The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[SaveMeJebus]

thats funny coming from you

My rule doesn't force players to approach any more than the current rule set does.

 

[Judo777]

So I said this ages ago but I got ignored and go figure it has been an issue as of late.

Rule 5. Intentional forfeiting, match fixing, splitting, and any other forms of bracket manipulation are not allowed and punishable by the TO. Seriously needs to be amended and be made much more specific.

Firstly this rule immediately assumes that all forms of splitting are bracket manipulation which is not the case (like in examples such as mine where we split for an uneven pot thus resulting in a legitimate set because the winner for 20% more of the total pot).

Secondly this rule explicitly states that every player who enters a tournament MUST play all of their matches to their fullest capacity regardless of the scenario. Getting sick and leaving the venue is intentional forfeiting which is an automatic yellow card.

Thirdly this rule actually in some ways prevents a players ability to play to win. In tournament if I am guaranteed 1st seed or if I was sure I would lose to a player, this rule prevents me from taking it easy on myself to hopefully perform better in a future match by forcing to play as hard as I can every single match. There is a certain amount of endurance that plays into a tournament and it can be advantageous to save your focus and energy for future matches if you are sure you can;t win or are guaranteed 1st seed in pools.

Seriously guys don't ignore me this time please.

 

[DRDN]

How about instead you don't use a stupid rule

This should be quoted everytime jebus posts a rule


Everytime

And the man above me has very valid points

 

[Tesh]

Imo its okay for conduct rules to be vague. Just apply some common sense and recognize the intent of players. So far I've never seen anyone banned for yelling during a match without the intent to distract another player. Conduct rules really needn't be extremely detailed.

 

[Judo777]

Imo its okay for conduct rules to be vague. Just apply some common sense and recognize the intent of players. So far I've never seen anyone banned for yelling during a match without the intent to distract another player. Conduct rules really needn't be extremely detailed.

Um I got carded solely because of the vagueness of this rule. It wasn't matter of common sense cause the TO saw nothing wrong with it but because it technically still splitting i got carded.

 

[infiniteV115]

Funny, in the post with all the infractions, it says:
Judo777
Yellow Card (Bracket Manipulation) at Brawl in the Hall 5- Expiring October 10th, 2011

But I remember you talking about being infracted for splitting, when all that happened was you gave $6 to some dude cause you were disappointed that he couldn't hang out with you after the tourney. Is this the infraction above?

 

[Tesh]

If the BRC infracts me for accidentally elbowing someone I was playing against, thats not a fault of the rule. Its just poor application of the rule. Honestly they were just scrambling to assert authority and prove they weren't singling out top players (which the intent of the rule already does). I doubt you guys killed hype at your 10 man tournament over less than a 50 bucks in payout difference.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Can't it just be one of those rules that is vague but is only applied when it needs to be applied?

Kind-of like how police arrest murderers for drug-dealing. Only book the guys who deserve it.

 

[Judo777]

Funny, in the post with all the infractions, it says:
Judo777
Yellow Card (Bracket Manipulation) at Brawl in the Hall 5- Expiring October 10th, 2011

But I remember you talking about being infracted for splitting, when all that happened was you gave $6 to some dude cause you were disappointed that he couldn't hang out with you after the tourney. Is this the infraction above?

Close. He asked me to split and I at first said no. He then offered a 6/4 split for 1st and 2nd. Since the actual payout split was 6/3/1 the difference after the split was $6. I wanted to throw the dude a few extra bucks because I had already won doubles and since the guys is like 14 he couldn't hang out with us later (where I would have like bought him food instead of splitting) because his dad was driving him home.

Although the rule is trying to protect against splitting resulting in not serious sets or bracket manipulation, in our case of course the sets were serious I got 20 more dollars than he did for winning. But because the rule vaguely states splitting I got carded.

More so the forfeit rule is stupid and needs to be amended. So does the whole rule tho.

Also there needs to be a clarification on which rules are allowed to have infractions handed out. As it stands the BBRRC has the right to hand out infractions for breaking rule number one and not bringing a controller.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Or, we can just accept that we, as a community, want to stop splitting at all levels for all amounts, even 0.01$, and apply the rule as it is intended. Seriously, all of this "Yes, splitting is bad, but my circumstances are an exception, and should be treated that way, because I'm a special snowflake" bull**** is ridiculous.

