The RoM 5 Thread

[unknown522]

I think I'm turning elitist.

It seems a lot of reall bad players are just dumb and prone to complain about anything/everything

 

[Divinokage]

Unknown is so diplomatic.

Kage, I've already posted why I don't care about what the community thinks of me anymore so long as I retain the ability to enter tournaments. This is a no-brainer. Read my post again or something idk how you're not getting this.

I get it, alright.. and I was also part of that kind of thing. I'm sorry. =(

Though in my mind, I'm still hopeful that we can erase the hate all together.. but I guess I watch too many animes maybe.. lol.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

This isn't the place for the bracket seeding discussion, so I'll just say this before moving on:

Calling it "naive" wasn't an insult of you, it was a criticism of an idea. I usually take care to distinguish the two and I'm sorry I didn't this time.

I agree this isn't the time for this discussion, I read your post and I say that for the time being we should agree to disagree.

Also, thanks for the clear up for on your use of naive.


On topic:

Personally I have never had a problem with letting my players split, but I agree with AZ's argument. Part of playing in a tournament dealing with risk. Winning, and getting all of the benefits from that or losing and getting nothing. Just as one can't split/share their final placing, they shouldn't be able to share the rewards from that placing.

On the other hand, once the money is in the player's hands, the TO has no right to tell them what they can do with that money. Its also nearly unenforceable, so why bother trying?

 

[Deleted member]

The "already have" is an incorrect assumption. Before the tournament completes and you are eliminated according to the rules, you have nothing. You cannot give away money you have not actually won. Again, depends on the rules whether this would apply, but most tournaments have a clause against manipulation, which is exactly what is occurring when you start talking to your opponent before you play to "hedge your bets".

If a TO wanted to make their tournament about who can make it to top 2 then they should stop making a difference in prizes. Of course, that basically defeats the entire purpose of holding a tournament, doesn't it?

Also, semantics, but humans are not risk averse. Maybe normal adults, but I wouldn't classify a fair portion of the community as adults, and there are still plenty of young ones out there, too.

It's totally an incorrect assumption. I think we should resolve it by formally addressing it.

Humans are risk averse by nature. Society has mechanisms that allow us to hedge our potential losses though health care plans, fixed interest rate loans, or insurance policies. If humans were not risk averse, there would be very little incentive for splitting to begin with. The core of the problem with splitting is that in many cases, it is mutually beneficial for both players to hedge against their potential losses. We need some way to have the disincentive outweigh the incentive that splitting creates in the form of "security" that I addressed earlier, or we can add some structure that allows us to nullify that security (ex. no one gets paid until the tournament is completed).

edit:

I would like to post a statement tomorrow evening or Friday with the following content:

1. The events of RoM5 were based on a poor communication from multiple people.
2. We don't find any one person to be the source of the problem, and no malicious intent is suspected from anyone involved.
3. We think that the situation has revealed new issues that should be addressed by our rule set.
4. Those issues will be addressed within the next couple weeks.
5. No persecution should be taken against anyone involved.

charles, sheridan, and everyone else, let me know what you think?

 

[Marc]

I don't entirely agree. Blanket "no persecution" in particular might be too much, considering M2K has been banned from MLG for exactly this behaviour. I'm not going to say he should be banned from tournament X or Y for this, but if him and unknown willfully split before playing GFs, that's falsifying competition no matter the circumstances. The TO making poor decisions might count as "extenuating circumstances", to an extent, in the case of particularly unknown, but if the MBR is going to comment on this, I'd rather it would take a stance against public monetary agreements.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

While splitting isn't routine, it is common enough that if we were to punish someone now it would be unfair for everyone else that has split in the past. I think a message to the community and TOs in general about how to handle splitting (such as your rights as a TO to refuse payment to splitting parties) would be appropriate, but in the end it should be clear that handling of this issue is on a case-by-case basis and handled by the TO(s) only.

 

[omgwtfToph]

1. The events of RoM5 were based on a poor communication from multiple people.
2. We don't find any one person to be the source of the problem, and no malicious intent is suspected from anyone involved.
3. We think that the situation has revealed new issues that should be addressed by our rule set.
4. Those issues will be addressed within the next couple weeks.
5. No persecution should be taken against anyone involved.

I COMPLETELY agree with all 5 of these points.

While splitting isn't routine, it is common enough that if we were to punish someone now it would be unfair for everyone else that has split in the past. I think a message to the community and TOs in general about how to handle splitting (such as your rights as a TO to refuse payment to splitting parties) would be appropriate, but in the end it should be clear that handling of this issue is on a case-by-case basis and handled by the TO(s) only.

Exactly this.

