Aftermath takes issue with Tournament Rule Enforcement (-$300) | MembTV's BOA3

[Orisseus]

Problem is that the rules are too vague. What constitutes a warning, versus a direct prize pool reduction? Out of all the possible rule breaks, I feel like missing a ~5 minute interview is one of the least problematic ones there is. Yet apparently it was severe enough to skip the warning completely and go straight to the prize pool reduction

Also, why $300? Why not $50? Or $500? Seems super arbitrary. There needs some kind of pre-established guidelines on what kind of rule breaches are severe and what kinds of rule breaches are minor.

Yes, it seems arbitrary and also really harsh for a first time for this kind of offense. Shouldn't it at least be a warning at first then escalating punishment for repeated violations, no?

I also don't see the real problem, personally. Nicov may not have played in the set but he's trained with the rest of the team and practiced with them so of course he would have ability to provide information.

 

[felix.feroc]

Yo

If you havent got a single clue what ur talking about the case or anything that goes in the pro scene of aoe, please do not comment like this. I have every right to express my feelings about this unfair decision and this case is not over. Go give memb ur money

So, I get that this is one of a player's worst nightmares: winning a tournament then the organizers seeming to arbitrarily keep some of the money back for themselves. Players are super vulnerable to this form of abuse. Also, if AM decided that you had to eat the entire fine out of your share, then the percentage would be much higher than I estimated, which would suck. So if my theory were correct that the punishment was for cumulative annoyance by the entire team rather than the specific violation, then you indeed were punished unjustly.

But unless Memb has a history of not paying out in full, then I don't think the injustice is on his part, even if it was actually a fine for cumulative annoyance, which is a pure hypothetical of mine. Tournament organizers need a way of enforcing their rules in a measured way (that is, something between a frown and disqualification), and a fine seems a reasonable approach. Asking them to lay out in full all the fines for every possible rule violation would be complete overkill, especially as being explicit doesn't seem to help. Like when your teammate Hera publicly chastised Chrazini not for just enforcing tournament rules, but for not completely disregarding them for the convenience of the players.

So bring it on if this fine is a pattern of abuse. But if it is just you this one time, then while I agree that it may be sad for you, I don't think it is bad enough to deserve recourse.

 

[Tiekel]

I'm kind of disappointed there are no lawyers on aoezone. This should be an issue with a clear answer depending on the concerning jurisdiction. The assertion that organizers have full discretion over deciding punishments and payment share seems especially weak. This is not a gambling room. A contract still has to abide to external laws and not contradict others. Since there was no clear proclemation of the specific consequences in question, in my doubtful opinion, a mutual settlement would probibly be the best (and rightful) solution.. (not a lawyer)

 

[IYIyTh]

I'm kind of disappointed there are no lawyers on aoezone. This should be an issue with a clear answer depending on the concerning jurisdiction. The assertion that organizers have full discretion over deciding punishments and payment share seems especially weak. This is not a gambling room. A contract still has to abide to external laws and not contradict others. Since there was no clear proclemation of the specific consequences in question, in my doubtful opinion, a mutual settlement would probibly be the best (and rightful) solution.. (not a lawyer)

It's hard to defend someone who openly admits they're guilty in a courtroom -- especially when you venture into any court of law -- regardless of where.

If you're debating the terms and conditions as to the conveyance of fines, that too is covered in the handbook that would seem to have been assented to as a term and condition of joining the tournament. Regardless of one's opinions of them -- there doesn't seem to be a true dispute in terms of an action was taken outside of agreed upon principles, (disagreeing with the amount that is quite clearly at the discretion of the admin(s) as a term and condition in and of itself,) thus no tort exists. One would spend more money filing any sort of international grievance than recoupment cost by an order of scale in the infantismally small chance any international governing body would give such consideration the time of day before rejecting it.

 

[oozkan]

When Danielgate happened, I said, we are getting close to union of players, I was kind of joking. Well it seems plausible now.

Players want bread and roses too. It is a bit shady though, since some admins are "friends" with players.

In the end we are reaching same point, when money is involved, things get nasty.

 

[IYIyTh]

When Danielgate happened, I said, we are getting close to union of players, I was kind of joking. Well it seems plausible now.

Players want bread and roses too.