Splitting is bad. It de-legitimizes at any level and for any amount by showing that the players involved feel entitled to money they haven't won yet, and is not accepted in ANY major, legitimate game / sport / e-sport. Period. You are not special. Your circumstances are not special. You do not deserve special treatment or special rule amendments. Rules are rules. No splitting.

EDIT: Commander Shepard graces my post #2500? I'll take it.

 

[Life]

Or, we can just accept that we, as a community, want to stop splitting at all levels for all amounts, even 0.01$, and apply the rule as it is intended. Seriously, all of this "Yes, splitting is bad, but my circumstances are an exception, and should be treated that way, because I'm a special snowflake" bull**** is ridiculous.

Splitting is bad. It de-legitimizes at any level and for any amount by showing that the players involved feel entitled to money they haven't won yet, and is not accepted in ANY major, legitimate game / sport / e-sport. Period. You are not special. Your circumstances are not special. You do not deserve special treatment or special rule amendments. Rules are rules. No splitting.

EDIT: Commander Shepard graces my post #2500? I'll take it.

FWIW, if you're about to get kicked out of the venue due to time restraints, splitting is kinda the only option. Otherwise, yeah sure.

 

[Judo777]

Or, we can just accept that we, as a community, want to stop splitting at all levels for all amounts, even 0.01$, and apply the rule as it is intended. Seriously, all of this "Yes, splitting is bad, but my circumstances are an exception, and should be treated that way, because I'm a special snowflake" bull**** is ridiculous.

Splitting is bad. It de-legitimizes at any level and for any amount by showing that the players involved feel entitled to money they haven't won yet, and is not accepted in ANY major, legitimate game / sport / e-sport. Period. You are not special. Your circumstances are not special. You do not deserve special treatment or special rule amendments. Rules are rules. No splitting.

EDIT: Commander Shepard graces my post #2500? I'll take it.

Ok but if that's the case whoever convinced M2K to sandbag resulting in his card now HAS to be given a yellow card. She intentionally forfeited out of pools. That's a card.

Also anyone that enters a tournament and then doesn't play their match will thereby receive a yellow card no matter the circumstance. Its a rule.

And how does it de-legitimize the set? If both players play to win then how is it de-legitimized?

Alrighty well because its a rule I suppose we have to give that girl a card, she forfeited, even though it was to undo something wrong that had occurred rules are rules.

 

[Zankoku]

I already argued that point really hard like right after Genesis 2.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok but if that's the case whoever convinced M2K to sandbag resulting in his card now HAS to be given a yellow card. She intentionally forfeited out of pools. That's a card.

Yes, that's correct, and I said as much earlier in the thread. I think Sade does deserve a card. Yes, she acted with the best of intentions. No, she should not get away with vigilantism. Precedent is important.

Also anyone that enters a tournament and then doesn't play their match will thereby receive a yellow card no matter the circumstance. Its a rule.

Yep. Don't waste the TO's time / effort OR the time / effort of all of the players who actually did show up to their matches. The yellow card, in that case, is a brand saying "this player doesn't care enough to show up to his matches, regardless of his commitment to do so". EDIT: Besides, by allowing circumstance to dictate card issuance, we open up the door for all sorts of shenanigans. Remember how people say that bans have to be warranted, enforceable and discreet? Well, our out-of-game rules need to be discreet, as well. After all, is it "ok" if a player registers for a tournament, knowing that he won't have time (or even just heavily suspecting so) to finish the bracket out if he gets to GF? If you can't or don't expect that you'll be able to commit to staying at the venue until the tournament is over, then don't register.

Obviously, the exception is mortal injury; if a player (or a family member) has a life-threatening emergency, it's a bit unrealistic to expect him / her to stay to complete the tournament, but in that case, he / she would just be DQ'ed and the bracket moves on.

And how does it de-legitimize the set? If both players play to win then how is it de-legitimized?

