The Organizer's Alliance Against Absent Athletes, or TOA for short, is an initiative by online tournament organizers to reduce the number of no-shows and mid-tournament drop outs by players. Numerous online events have suffered from players missing important matches, delaying or pre-maturely ending broadcasts, disappointing viewers, and even playing a large part in the end of numerous events like SHOUTcraft Clan Wars. Thus, the following tournament organizers are banding together to combat the problem through a new system we're calling Foreigner Jail.
Foreigner Jail is a system designed to create consequence for players that consistently no-show in an effort to reduce it.
For those who want the tl;dr:
Players receive strikes when they no-show, drop out of a tournament mid-way, or fail to cancel in the allotted amount of time set by tournament organizers(varies by event).
After 3 strikes, the player is put in Foreigner Jail for 2 months
Players in Foreigner Jail can’t sign up for any events made by any of the organizers, though they can finish existing commitments
Each strikes expires after 9 months(Strikes must expire before being removed! They are not removed just because you leave Foreigner Jail!)
This is effectively a blacklist system for repeat offenders who no-show for tournaments with little to no notice, or drop out mid tournament. While it is with great hesitation and caution we implement such a system, we believe that the terms presented are fair and reasonable. If a player commits to playing in a tournament, showmatch or event, they are expected to show up and participate in the event or give some notice that they will be unable to.
When a player no-shows an event, there is a cost to the event organizer. Less broadcast time because of a no-show means less visibility for sponsors, less time opportunities for subscriptions to be purchased, less chance for viewership growth and brand awareness, etc.
Checks and Balances
With online tournaments being a fairly large portion of the events players can play in, there is a lot of power in a system that outright bans players from competing in them for a period of time. Because of this, we are putting together a small council that will approve/deny any 2nd or 3rd strikes to players for tournaments. This is a safety precaution to prevent a hopefully unlikely scenario that personal misgivings or bias come into play between an event organizer and a player. Evidence for any strike assigned must be provided for the strike council to review. Additional details of how the strike council will function is available in the rules linked above.
The strike council will consist of the following members:
If you have any questions or complaints, feel free to leave a message in this thread and we will address it. If you'd like to discuss a situation in private, you can reach out to anyone on the strike council and we will respond to you as soon as we can.
Any common questions will be included in this section so if you have any, ask away!
How do I Join The Organizer's Alliance? Currently, this organization is very new. We want to get a firm footing and iron out the kinks before we start growing this to include other organizations. We may take applications in the future. However, the list of players in "Foreigner Jail is public so feel free to use the list as you please.
What if I have a medical/family emergency that prevents me from playing Medical/family emergencies will be excused as stated in the rules.
Is this being applied retroactively to people who have broken the rules before this ruleset released No. We won't be holding players to a ruleset they had no way of knowing about until now. This ruleset will begin being enforced starting today though.
Why is it called Foreigner Jail? Is it only for foreigners or can Koreans be put in the jail too? It's really just a play on the old joke "kespa jail". Koreans can be put in it. The name was just too cute an opportunity to pass up using.
Is this a real thing or a joke? This is indeed an actual organization with a set of rules that will be enforced.
I actually really like this, as it keeps players in check. My question would be, is this just starting now? or are you already giving "strikes" based on past behavior. I ask, as last Olimoleague like ALL the Samsung players didn't show up, and you have players like Major who have dropped out of tournaments more times then i can count.
On July 27 2015 01:41 partydude89 wrote: I actually really like this, as it keeps players in check. My question would be, is this just starting now? or are you already giving "strikes" based on past behavior. I ask, as last Olimoleague like ALL the Samsung players didn't show up, and you have players like Major who have dropped out of tournaments more times then i can count.
This will be starting as of today. I think the first event this will apply to will be Team Gravity Fight Night today and ASL starting tomorrow. We decided it wouldn't be fair to retroactively start assigning strikes for a ruleset that was not released.
Great stuff! Thanks to the casters and organizers involved for helping to improve the scene, and Feardragon especially for putting the effort in to get this going.
This is an awesome initiative. But honestly, I think you overdid it. You shouldn't put rules like "strike are removed after 3 months" because you are not sure what you will exactly need.
