loser's bracket, altering the possible results.
This is why it is illegal, because the advantage it can provide is much too large and can affect tournament results when it is utilized.
Similarly, the matter of splitting is more easily clear cut because of its possibilities, but that does not mean illegal moves have any less of an effect in a tournament.
To argue otherwise would suggest that using such an ability would warrant a much smaller punishment, but as we know, due to the extent of IDC, it can be just as bad.
It is ignorant to argue that what occurs in game can only affect what occurs in that singular match.
Forget it.
Again, way to miss the point. Read what I was responding to, because what you just said has nothing to do with what I was saying.
Yes it does, simply because you don't like the answer does not mean it has nothing to do with your point.
You were suggesting that it wouldn't bother the Japanese because in their ruleset, the IDC is not banned.
My point is that, this is the USA.
Those differences in rulesets become completely irrelevant, and simply because a few people may not mind due to a difference in ruleset,
does not change the fact that at this tournament, IDC was banned, and that the DQ should be enforced.
Edit: Also lulz
Can't find the Apex 2012 ruleset but in the 2013 ruleset, EDC isn't banned. Only IDC is banned.
They're the same thing you derp. -_-
From my experience, in USA you only get canned if the TO's aren't your friend. At Apex 2012, many pro players arrived late at the 9 am mark set to start including the TO's themselves. Many top players were late for their matches during pools and doubles or were seen doing friendlies when they weren't supposed to. But when viviff was 2 minutes late, we did get the "threaten to get dqed" (he arrived 2 seconds before the countdown ended lol). And it's very often like that in many other tournaments.
Yeah its been that way for awhile. Irks the heck out of me.
@SFP
However, saying "I'm also going to take away your poops and giggles" just seems like icing on the cake of evil
TO's are there to handle the tournament.
Not make people feel good about themselves after they broke a rule.
Sure you are taking a dump on the carpet, but go ahead and finish wiping your arse.
Uh. No.
Also I don't see what was so shocking about any of the things I said. Maybe people aren't following, or they're still reading the parts where I accidentally said 'DQ' when I meant 'stop the game'
How is it accidental if that is what you typed...?
Yeah I haven't really been involved in this conversation and no one cares what I have to say anyway because I'm a troll,
I don't think you're a troll.
It isn't a matter of, enforcing rules just because the rules exist.
There are several cases where the individual is exempt.
In this case?
LOL NO.
You enforce the rule when it is clear that the individual has broken the rule on purpose.
M2K has done this multiple times, and he STILL got money for being in second place.
So...wtf?
What were the consequences here? There was no risk of compromising bracket accuracy. The outcome of the match was the same in either case. You can make the argument that DQing M2K on the spot instead of letting them finish their match-turned-friendly would serve the purpose of sending a message to the community, but in all honesty, "IDC = forfeit" is a message we've all gotten from the beginning. DQing M2K on the spot probably wouldn't have affected or effected anything in the long run in any capacity.
Except your argument is a dual bladed argument.
There is a risk of compromising bracket accuracy because if he was willing to do it in the finals, he was willing to do it before hand.
If he was willing to do it when in a losing position, he could have also won.
Worst possible case scenario? M2K wins, Alex hands him his money and we all sit there gong "herp."
How about this, for the future: let the non-offending players decide if they want to continue the match or not, with the understanding that they've already won.
Hey guy, this dude is DQ'ed from the tournament because he pulled an illegal move.
If you want, you can st there and play X amount of minutes as if all was normal, but hey, you are guaranteed a win.
Pretty silly.
There's more to being a good TO than enforcing rules for the sake of paperwork. Like has been said earlier, Alex Strife had the stream to consider as well (it's not every day they get to see this match, there's a reason Apex is the most hype event of the year), and in all honesty, stream hype was probably the only thing at stake here, inconsequential as it may seem!
If it is inconsequential, then there should have been no problem ending the match right there.
M2K has done this in the past, which makes the whole matter even more laughable because the rule isn't even being enforced properly in the first place.
"We won't DQ you because you lost anyway."
"Hey you're DQ'ed, but play the match anyway now that everyone on the stream knows that you screwed yourself over."
Using the IDC =/= forfeit.
Forfeiting is something that is voluntarily done with the intent of giving up.
Using the IDC= Disqualification.
The fact you said that shows that there is clearly something wrong.
The rule should have been enforced simple as that, and enforced in a manner that was harsh to send out a message that it is not acceptable regardless of how "hype it is."
Simply because "hype" doesn't do anything. People will still go to APEX the next year its just that next year, they'll know the TO's won't put up with crap that shouldn't happen.
You send the wrong message when you let people play anyway despite doing wrong.
Does everyone remember when judo accidentally paused the game at the end and was DQ'd because of it? Lots of people were mad, but it was the right decision regardless of how much it diluted the hype in the venue and despite how mad it made a lot of people.
Actually, I didn't really agree with that decision.
It was clearly accidental, and the best way to avoid having that problem arise was simply by disabling pause.
I would say it is one exception to the rule that would not have detracted from the tournament.