Because it casts doubt and suspicion where there was none. "Both players played to their fullest" is, technically speaking, a non-falsifiable claim. The only way to eliminate the problems that the splitting rule is trying to eliminate is to prevent the suspicion from surfacing in the first place. Preventative measures, essentially. That's what the cards are supposed to act as: a deterrent to prevent suspicion from ever coming up. The suspicion, in and of itself, de-legitimizes the set.

Alrighty well because its a rule I suppose we have to give that girl a card, she forfeited, even though it was to undo something wrong that had occurred rules are rules.

See above. We have TOs for a reason, and that reason is NOT for players to take the rules into their own hands.

 

[MechaWave]

Oh this is just lovely.

Someone make Ruleset 1.4 pweeze. :3

 

[Judo777]

Yes, that's correct, and I said as much earlier in the thread. I think Sade does deserve a card. Yes, she acted with the best of intentions. No, she should not get away with vigilantism. Precedent is important.



Yep. Don't waste the TO's time / effort OR the time / effort of all of the players who actually did show up to their matches. The yellow card, in that case, is a brand saying "this player doesn't care enough to show up to his matches, regardless of his commitment to do so". EDIT: Besides, by allowing circumstance to dictate card issuance, we open up the door for all sorts of shenanigans. Remember how people say that bans have to be warranted, enforceable and discreet? Well, our out-of-game rules need to be discreet, as well. After all, is it "ok" if a player registers for a tournament, knowing that he won't have time (or even just heavily suspecting so) to finish the bracket out if he gets to GF? If you can't or don't expect that you'll be able to commit to staying at the venue until the tournament is over, then don't register.

Obviously, the exception is mortal injury; if a player (or a family member) has a life-threatening emergency, it's a bit unrealistic to expect him / her to stay to complete the tournament, but in that case, he / she would just be DQ'ed and the bracket moves on.



Because it casts doubt and suspicion where there was none. "Both players played to their fullest" is, technically speaking, a non-falsifiable claim. The only way to eliminate the problems that the splitting rule is trying to eliminate is to prevent the suspicion from surfacing in the first place. Preventative measures, essentially. That's what the cards are supposed to act as: a deterrent to prevent suspicion from ever coming up. The suspicion, in and of itself, de-legitimizes the set.



See above. We have TOs for a reason, and that reason is NOT for players to take the rules into their own hands.

How can enforcing rules for rules sake have exceptions? If their is mortal injury it doesn't make the rule any less of a rule. If I get sick and can't play "tough it's a rule and a rule is a rule." How can an obvious exception be taken into account this time but not in another case? Sade forfeited to fix something that was wrong shouldn't that be an obvious exception too? What about non-mortal injury like getting sick or hurting your hand or something else?

Also how can anyone even begin to say that there is any evidence that leads to the set not being legit? The difference was 20 bucks. Would you be willing to $20 MM me and then SD all of your stocks and let me win? Because that's how much money was on the line. I don't see how anyone who thinks that $5 MM can be taken seriously can then be like "$20 yea I don't think that's enough to warrant serious play."

 

[stingers]

sakurai didnt do too bad making this game

 

[Vinylic.]

sakurai didnt do too bad making this game

What the **** did I just read.

 

[Jack Kieser]

How can enforcing rules for rules sake have exceptions? If their is mortal injury it doesn't make the rule any less of a rule. If I get sick and can't play "tough it's a rule and a rule is a rule." How can an obvious exception be taken into account this time but not in another case? Sade forfeited to fix something that was wrong shouldn't that be an obvious exception too? What about non-mortal injury like getting sick or hurting your hand or something else?

Because if we, as TOs, didn't let someone leave because of a life-threatening injury to get medical attention and they died, we'd be guilty of negligent manslaughter, that's why, smart-***. "Ow, I banged my hand on the table and it's sore" is not the same as "I was plugging in a setup and got a 200,000 volt jolt of electricity and my heart stopped". There is not a single institution in all of the civilized world that doesn't make an exception for whatever in the case of mortal injury.

If you want to be the dude arguing "hey, we have an exception for people who are bleeding to death, so obviously we should have an exception for people who have a headache", be my guest, but you'll be ******** for doing so.

Also how can anyone even begin to say that there is any evidence that leads to the set not being legit? The difference was 20 bucks. Would you be willing to $20 MM me and then SD all of your stocks and let me win? Because that's how much money was on the line. I don't see how anyone who thinks that $5 MM can be taken seriously can then be like "$20 yea I don't think that's enough to warrant serious play."