You should rather say "we are going to compile the no-shows and decide on a case-by-case basis", especially because I don't think there are hundreds of different cases.
One question though: I think, if someone has a car accident and proves it, when he is back from hospital e.g., strike deletion should be fair, right? I mean, ofc many no-shows are probably intentionally, but there might be some few things that can really be not your own fault, and it would be unfair to punish people far having a car accident, lol.
But I think, that was already considered. I just didn't read anyting of this, so, yeah. Just asking for safety.
On July 27 2015 01:51 fezvez wrote: This is an awesome initiative. But honestly, I think you overdid it. You shouldn't put rules like "strike are removed after 3 months" because you are not sure what you will exactly need.
You should rather say "we are going to compile the no-shows and decide on a case-by-case basis", especially because I don't think there are hundreds of different cases.
This is definitely still very much a system that needs to be ironed out through real experience. The "strikes removed after 3 months" exists for two reasons. One is that we didn't want to penalize players for 2 months because they no-showed 3 times over the course of a very long period of time(like a year or two), so we wanted strikes to expire. The second reason ties into the fact that strikes expire after a longer period of time than the "jail time" is(3 months for strikes to expire, 2 months for jail time). This means there's an effective "probation" period for someone who goes to jail, where they still retain at least one strike(or more) for a month.
As mentioned, this is a system in trial. Adjustments will be made over time as we find problems.
On July 27 2015 01:57 Taari wrote: Nice. I highly approve that.
One question though: I think, if someone has a car accident and proves it, when he is back from hospital e.g., strike deletion should be fair, right? I mean, ofc many no-shows are probably intentionally, but there might be some few things that can really be not your own fault, and it would be unfair to punish people far having a car accident, lol.
But I think, that was already considered. I just didn't read anyting of this, so, yeah. Just asking for safety.
As mentioned in the Q/A section, "Medical/family emergencies will be excused as stated in the rules." We will work with any players who give this as a reason to verify the situation. This is a pretty case-by-case basis thing so I don't want to list out too many "explicit rules" for it.
On July 27 2015 02:38 Ej_ wrote: I hope that 1 day, there will be more players in the jail than out of it and the scene collapses in some hilarious anti-utopian scenario.
Here is a question... regarding archon mode, and this ruleset.
What happens with a team when there is 1 player in the "jail" with 3 strikes but the other player, not in? What happens in this situation? The entire team not allowed to participate?
On July 27 2015 02:38 Ej_ wrote: I hope that 1 day, there will be more players in the jail than out of it and the scene collapses in some hilarious anti-utopian scenario.
Question since it wasn't mentioned in the OP. I guess this mostly concerns Olimoleague. What about players on Proleague teams? If they miss an event and later excuse themselves by saying something like "The coaching staff had me prepare a Proleague match with a teammate and didn't let me participate.", is this a valid excuse or a strike?
On July 27 2015 02:51 unifo wrote: Here is a question... regarding archon mode, and this ruleset.
What happens with a team when there is 1 player in the "jail" with 3 strikes but the other player, not in? What happens in this situation? The entire team not allowed to participate?
This is a really good question! Thanks for bringing it up. I'm not sure if something like that has been fully flushed out but we'll come up with a ruling on it. =]
Edit: After thinking about it more, the rules allow for players to continue with existing commitments even if they get put in foreigner jail(removing players from existing events will only hurt the events AND the players). It stops players from qualifying or playing in new events though. If something like this happens, then we'd tell the unbanned partner to find a new partner since they wouldn't have even played any of the event with the banned partner yet.
On July 27 2015 02:56 Elentos wrote: Question since it wasn't mentioned in the OP. I guess this mostly concerns Olimoleague. What about players on Proleague teams? If they miss an event and later excuse themselves by saying something like "The coaching staff had me prepare a Proleague match with a teammate and didn't let me participate.", is this a valid excuse or a strike?