I want to make the point that in general, I dislike splitting. I'm fine with it when it doesn't detract from the quality of matches but in general I think Melee lives on hype and killing hype sucks. In general. But I know that it's happened many times in the past and punishing KK and Unknown for it now is completely absurd, because like KK said, it wasn't explicitly stated in the rules beforehand. I think it would be nice to have a clause somewhere in some official standardized ruleset that says "if it's a big tournament, do it for the fans; don't split plz." But I don't think punishing a few scapegoats now (because that really is what it would be in this case) solves anything.

 

[Deleted member]

I don't entirely agree. Blanket "no persecution" in particular might be too much, considering M2K has been banned from MLG for exactly this behaviour. I'm not going to say he should be banned from tournament X or Y for this, but if him and unknown willfully split before playing GFs, that's falsifying competition no matter the circumstances. The TO making poor decisions might count as "extenuating circumstances", to an extent, in the case of particularly unknown, but if the MBR is going to comment on this, I'd rather it would take a stance against public monetary agreements.

MLG made it quite obvious that they wanted nothing to do with this. We have not. I understand that Jason has a history behind this stuff, but

1. we should treat them like independent events,

2. he was already punished (heavily) for the MLG incident, and I see no reason to punish him further for something he has already resolved, and

3. he had no reason to think that his behaviors were "wrong" because the TO and the rules never addressed them.

Now if we put something into place and he directly breaks a stated rule, by all means he is indefensible and we can work that out accordingly.

I'd like the MBR to take some firm stance as well, namely whatever you guys decide we should set into place, but we're not quite there yet. This is fine, we're allowed to move in stages IMO. I just want to put out something that says "we looked at this" while also removing tension from those few people.

 

[Divinokage]

You can always make the rule "If you don't play your match within the next 5-10 minutes, you are DQed" universal. I mean it would already remove the time someone can warm up and it'll be always efficient to run a tournament this way assuming you have enough staff to do this I guess.. but it doesn't sound too complicated to do. And if someone doesn't feel like playing then, he's just DQed, that's all. He'll have to live with the consequences after without damaging the community at all.

No response in 3 days.. did I solve everything with this rule? lol.

 

[unknown522]

So guys, should I post the explanation to the public yet? People are asking

 

[Marc]

If you mean publicly posting your own exlanation, that's not really dependent on this topic, right?

MLG made it quite obvious that they wanted nothing to do with this. We have not. I understand that Jason has a history behind this stuff, but

1. we should treat them like independent events,

2. he was already punished (heavily) for the MLG incident, and I see no reason to punish him further for something he has already resolved, and

3. he had no reason to think that his behaviors were "wrong" because the TO and the rules never addressed them.

Now if we put something into place and he directly breaks a stated rule, by all means he is indefensible and we can work that out accordingly.

I'd like the MBR to take some firm stance as well, namely whatever you guys decide we should set into place, but we're not quite there yet. This is fine, we're allowed to move in stages IMO. I just want to put out something that says "we looked at this" while also removing tension from those few people.

Well, I'd just leave the notion of punishment and who's to blame alone and instead focus on taking a stance rulesetwise. Because really, there's a lot that can be said and most people I talked to actually do believe primarily M2K and to a lesser extent unknown are to blame (those who have an issue with KK still think he was in on the splitting). Some who read into it more deeply think the TO made some poor decisions, but it's kind of unrelated as it should be common sense not to do those things in this manner. If the sad reality is that we need a rule for it, so be it, and I once again want to stress that I'm not advocating for a specific punishment, but all the same I'm not going to get behind something that says "no one in particular is to blame, these guys should not be punished".

If we can agree that we do not want splitting to openly happen like this and ruin a tournament, what we tell the public is that we'll look into getting this covered in the next MBR ruleset. You could even go so far as to say that RoM5 was unfortunate on multiple ends and riddled with miscommunication, but that's it IMO.

 

[Divinokage]

So guys, should I post the explanation to the public yet? People are asking

You can if you want to, but I don't think it'll change things very much as things got settled already. It's basically on you if you are comfortable saying this or if you'd feel a bit more at peace. If it's on your mind, for real, then you should talk about it.. you shouldn't do it because people demand it, it's not really their business.

 

[Nintendude]

Maybe it's best to offer to give your explanation via PM for those interested. I think publicly posting about it might rekindle the issue.

 

[Strong Badam]

Obligatory post to say I agree with the general ideas posted in this thread so far. Interested to participate in the next ruleset discussion.

 

[unknown522]

Fair enough

 

[Deleted member]

So guys, should I post the explanation to the public yet? People are asking

if you care about your image, no.

if you don't care about your image, yes.

 

[unknown522]

Shouldn't that be backwards? Cuz I don't really care about my image

 

[Pink Reaper]

at this point posting your story will only stir up more arguments over who's fault this is and pointless flaming. We've gotten to the point where rational thinkers are no longer caught up on pointing fingers and just want to move on to trying to avoid having this happen again.

 

[unknown522]

True. Well that's that.

Also yeah umbreon's post makes sense in that way