Yeah, and then there's people splitting for potentially hundreds / thousands of dollars at MLG. You're arguing personal preference as though it should dictate how all players act. It doesn't, and it won't. YOUR opinion is that 20$ is enough reason to play seriously. There are plenty of people who not only think that 20$ isn't enough of a reason to play seriously, but that people who would even consider splitting are dishonest people whose word can't be trusted anyway.

Which group is right or wrong, Judo? I'll tell you what: morally, I don't know, but I know which group sponsors are going to side with. I know which side MLG takes. And I know what side state gambling commissions would take, and considering the shaky legal ground Smash-tournaments-for-money stands on in a lot of states, I don't think you have the right to put an entire region at legal risk just so you can be a "nice guy" and give someone 20$ you haven't even earned yet.

You know, I think it's funny how all of the people either getting caught splitting or defending the practice are apparently incapable of thinking ahead more than 2 days.

 

[Tesh]

Jack just said alot of really stupid stuff. He must be trying to trap you into something to make a point.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Says the guy not quoting anything... >_>

 

[Judo777]

Because if we, as TOs, didn't let someone leave because of a life-threatening injury to get medical attention and they died, we'd be guilty of negligent manslaughter, that's why, smart-***. "Ow, I banged my hand on the table and it's sore" is not the same as "I was plugging in a setup and got a 200,000 volt jolt of electricity and my heart stopped". There is not a single institution in all of the civilized world that doesn't make an exception for whatever in the case of mortal injury.

If you want to be the dude arguing "hey, we have an exception for people who are bleeding to death, so obviously we should have an exception for people who have a headache", be my guest, but you'll be ******** for doing so.



Yeah, and then there's people splitting for potentially hundreds / thousands of dollars at MLG. You're arguing personal preference as though it should dictate how all players act. It doesn't, and it won't. YOUR opinion is that 20$ is enough reason to play seriously. There are plenty of people who not only think that 20$ isn't enough of a reason to play seriously, but that people who would even consider splitting are dishonest people whose word can't be trusted anyway.

Which group is right or wrong, Judo? I'll tell you what: morally, I don't know, but I know which group sponsors are going to side with. I know which side MLG takes. And I know what side state gambling commissions would take, and considering the shaky legal ground Smash-tournaments-for-money stands on in a lot of states, I don't think you have the right to put an entire region at legal risk just so you can be a "nice guy" and give someone 20$ you haven't even earned yet.

You know, I think it's funny how all of the people either getting caught splitting or defending the practice are apparently incapable of thinking ahead more than 2 days.

So getting sick and throwing up isn't reason enough? You realize when making rules it is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that you take into account the extreme points. The parts where the line blurs right? Because that's where the issue is going to be. People aren't going to argue the obvious points they are gonna argue the not so obvious ones.

And that's all I wanted to hear. See I don't care which side sponsors will take. It was a 10 man tournament, I'm not sure who the hell would sponsor us in Kentucky. Morally I did nothing wrong. Also get ur facts straight. I didn't give the kid $20 dollars i gave the kid $6. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN first and second place AFTER the split was $20 dollars.

So again if anyone thinks that $20 dollars isn't worth serious play I will gladly MM them to a $20 MM as long as they promise to use the character of my choice. Because the point you are making is that $20 is negligible (even tho apparently its enough money in the U.S. to have a trial by jury).

 

[Tesh]

I don't need to quote anything. Your entire stance is ******** and unrealistic.

 

[Vinylic.]

This calls for Inception.

 

[Jack Kieser]

So getting sick and throwing up isn't reason enough? You realize when making rules it is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that you take into account the extreme points. The parts where the line blurs right? Because that's where the issue is going to be. People aren't going to argue the obvious points they are gonna argue the not so obvious ones.

Which is why you make the rule so that the not-obvious ones don't matter. "No splitting is allowed" is clear. It's simple. There's no confusion. "But I split to help a kid eat!" No splitting is allowed. "But, I split because I wanted to go out to the club and I was running out of time!" No splitting is allowed. "But I split becau...

No splitting is allowed!