Open bracket signup events won't penalize players for no-showing. It will penalize players for dropping out more than 50% of the way through though. As for things like monthly finals, we would still want to give strikes for that. It's important to remember we're not asking for players to never back out of a commitment ever. Organizers do want a reasonable amount of notice though that they won't be able to participate.
so will a player get punished if they "miss their flight to dreamhack" and don't bother finding a replacement flight (when its well within their means?) or is that a legit excuse
On July 27 2015 03:01 EJK wrote: so will a player get punished if they "miss their flight to dreamhack" and don't bother finding a replacement flight (when its well within their means?) or is that a legit excuse
Dreamhack is not one of the organizer's on the list so no, won't count. =]
On July 27 2015 02:56 Elentos wrote: Question since it wasn't mentioned in the OP. I guess this mostly concerns Olimoleague. What about players on Proleague teams? If they miss an event and later excuse themselves by saying something like "The coaching staff had me prepare a Proleague match with a teammate and didn't let me participate.", is this a valid excuse or a strike?
In this situation the player either hasn't considered his contract obligations with a third party well enough when signing up (assuming the coaches can actually force them to train instead of participating), or it is still just his own decision to not participate (if the coaches decision isn't binding for the player). In either case, this is the player's fault. I guess a case could be made if canceling a participation wasn't possible, but usually there should be enough time and staying in the bracket is just poor planing.
On July 27 2015 02:56 Elentos wrote: Question since it wasn't mentioned in the OP. I guess this mostly concerns Olimoleague. What about players on Proleague teams? If they miss an event and later excuse themselves by saying something like "The coaching staff had me prepare a Proleague match with a teammate and didn't let me participate.", is this a valid excuse or a strike?
Open bracket signup events won't penalize players for no-showing. It will penalize players for dropping out more than 50% of the way through though. As for things like monthly finals, we would still want to give strikes for that. It's important to remember we're not asking for players to never back out of a commitment ever. Organizers do want a reasonable amount of notice though that they won't be able to participate.
I was just asking out of curiosity. I'm in full support of this initiative and hope it works out to the better for both organizers and participants.
On July 27 2015 02:56 Elentos wrote: Question since it wasn't mentioned in the OP. I guess this mostly concerns Olimoleague. What about players on Proleague teams? If they miss an event and later excuse themselves by saying something like "The coaching staff had me prepare a Proleague match with a teammate and didn't let me participate.", is this a valid excuse or a strike?
I would love it if things like this could in some cases lead to a strike against the entire team, player themselves should probably not be blamed for this as long as it was coordinated beforehand between player and the team before the sudden withdrawal occurred.
Just a thought I had when reading this.
Edit: I mean, in some cases the team/coach/whoever is obviously sabotaging either the players ability to join tournaments or the tournaments themselves. Not pointing any fingers, but I think something like this has happened before.
Is this being applied retroactively to people who have broken the rules before this ruleset released No. We won't be holding players to a ruleset they had no way of knowing about until now. This ruleset will begin being enforced starting today though.
On July 27 2015 04:10 kanada wrote: Seems like a good idea, Hope it doesn't lead to a bunch of naniwa ish probe all ins
This is a good point, though most players would probably feel that showing up to a tournament just to do two of these will hurt their reputation more than finding some excuse to not show up at all.
This is your solution? What a joke. And the naming of it only makes it worse... At least you could have thought a little about the signal you send.
Why not just put more effort into a healthy approach? Such as Creating events that players really want to attend and participate in so bad, that they don't want to drop out unless of a legitimate reason (last minute visa issues, transport problems etc.). Putting them in foreigner *host* stupid name *host* jail is such a victimising "solution". Also the perfect way to split the community and player-caster-organiser relationships.
On July 27 2015 04:10 kanada wrote: Seems like a good idea, Hope it doesn't lead to a bunch of naniwa ish probe all ins
This is a good point, though most players would probably feel that showing up to a tournament just to do two of these will hurt their reputation more than finding some excuse to not show up at all.
Screw them if they do stuff like that. There are plenty of replacements for pro players.
On July 27 2015 04:39 thewhiskey wrote: This is your solution? What a joke. And the naming of it only makes it worse... At least you could have thought a little about the signal you send.
Why not just put more effort into a healthy approach? Such as Creating events that players really want to attend and participate in so bad, that they don't want to drop out unless of a legitimate reason (last minute visa issues, transport problems etc.). Putting them in foreigner *host* stupid name *host* jail is such a victimising "solution". Also the perfect way to split the community and player-caster-organiser relationships.
You speak the truth my man, also you are a gentleman and a scholar.