I can only imagine the hilarity if the crew who frequently runs afoul of rulebooks banded together to administer their own tournament(s) and the ensuing chaos at first scheduling conflict.

 

[Rayne]

I'm kind of disappointed there are no lawyers on aoezone. This should be an issue with a clear answer depending on the concerning jurisdiction. The assertion that organizers have full discretion over deciding punishments and payment share seems especially weak. This is not a gambling room. A contract still has to abide to external laws and not contradict others. Since there was no clear proclemation of the specific consequences in question, in my doubtful opinion, a mutual settlement would probibly be the best (and rightful) solution.. (not a lawyer)

There actually are 2 lawyers (or attorneys) on here. MadeByJoe said he was one if I’m not mistaken, then there’s Nonsensical (don’t think she really comes on here anymore). I believe even FeAge was previously an attorney before he left law (he wrote about it years ago). But to quote GMHikaru, they probably literally don’t care.

There was even a physicist that specialized in dark matter some years ago on here, crazy who you can run into online tbh (love that about the internet).

 

[doacid]

So, in my world, punishments are not always about what they say they are. They are often a result of people being a pain in the *** in ways that are not subject to fine. So if AM were being just generally annoying, the organizers could have used this as opportunity to give them a slap on the wrist. The fine being 3% of the prize does not seem too outrageous to me, despite MbL's extremely aggrieved tone.

Happy birthday, @MembTV !

Yo

If you havent got a single clue what ur talking about the case or anything that goes in the pro scene of aoe, please do not comment like this. I have every right to express my feelings about this unfair decision and this case is not over. Go give memb ur money

I don't mean to be rude in the slightest but this Mbl's response was funny as hell. It totally made Felix's idea more plausible.

I don't know if the fine was deserved or not. However as Myth said I cannot see a way to dispute it since it was written in the handbook and the amount was left to the admin's discretion. All of which was agreed upon.

 

[willdbeast]

I'm kind of disappointed there are no lawyers on aoezone. This should be an issue with a clear answer depending on the concerning jurisdiction. The assertion that organizers have full discretion over deciding punishments and payment share seems especially weak. This is not a gambling room. A contract still has to abide to external laws and not contradict others. Since there was no clear proclemation of the specific consequences in question, in my doubtful opinion, a mutual settlement would probibly be the best (and rightful) solution.. (not a lawyer)

I think not only is the "correct" degree of punishment ambiguous, whether he broke any rules as per the handbook is also ambiguous.

"Players accept the transmission of their webcam, audio and point of view during games. Players also accept to provide portraits and be interviewed."
"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."

These are the two sections mentioning interviews. If you take the rules at face value MbL just needs to agree to be interviewed before and during the event. MbL has been interviewed before and during the event, so he has clearly fulfilled what the rules explicitly say.

Now, obviously the admins are taking a much wider interpretation of this rule, interpreting it as "Players must agree to be interviewed before and during the tournament, as often as needed, at a time of our choosing", but I don't feel like this is the most literal or even most reasonable interpretation and it for sure isn't the only interpretation.

 

[Verniy]

Well, putting the money aside for a moment, player prize deductions create a precedence where the competitors are constantly on trial from the hosts and any slip ups will result in penalization. Perhaps this is what they want, so that everyone is following standardized procedures and I would be fine with enforcing that since, as they say, the ends justify the means.

However what are the ends here really? For the purpose of interviews(and gameplay) they're performers. Standardizing performers to all be the same person just creates a stale environment that is no fun.
Where does this rollercoaster end if the players don't kick a fuss and cause a scene every time they feel they're being slighted against? Trying to force MBL to become more professional isn't going to create an exciting interview. Why even have interviews in the first place if the hosts do not like to deal with the players and their idiosyncrasies?

Are the players performers or athletes? Perhaps this is the dichotomy that could create an argument for both sides.

 

[Potkeny]

Are the players performers or athletes? Perhaps this is the dichotomy that could create an argument for both sides.

Probably performers, as athletes are disqualified when they are late, but aoe2 players don't like that.

 

[Michaerbse]

What do you mean can't compare football to aoe2? we do that all the time, especially in tournament formats ; cough cough single elimination cough cough

Pleas re-read his post, he didn't say that you can't compare football to aoe2.