Note: Vomiting can be indicative of a variety of very serious and life threatening food poisonings. Vomiting is not a small thing, especially if it's spontaneous. If you're a TO and someone at your event is vomiting out of nowhere, you get that person some medical attention. I'm not kidding or being facetious. Don't take the chance.

And that's all I wanted to hear. See I don't care which side sponsors will take. It was a 10 man tournament, I'm not sure who the hell would sponsor us in Kentucky. Morally I did nothing wrong. Also get ur facts straight. I didn't give the kid $20 dollars i gave the kid $6. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN first and second place AFTER the split was $20 dollars.

Well, morally, nothing is wrong because all morality is subjective (which is why I didn't claim you did something morally wrong, just against the rules). Also, I said 20$ because that was your MM example, not because I thought you split for 20$, although ultimately the amount is irrelevant. Don't get your panties in a wad; how much you split is less relevant to the rules than the fact that you split at all.

So again if anyone thinks that $20 dollars isn't worth serious play I will gladly MM them to a $20 MM as long as they promise to use the character of my choice. Because the point you are making is that $20 is negligible (even tho apparently its enough money in the U.S. to have a trial by jury).

To some, it is. If I get the chance to see you at a tournament... well, sometime in the future, I'll take you up on that offer. 20$ MM, your character AND stage choice. Hell, you know what? Your controller choice, too. Knock yourself out, Judo. Because, all it takes is one person coming forward saying that 20$ is negligible and proving it to blow a hole right through your argument... and I'll be happy to pay 20$ to have that privilege.

@Tesh: At least Judo is quoting something. "Well, obviously that argument is stupid" is not an argument.

 

[Vinylic.]

It's a mad discussion.

 

[Judo777]

Which is why you make the rule so that the not-obvious ones don't matter. "No splitting is allowed" is clear. It's simple. There's no confusion. "But I split to help a kid eat!" No splitting is allowed. "But, I split because I wanted to go out to the club and I was running out of time!" No splitting is allowed. "But I split becau...

No splitting is allowed!

Note: Vomiting can be indicative of a variety of very serious and life threatening food poisonings. Vomiting is not a small thing, especially if it's spontaneous. If you're a TO and someone at your event is vomiting out of nowhere, you get that person some medical attention. I'm not kidding or being facetious. Don't take the chance.



Well, morally, nothing is wrong because all morality is subjective (which is why I didn't claim you did something morally wrong, just against the rules). Also, I said 20$ because that was your MM example, not because I thought you split for 20$, although ultimately the amount is irrelevant. Don't get your panties in a wad; how much you split is less relevant to the rules than the fact that you split at all.



To some, it is. If I get the chance to see you at a tournament... well, sometime in the future, I'll take you up on that offer. 20$ MM, your character AND stage choice. Hell, you know what? Your controller choice, too. Knock yourself out, Judo. Because, all it takes is one person coming forward saying that 20$ is negligible and proving it to blow a hole right through your argument... and I'll be happy to pay 20$ to have that privilege.

@Tesh: At least Judo is quoting something. "Well, obviously that argument is stupid" is not an argument.

But intentional forfeiting is illegal! So its only on the obvious exceptions that we should take into account not carding someone over forfeiting?

And what if its not life threatening, what if someone is mildly allergic to something in the venue? Not anything dangerous, just allergic to something in the air and they can't stop sneezing every 10 seconds? They can't leave without getting carded, not life threatening not mortal injury, card the man.

Deal I'll gladly MM you for that. It doesn't really make my point any less valid because as I already stated, the federal government sees $20 as significant and I feel that's fine backing for its significance.

 

[WindMajor]

Has anyone figured out yet that forfeiting should be taken care of on a case by case basis, and that it should always be consulted with the TO beforehand, so that he/she can make any executive decisions?

 

[Judo777]

Has anyone figured out yet that forfeiting should be taken care of on a case by case basis, and that it should always be consulted with the TO beforehand, so that he/she can make any executive decisions?

Well of course that's the case. But why aren't ALL the rules based on the discretion of the TO? Why do we say some rules can be enforced by the BRC and others not? If so why aren't there rules that explicitly say this?

