A logical and fair decision simply does not exist here and this is something everyone should understand.[/b]
Yeah there is a logical decision here. It is called presumption of innocence and means that you dont punish without evidence.
A logical and fair decision simply does not exist here and this is something everyone should understand.[/b]
I tend to think that viper's matches are different from what we have seen in a tt war between tim and happypoZ_edie said:Then with logic, viper should have 0 point for his match, but not his opponents??What makes you think refering to Viper and his looses can be a relevant argument? Viper is known for "giving away" games for god knows what reasons but none of those loses was ever agreed upon with the opponent or was intended to give another player an advantage in a tournament!
I think there is a differece here and in order to see the difference you have to watch the games and use the common sence. But don't make me go deep into it becasue i agree there is no evidence either way and moreover there barely can ever be evidence.What makes you think refering to Viper and his looses can be a relevant argument? Viper is known for "giving away" games for god knows what reasons but none of those loses was ever agreed upon with the opponent or was intended to give another player an advantage in a tournament!
Don't you see the irony here and the double standards with the Tim/happyhappy situation and what you just said regarding Viper?
The fact that Viper does not arrange this thing with the opponent doesnt matter, because the result is the same ... points are given for free, in a group stage where points do matter to qualify.
I think we all would like to see the proof that Tim and happyhappy agreed on this, or the only proof is that both are chinese?
All im saying is why even bother having rules if they do not matter and admins go ultimately on "what they feel". Seriously, is like a judge saying "i have no proof of your fellony, but deep down i think you are guilty so I will send you to jail". Just imagine the backlash.
As someone who is a fan of Taffs efforts and contributions to aoc community, I am confident that he and the other admins involved will seriously re-consider this decision, otherwise the ramifications of this decision will cause great damage to the AoC in the near future.
Whether the games were fixed or not, you can not judge anyone based on your opinions, no matter how strongly you base your opinions to observations. This is not how the justice system works.
The only thing that should have been discussed in accordance with those games is how to arrange tournament rules better to prevent such drama. People can not be judged based on what others think, you need proof. If your argument is the impossibility of having such a proof in such a case, then what it should be discussed here is why the rules would allow such an easy manipulation of the outcome and how to prevent it. Punishing solely to the players without proof, is almost identical to saying that, "we are punishing you, because we believe you did something, but you didn't do it professional enough". If we discuss the wrong things and punish people without a proof, this drama will never end.
We might argue for days how different is the case of intentionally fixing the game with those who troll/do not play his best all day. But when it comes to affecting the results of a tournament, we will see that the outcomes of these acts are not fundamentally very different from each other. And when you start to draw lines between these acts, which can be made/arranged extremely thin, based on your opinions, then every tournament game that had been/is being/will be played will always be under suspicion, at least for most of us.
Ofc my judgement is different, because they are different scenarios.
Like i told you, playing not with %100 is not against the rules, you can see that in every sports.
But if one team scores 10 own goals in a football game(competitive one), its definitely a fixed game(btw according to your logic you cant punish this, because no evidence).
Ofc my judgement is different, because they are different scenarios.
Like i told you, playing not with %100 is not against the rules, you can see that in every sports.
But if one team scores 10 own goals in a football game(competitive one), its definitely a fixed game(btw according to your logic you cant punish this, because no evidence).
Actually such a thing did happen and that too in a world cup.
In 1982 Football world cup West Germany vs Austria match was played out to a scoreline which was beneficial to both the teams. Game play was so obvious that many raised speculation of collusion and till this date it is a conspiracy. But what happened as punishment, NOTHING. Why because there was no evidence and no rules were broken.
Extract below,
It appears that this was a case of spontaneous match-fixing, in which Austria gave up their opportunity to be first in the group (by winning or drawing the match) in exchange for a sure opportunity to advance. The bargaining positions of the two teams was affected by West Germany being in danger of elimination if it failed to win, but also being the higher-ability team.
The Algerian football officials were furious and lodged an official protest. However no rules were technically broken as a result of the match, so FIFA declined to take any action or investigation and the outcome was allowed to stand. Both teams denied any collusion during the match.
Read more here > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gij%C3%B3n
3rd seed in WIC, :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Here comes the China fighters... take me back to wcl Myst days!!!!
In a RR situation, there is no difference for the winner between 3-0 and 3-2. Which means when playing with their friends, players are incentivized to throw matches to maximize their friend's scores. This is why all 5 games should be played in a RR situation.
It's a shitty situation to be in from the pov of an admin. It is quite clearly match fixing, so letting them get away with it would not be a good outcome. But since there is no definitive proof it is difficult.
For the record, I think it is better that we do punish clear examples of match fixing like this than let people get away with it. If tournament matches have no integrity at all then what is the point of them.
As someone who is a fan of Taffs efforts and contributions to aoc community, I am confident that he and the other admins involved will seriously re-consider this decision, otherwise the ramifications of this decision will cause great damage to the AoC in the near future.
Whether the games were fixed or not, you can not judge anyone based on your opinions, no matter how strongly you base your opinions to observations. This is not how the justice system works.
The only thing that should have been discussed in accordance with those games is how to arrange tournament rules better to prevent such drama. People can not be judged based on what others think, you need proof. If your argument is the impossibility of having such a proof in such a case, then what it should be discussed here is why the rules would allow such an easy manipulation of the outcome and how to prevent it. Punishing solely to the players without proof, is almost identical to saying that, "we are punishing you, because we believe you did something, but you didn't do it professional enough". If we discuss the wrong things and punish people without a proof, this drama will never end.
We might argue for days how different is the case of intentionally fixing the game with those who troll/do not play his best all day. But when it comes to affecting the results of a tournament, we will see that the outcomes of these acts are not fundamentally very different from each other. And when you start to draw lines between these acts, which can be made/arranged extremely thin, based on your opinions, then every tournament game that had been/is being/will be played will always be under suspicion, at least for most of us.
Hey sy lost to lclan and got 4th place. If they got our seed they would've ended even worse at 5th place or worse then. But you guys got such selective memory and don't remember where sy ended :lol: that seed crying has to be the most nonsense drama in aoc history.3rd seed in WIC, :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Here comes the China fighters... take me back to wcl Myst days!!!!
Tarring someone with the tag of being a "cheat" is harsh and forever stays with any player. That should never be taken lightly. So you can read my words in any fashion you like.
Someone acting in an idiotic fashion should be punished as such and neither rewarded nor punished beyond it's merit.
As an example : if 2 players are on a form of teamspeak talking live with each other while playing each other in a tournament match, maybe even streaming that live, and stating things like "play for fun" or "don't take it too serious" etc etc would you consider that as "cheating" or being an *****? Could and should that be considered and weighed up with match play / results ? Would any of you trust "any" games played in that fashion? Clear cut for you?
Everything in life is so simple yes.
The difference between then Viper vs. Zuppi games and the Tim vs. Happyhappy games is that while Viper might not have played optimally, the score wasn't settled before the games even started. Sure, if you are throwing two games on purpose vs. someone you're an ******* and shouldn't be playing the tournament (not saying Viper did this of course), but it's still not illegal.
However, if you deliberately send plan to go 3-2 with your opponent before the games even started, it's unethical, rude towards all other players, and would be illegal in all other sports. To use the fotball-comparison: It's perfectly legal to throw in a bunch of 18 year olds to play in an unimportant cup vs. a worse opponent, but that's far from the same as agreeing to lose vs. them.
I agree the punishment was a little harsh, but they're also using this to set an example that match fixing is not okay nor legal in any way.