Also, why $300? Why not $50? Or $500? Seems super arbitrary. There needs some kind of pre-established guidelines on what kind of rule breaches are severe and what kinds of rule breaches are minor.

I don't really know ofc but my assumption is that it was not $300 fixed but 3% of the prize they get, which is the same percentage that RMS Cup seems to be using for "smaller" violations.

 

[SuperskinnyBLS]

Aoezone drama dynasty is recovering

 

[Halleju]

Aoezone drama dynasty is recovering

let's add a bit to that:

maybe memb didn't reach his daily 100$ goal for 3 days and found an easy way to get compensated ?!

 

[Seahorsegallop]

My take on this is that the fine was harsh, BUT and it's a big "but", we have no idea what was communicated between AM and Admin in advance and at the time. As usual in these cases we are only getting one side of the story.

I have no problem with Nicov doing the interview even if he did not play, he was scheduled to play from Game 5, if there was to be one, no one could have forecast a 4-0 in advance. Also he would still be part of team for practice, strat talk etc.

Regarding the outburst from MBL, to me it comes across as petty and disrespectful. It was 3%, not the end of the world and accusing the organiser of the tourney of pocketing the money is low, regardless of how badly MBL felt about the situation.

 

[felix.feroc]

the same percentage that RMS Cup seems to be using for "smaller" violations

Oooh, what fines have been levied in RMS Cup?

 

[eberlazting]

My take on this is that the fine was harsh, BUT and it's a big "but", we have no idea what was communicated between AM and Admin in advance and at the time. As usual in these cases we are only getting one side of the story.

I have no problem with Nicov doing the interview even if he did not play, he was scheduled to play from Game 5, if there was to be one, no one could have forecast a 4-0 in advance. Also he would still be part of team for practice, strat talk etc.

Regarding the outburst from MBL, to me it comes across as petty and disrespectful. It was 3%, not the end of the world and accusing the organiser of the tourney of pocketing the money is low, regardless of how badly MBL felt about the situation.

I think not only is the "correct" degree of punishment ambiguous, whether he broke any rules as per the handbook is also ambiguous.

"Players accept the transmission of their webcam, audio and point of view during games. Players also accept to provide portraits and be interviewed."
"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."

These are the two sections mentioning interviews. If you take the rules at face value MbL just needs to agree to be interviewed before and during the event. MbL has been interviewed before and during the event, so he has clearly fulfilled what the rules explicitly say.

Now, obviously the admins are taking a much wider interpretation of this rule, interpreting it as "Players must agree to be interviewed before and during the tournament, as often as needed, at a time of our choosing", but I don't feel like this is the most literal or even most reasonable interpretation and it for sure isn't the only interpretation.

Why do you have to be that explicit for a rule that already implies he has to be open to interviews as often as needed at any time with the word 'during'. Clearly the event/tournament was not finished.

If you have an issue with the interpretation of a rule you can ask but mbl apparently didnt care too much.

 

[willdbeast]

Why do you have to be that explicit for a rule that already implies he has to be open to interviews as often as needed at any time with the word 'during'.

If I agree to play aoe with someone during my time off work that means I'm agreeing to play at least once, maybe more at some point in that time which we will arrange. In no world would it be an implicit agreement to play at any time they desire throughout the whole timeframe.

The reason it needs to be explicit is pretty obvious, to be as clear and upfront to the players as possible and to make sure they meet your expectations of what you think they agreed to, which is clearly an issue as shown by the existence of this discussion. If something is important to you (in this case having every team member for every interview) it benefits you to make it clear to those people so it's more likely to happen.

If you have an issue with the interpretation of a rule you can ask but mbl apparently didnt care too much.

The thing is you don't know they have a different interpretation... Are you suggesting you ask for clarification on every single thing? You assume they meant what they wrote (especially in the context of an official list of rules) unless it is unclear to you.

Writing clear rules to get the outcomes you want is hard and will never avoid all misunderstandings or straight up ignoring, and that's all the more reason to have some flexibility when both parties are trying to work together for a common project like a tournament which needs both sides to function well.

 

[MadeByJoe]

There actually are 2 lawyers (or attorneys) on here. MadeByJoe said he was one if I’m not mistaken

You aren't mistaken.