On July 27 2015 02:38 Ej_ wrote: I hope that 1 day, there will be more players in the jail than out of it and the scene collapses in some hilarious anti-utopian scenario.
On July 27 2015 04:39 thewhiskey wrote: Why not just put more effort into a healthy approach? Such as Creating events that players really want to attend and participate in so bad, that they don't want to drop out unless of a legitimate reason
A lot of these events are or have in the past been funded out of pocket by the organizers so that these people can get paid to play a game, if they dont think that's enough motivation then what is?
On July 27 2015 01:44 Kaizor wrote: If esports wants to be recognized as a Professional Sport, it is definitely necessary for players to behave professionally.
Totally agree with this movement.
+1'd for truth. This is a good move for the better, feardragon, thanks for efforts in starting this movement.
I've heard, and read here on TL, that a few (pro) players have missed playing commitments and turned up late. Being someone who has helped create, setup and admin online events (though not in SC2), I can fully sympathise with both players and admins who have to face teething issues because players can't be bothered to appear/don't think they can win their bracket/don't want to lose their e-peen/don't "arrive" early enough for check-ins and so on.
For some players, it is only possible to play truly competitively in online cups (due to their lack of sponsorship/work or school commitments and other things, I would surmise), and having fellow players detract from that experience is a massive blow to them.
Once again, thanks to feardragon and co for starting this initiative.
Is this intended for Pros, or for casual players that play in Lycan league etc?
2 Months seems too lenient considering the number of events most Pros actually play in.
On July 27 2015 04:39 thewhiskey wrote: This is your solution? What a joke. And the naming of it only makes it worse... At least you could have thought a little about the signal you send.
Why not just put more effort into a healthy approach? Such as Creating events that players really want to attend and participate in so bad, that they don't want to drop out unless of a legitimate reason (last minute visa issues, transport problems etc.). Putting them in foreigner *host* stupid name *host* jail is such a victimising "solution". Also the perfect way to split the community and player-caster-organiser relationships.
I'm not sure what you think could reasonably be done besides offering thousands of dollars in prizes. Also, there currently is 0 reason to not sign up for everything, even if you can't attend- it's perfectly logical to do so, and there's no incentive you can offer to stop that. (Notably, you didn't offer any solutions yourself)
On July 27 2015 04:39 thewhiskey wrote: Why not just put more effort into a healthy approach? Such as Creating events that players really want to attend and participate in so bad, that they don't want to drop out unless of a legitimate reason (last minute visa issues, transport problems etc.). Putting them in foreigner *host* stupid name *host* jail is such a victimising "solution". Also the perfect way to split the community and player-caster-organiser relationships.
If players don't want to attend the events, then why do they sign up for them? I have no problem with an event failing because no players wanted to participate and didn't sign up.
Also the "legit" issues you gave aren't relavent. These are online tournaments so last minute visa issues and transportion problems shouldn't be a concern. If players have a legitimate family or medical emergency sure, we'll be understanding. But there have been way too many instances where a player doesn't show up and their only excuse is "oh shoot, I forgot".
There's a cost to the organizer's not having players play their matches they agree to play. Time, money, sponsor relations, viewership enjoyment, etc. all suffer if the player "didn't feel like playing" or "forgot to show up". I think it's far from unreasonable for organizers to ask players to honor commitments made, or at least give due notice that you won't be able to make it more than 20 minutes INTO the event.
That's not expecting too much of someone. That's called expecting them to be an adult.
On July 27 2015 05:13 Arianity wrote: Is this intended for Pros, or for casual players that play in Lycan league etc?
2 Months seems too lenient considering the number of events most Pros actually play in.
It'll be for anyone but for the Lycan League, this will only really be relavent if you make it more than 50% of the way through the tournament and then decide to drop out without a strong reason to do so. The only other situtaion would be if you qualify for the monthly final, accept the invite to it, and then no show without giving a heads up about it at least 36 hours in advance.
On July 27 2015 05:17 Solar424 wrote: When does this take effect?
On July 27 2015 05:34 Lucrania wrote: I can't believe amount of positive responses this is getting. Things like this are the reason that player's unions exist in sports.
Enforcing players to show up to events doesn't seem remotely exploitive to me. That's what players unions exist for.
