IYIyTh
It has come to my attention that there may be some minor controversy regarding the following of tournament rules and certain pro players reactions to enforcement thereof.
It was mentioned on a certain stream that Aftermath has been (or at least had been at the time,) penalized $300 by admin decision for a player failing to report to an interview. I have my own personal feelings, but figured since nobody had posted regarding it, I would outline the issue(s) and allow for proper, productive, and truly wholesome discussion.
Here is a brief outline of the issue at hand:
A player (MBL) from Aftermath was unable to attend the post-game interview. Another member of Aftermath, who was not playing the game, took their place for the interview. An admin decision was made based on the unavailability of the player to assess a fine of $300 against Aftermath's $10,000 winnings. The player states they were not warned. The Aftermath states that they had an appointment and could not stay for the interview, however, when pressed if the game went 30 mins longer if they would've stayed -- they acknowledged they would have kept playing.
In the spoiler tags are the relevant rules applicable to the situation.
It would appear that according to one member of Aftermath, all of Aftermath believes the fine to be unwarranted. The rationale provided by the member of Aftermath states they fulfilled the interview portion by substituting another team member for the interview. The member of Aftermath absent contends they would not have been absent had they known it would had resulted in a forfeiture of tournament winnings. Said member also states that even if there was a foul on their behalf, there is no justification for the amount of fine levied -- and that it is unfair that winnings were decremented. They also claim that AOE2's community is too small to levy such judgements.
From an alternate point of view -- there is a necessity to be fair when levying rules. In the same tournament, a player ( daniel ) was not allowed to play because they could not fulfill the requirement to be filmed per rule 15.1. However, another player ( jordan ) was allowed to play without a camera while sick due to an admin decision, adding some ambiguity into the fairness of enforcement of the rule(s), though quite clearly still in line with the handbook. It would appear the admins judged the member not partaking in the interview as fine-worthy and acted in accordance with their rules to levy it. Additionally, backing off from the fine would make the rules seem flimsy and only applicable to certain players -- ie: different rules for different people -- lack of enforcement could equally be challenging as it pertains to future tournaments.
Overall, this is pretty low tier drama, but, enjoy llama's. (I rate it 2.8/10)
It was mentioned on a certain stream that Aftermath has been (or at least had been at the time,) penalized $300 by admin decision for a player failing to report to an interview. I have my own personal feelings, but figured since nobody had posted regarding it, I would outline the issue(s) and allow for proper, productive, and truly wholesome discussion.
Here is a brief outline of the issue at hand:
A player (MBL) from Aftermath was unable to attend the post-game interview. Another member of Aftermath, who was not playing the game, took their place for the interview. An admin decision was made based on the unavailability of the player to assess a fine of $300 against Aftermath's $10,000 winnings. The player states they were not warned. The Aftermath states that they had an appointment and could not stay for the interview, however, when pressed if the game went 30 mins longer if they would've stayed -- they acknowledged they would have kept playing.
In the spoiler tags are the relevant rules applicable to the situation.
15.3 Players agree to be interviewed prior to and during the event.
15.3.1 These interviews may be conducted in writing, audio and video.
9.1 Upon discovering any participant committing any violations of the rules listed in this handbook, the tournament administration may issue one or more penalties.
9.1.1 Penalties range from verbal or written warnings, prize forfeitures, game forfeitures, match forfeitures and complete disqualification.
10.1 The tournament administration reserves the right to amend, remove or otherwise change the rules at any time. 10.1.1 Any modifications or additions will be listed on the last page of the handbook. 10.2 The tournament administration reserves the right to judge and act on cases not explicitly covered by the handbook.
15.3.1 These interviews may be conducted in writing, audio and video.
9.1 Upon discovering any participant committing any violations of the rules listed in this handbook, the tournament administration may issue one or more penalties.
9.1.1 Penalties range from verbal or written warnings, prize forfeitures, game forfeitures, match forfeitures and complete disqualification.
10.1 The tournament administration reserves the right to amend, remove or otherwise change the rules at any time. 10.1.1 Any modifications or additions will be listed on the last page of the handbook. 10.2 The tournament administration reserves the right to judge and act on cases not explicitly covered by the handbook.
It would appear that according to one member of Aftermath, all of Aftermath believes the fine to be unwarranted. The rationale provided by the member of Aftermath states they fulfilled the interview portion by substituting another team member for the interview. The member of Aftermath absent contends they would not have been absent had they known it would had resulted in a forfeiture of tournament winnings. Said member also states that even if there was a foul on their behalf, there is no justification for the amount of fine levied -- and that it is unfair that winnings were decremented. They also claim that AOE2's community is too small to levy such judgements.
From an alternate point of view -- there is a necessity to be fair when levying rules. In the same tournament, a player ( daniel ) was not allowed to play because they could not fulfill the requirement to be filmed per rule 15.1. However, another player ( jordan ) was allowed to play without a camera while sick due to an admin decision, adding some ambiguity into the fairness of enforcement of the rule(s), though quite clearly still in line with the handbook. It would appear the admins judged the member not partaking in the interview as fine-worthy and acted in accordance with their rules to levy it. Additionally, backing off from the fine would make the rules seem flimsy and only applicable to certain players -- ie: different rules for different people -- lack of enforcement could equally be challenging as it pertains to future tournaments.
Overall, this is pretty low tier drama, but, enjoy llama's. (I rate it 2.8/10)
Last edited:
willdbeast
Oli King
-R-
Lokalo
Tendo
paradox303
amazing_knight
TopperHarley
Hunyadi_
Dusk2Dawn
MUHAMMEDD 
_Barles_ 
ACCM |AOEbuilds.com 
HGB_AOE 
[aM]_MbL40C_ 
CDUB.dogao 
__BadBoy__ 
Lauth3 
Arch_Koven