This should be an issue with a clear answer depending on the concerning jurisdiction.

There it already beginns. Who are the parties in the contract? Mbl and Memb? Mbl and Chrazini? AM if the fine is for the whole team? After that, you have to look into national laws regarding international law, best case scenario all relevant countries are in the lugano convention. Then it depends what national contract law says.

The problem is it isn't clearly stated that the players need to be available after a set. Also the punishment for a violation is not defined. With different grades of punishments one could expect smaller violations have less severe punishments as consequences. Even if this whole case was in Switzerland only all I would say is "depends on the judge's mood". That you can get out with a word for word ("well it says you need to be available during the tournament, so once is enough") interpretation is a TV trope, important is the intention behind the words and if both parties actually recognized the intention of the other.

Future events should categorize what rule violations will get you money reduction.

 

[MaSmOrRa]

Doesn't this basically give the Admins carte blanche to do whatever they like?

For the record, I'm pretty sure every tournament in the last 10 years (probably much longer) has had rules such as these.

 

[LowEloNobody]

View attachment 201957

Doesn't this basically give the Admins carte blanche to do whatever they like?

For the record, I'm pretty sure every tournament in the last 10 years (probably much longer) has had rules such as these.

Yep basically

 

[eberlazting]

Idk why you juxtaposition a casual encounter with what it's supposed to be a professionals tournament. Rules are less serious in a casual game and can be interpreted loosely, however you want, the way you are used to.

Also, idek why you are talking about interpretations when mbls clip is about him not being warned. There is no rule that you have to be warned about a sanction, as unfair as it sounds. previous masmorra posts also shows that.

Why would someone play devils advocate for a person that has and continues to make arbitrary acts and statements in his aoe career -maybe not as punishing- than anyone in this situation?

Mbl is known for banning people for the most trivial things in his chat and social, and being a spoiled brat unironically sometimes. He goes and cries for a measly Shared $300 penalty (compared to his total earnings), which is understandable, but doing it in front of your audience while accusing memb of doing it for his own convenience is just unfair and bad faith. So soneone saying they do this for divine justice is blind to other acts.

He is not a pro in my definition, just someone who's good at aoe.

If anything, you are the one asking for perfect pristine clarification on every single rule if possible, when it's clearly not. There will always be misinterpretations of rules and gray areas, even at Monopoly.

 

[eberlazting]

If I agree to play aoe with someone during my time off work that means I'm agreeing to play at least once, maybe more at some point in that time which we will arrange. In no world would it be an implicit agreement to play at any time they desire throughout the whole timeframe.

The reason it needs to be explicit is pretty obvious, to be as clear and upfront to the players as possible and to make sure they meet your expectations of what you think they agreed to, which is clearly an issue as shown by the existence of this discussion. If something is important to you (in this case having every team member for every interview) it benefits you to make it clear to those people so it's more likely to happen.


The thing is you don't know they have a different interpretation... Are you suggesting you ask for clarification on every single thing? You assume they meant what they wrote (especially in the context of an official list of rules) unless it is unclear to you.

Writing clear rules to get the outcomes you want is hard and will never avoid all misunderstandings or straight up ignoring, and that's all the more reason to have some flexibility when both parties are trying to work together for a common project like a tournament which needs both sides to function well.

^

 

[welcometorapture]

Oooh, what fines have been levied in RMS Cup?

Available in the RMSC2 discord:
The following players didn't show up to their Q2 Ro64 games without warning, incident noted for future events: LoboDeLaNieve, Ubetnir, Eren. The following players have withdrawn from the tournament after the seeding was closed and brackets made, incident noted for future events: NoLo, Whitecourt. The following player has showed up late to their Ro64 games for the second time and will get an additional fine of 6% on their prize money earnings: FatDragon. The following player has showed up late to their Ro64 games and will get a fine of 3% on their prize money earnings: miguel. The following players have showed up late to their Ro64 games, incident noted for future events: Ozone, Margougou.

 

[grathwrang]

A centralized regulating body for the certification of events, organizers and players is becoming necessary. The skeleton of one exists with tournaments now acting as feeder-qualifiers for RBW5, it would be nice to see that expanded further as it would end up covering cases like this.