 

[Jack Kieser]

But intentional forfeiting is illegal! So its only on the obvious exceptions that we should take into account not carding someone over forfeiting?

You're not taking into account, as I've already said, the non-falsifiable nature of claiming someone is throwing a match. M2K v. Ally. They play MK v. Sheik. Ok, Ally doesn't normally play Sheik, but what the hell, he has a lot of secondaries. He loses, oh well. MK is OP. BUT! We know after the fact that they split. All of the sudden, suspicion is cast on the match. Maybe not by YOU, but by anyone. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that one or the other player threw the match. But, we DO know they split, and splitting is generally indicative of match fixing (even if its subconsciously so). So, instead of having a long, protracted argument in which neither side can win because you can't prove OR disprove what someone is thinking, we simply decide that all spliitting is match fixing, and BAM. Problem solved.

The entire point, Judo, is that the non-obvious "exceptions" (if they even are exceptions) just make the rules harder to enforce, so we decide on rulings for the obvious ones (like, "Oh my god, he is dying, get that man to a hospital!"), and for everything else, you get carded. You have a problem with that, but I have a feeling it's because you suffer from "special snowflake syndrome".

And what if its not life threatening, what if someone is mildly allergic to something in the venue? Not anything dangerous, just allergic to something in the air and they can't stop sneezing every 10 seconds? They can't leave without getting carded, not life threatening not mortal injury, card the man.

It doesn't matter what the reason is. If a player has a problem that prevents them from playing mid-tournament (like, physically unable to), we can't make him / her play (which is the spirit behind the "mortal danger" thing. Well, that and we don't want players to die). If the reason is a mild inconvenience, though, like sneezing, suck it up. Why should we make all sorts of rules for sneezing? Remember: exceptions are, in essence, rules in-and-of themselves. See: legal precedence. And, precedence is important.

Deal I'll gladly MM you for that. It doesn't really make my point any less valid because as I already stated, the federal government sees $20 as significant and I feel that's fine backing for its significance.

Sure, it makes you point less valid. You're point wasn't "20$ is a legally significant amount, so splitting over 20$ should be ok", your point was "money matters to people, so splitting is ok". My point was, the amount doesn't matter at all, because no one who matters cares what the amount is; splitting isn't allowed anywhere.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well of course that's the case. But why aren't ALL the rules based on the discretion of the TO? Why do we say some rules can be enforced by the BRC and others not? If so why aren't there rules that explicitly say this?

Because, then there'd be no point at all to having rules. If the rules aren't immutable, especially after the tournament starts, then the rules have no meaning or value, and they might as well not exist at all.

I'll give you an example.

The very first ISP tournament I ran was in summer of 2008. I don't ban stuff lightly, so back then my ruleset had Shadow Moses legal (the game had been out for, like 6 months, and boo hoo chain grabs... sue me). LF come around and I have Jumpman v. Mr. 3000. J-man mains Wolf. 3k plays D3. Guess where they went? Shadow Moses on a CP. 30% into the first chain, Jumpman turns around, puts his controller down, and tells me "Jack, this is gay. This stage shouldn't be legal. Stop the match so that we can go to another stage."

You know what I said? "I can't do that. The tournament has already started, and if I ban Shadow Moses now, it invalidates every match that's been played there previously in the bracket. That's not fair to the other players who might have won had Moses been banned from the start."

Yes, they were my rules. Yes, it was my event. But, rules are rules, and as a TO I have an ethical responsibility to my entrants to apply those rules fairly and uniformly. For some reason, Judo seems to think that doing otherwise is A OK.

Explain that to me, please. Because, I doubt players would appreciate it if all of our TOs acted like that.

EDIT: Crap, I thought someone would have posted by now. Sorry for the double post, guys... -_-;

EDIT2: AW, by like, 3 seconds. Also, I can't take credit for that; that phrase was given to me by a superb English professor.

 

[infiniteV115]

"Special snowflake syndrome"
Alliteration for the ****ing win

On topic, I still fail to see how people keep getting caught splitting. Is it really that hard to keep such matters private?

 

[Judo777]

You're not taking into account, as I've already said, the non-falsifiable nature of claiming someone is throwing a match. M2K v. Ally. They play MK v. Sheik. Ok, Ally doesn't normally play Sheik, but what the hell, he has a lot of secondaries. He loses, oh well. MK is OP. BUT! We know after the fact that they split. All of the sudden, suspicion is cast on the match. Maybe not by YOU, but by anyone. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that one or the other player threw the match. But, we DO know they split, and splitting is generally indicative of match fixing (even if its subconsciously so). So, instead of having a long, protracted argument in which neither side can win because you can't prove OR disprove what someone is thinking, we simply decide that all spliitting is match fixing, and BAM. Problem solved.

The entire point, Judo, is that the non-obvious "exceptions" (if they even are exceptions) just make the rules harder to enforce, so we decide on rulings for the obvious ones (like, "Oh my god, he is dying, get that man to a hospital!"), and for everything else, you get carded. You have a problem with that, but I have a feeling it's because you suffer from "special snowflake syndrome".



It doesn't matter what the reason is. If a player has a problem that prevents them from playing mid-tournament (like, physically unable to), we can't make him / her play (which is the spirit behind the "mortal danger" thing. Well, that and we don't want players to die). If the reason is a mild inconvenience, though, like sneezing, suck it up. Why should we make all sorts of rules for sneezing? Remember: exceptions are, in essence, rules in-and-of themselves. See: legal precedence. And, precedence is important.



Sure, it makes you point less valid. You're point wasn't "20$ is a legally significant amount, so splitting over 20$ should be ok", your point was "money matters to people, so splitting is ok". My point was, the amount doesn't matter at all, because no one who matters cares what the amount is; splitting isn't allowed anywhere.

But if Ally went sheik, I already have suspicion that he threw the match and split quietly. He cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he didn't throw the match. So the exact same situation occurs whether we know he did or not. So what are you punishing if it yields the exact same result?

Secondly I understand the importance of making blanket rules for covering some non-obvious examples. But who defines what obvious is? If I were a TO I would immediately think that someone with bad allergies causing them to sneeze and creating an uncomfortable and possibly harmful environment would be an OBVIOUS excuse to let them leave. The fact of the matter is the obviousness of the offense SHOULD be up to the TO just like the enforcement of the rule in the first place.

And no my point was that it is a significant amount. And of course it is significant to people, its significant legally so why wouldn't it be. They obviously thought it was significant if they made an amendment to the constitution for people. The REASON it is significant legally is because it is significant to people. Just because your willing to give up $20 to win an argument doesn't mean everyone is willing to give it up for nothing.

Also i really don't see how the point tied into what we were talking about. I'm not talking about changing the rules mid-tournament I'm talking about the TO being the person in direct authority of his tournament being able to enforce the rules that he has the right to enforce as a TO. In your demonstration, you were asked to change the rules mid tournament, not interpret and already existing rule.

Btw you are really, really bad at debating with people without being disrespectful, which honestly makes me value what you have to say significantly less. More so it seems to point out a slight lack of maturity which otherwise very uncharacteristic of yourself.

 

[Zankoku]

Wait, what the hell? Judo didn't split over $20. He won $20, because literally the only thing he agreed to was that the payout would become 55/35/10 instead of 60/30/10. But I guess "splitting" that 10% of the payout is yellow-cardable, lol.

 

[Tesh]

I was just speaking with an MLG rep. They were going to pick up Brawl for the 2012 season, but Judo pretty much killed it for us. He killed the hype at that tournament and alot of people even quit the game because of him.

Can ESAM make a Judo ban thread for us now?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

It amazes me to no end that there are people who think following a rule as specifically as possible is a better option than doing what is obviously right.

Splitting can be a problem, that doesn't mean it is a problem.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Splitting itself is never a problem. Throwing matches and sets while doing so is.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Exactly... so why do we have a rule against splitting instead of "intentional under-playing that affects the tournament's results and/or enjoyment potential for spectators as determined by the TO".

 

[Ussi]

... Being literally is easy.

Going what is morally right doesn't work when people have different levels of morality.

Also about Judo's case. Why is it called spilting there? From what i'm seeing, Judo just wanted to change the payout ratios o.o;

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Oh my god.

I haven't visited this thread in ages and clicked last page.

Has the whole argument for like the past month really been the red/yellow card rule?

No wonder nothing is getting done around here.