There's a lot of things in esports where players get taken advantage of, this isn't even close.
Pretty good stuff, pretty good stuff. It's nice to see tournament organizers collaborating too. Maybe soon they'll collaborate in order to bring new maps to their map pools?
On July 27 2015 05:34 Lucrania wrote: I can't believe amount of positive responses this is getting. Things like this are the reason that player's unions exist in sports.
Enforcing players to show up to events doesn't seem remotely exploitive to me. That's what players unions exist for.
There's a lot of things in esports where players get taken advantage of, this isn't even close.
This just seems like a way for tournament organizers to control players. Feardragon, in all of his responses, makes it seem like he and the other tournament organizers part of this 'alliance' are entitled to any benefits they might receive the moment a player registers for their event; tournaments, showmatches, etc. It's important to remind them that athletes are the driving force behind viewership, sponsor interest in the scene, and the quality of tournaments overall. These rules won't make player's more "professional," but they will ensure that some players will flat out refuse to participate in tournaments that punish their players for being sick or changing their mind.
Really good idea FearD, it is very annoying when people show up to see a certain player and they no show. Especially if you just get an explanation later like 'oh I slept through it' or something.
On July 27 2015 05:34 Lucrania wrote: I can't believe amount of positive responses this is getting. Things like this are the reason that player's unions exist in sports.
Enforcing players to show up to events doesn't seem remotely exploitive to me. That's what players unions exist for.
There's a lot of things in esports where players get taken advantage of, this isn't even close.
This just seems like a way for tournament organizers to control players. Feardragon, in all of his responses, makes it seem like he and the other tournament organizers part of this 'alliance' are entitled to any benefits they might receive the moment a player registers for their event; tournaments, showmatches, etc. It's important to remind them that athletes are the driving force behind viewership, sponsor interest in the scene, and the quality of tournaments overall. These rules won't make player's more "professional," but they will ensure that some players will flat out refuse to participate in tournaments that punish their players for being sick or changing their mind.
Being extremely sick is safe under medical emergency. Changing your mind is only safe if you give advance notice. If you decide not to show up for work one day with no notice or reason besides, l changed my mind, you have to expect consequences. This is how the world works.
And yes. Players can feel free to not participate in our events if they think this is an unreasonable demand.
On July 27 2015 06:08 HoZBlooddrop wrote: isint it better for you guys to have many signups even if some dont show up for sponsors and stuff?
(really dont know, just asking)
Kind of! For open bracket tournaments, we're not penalizing players for no-showing. That's really more for showmatches and longer running events.
On July 27 2015 06:08 HoZBlooddrop wrote: isint it better for you guys to have many signups even if some dont show up for sponsors and stuff?
(really dont know, just asking)
It's not just for people who don't show up to the first match. It's also for things like a player quitting half way through or being excessively late for a semi final or something.
Awesome and amazing initiative ! Some players sometimes forget that all those tournaments are not god given. There are plenty tournaments who need the hype of players to get more viewers ( More viewers = more money ). I really hope that you guys have a lot of sucess with that
If you decide not to show up for work one day with no notice or reason besides, l changed my mind, you have to expect consequences. This is how the world works.
"This is how the world works," and, "expecting them to be an adult," don't really answer any of the issues raised. These statements only say, "This is how I want and expect the world to be because that's how it's always been." If you want people to think of playing in a starcraft tournament as a kind of job give them a salary or pay them an hourly rate. The tiered reward system on which money is dispersed in tournaments is incredibly unforgiving and makes it an unreliable source of income for all but a few people. Further, it bothers me that some people see elite players as a group that needs to be "kept in line" instead of the core of the competitive scene. In addition, if a tournament organizer funds a tournament out of his own pocket and the tournament fails to attract the players who have signed up, then the organizer loses his investment. This is the way the world works, and I believe that you would say accepting the risk of losing an investment is part of being an adult.
Everything's fine and I understand why you chose the name for a running joke, but if you make a joke, players will treat it as a joke. Be completely serious about something like this if you want results
On July 27 2015 07:07 LongShot27 wrote: Everything's fine and I understand why you chose the name for a running joke, but if you make a joke, players will treat it as a joke. Be completely serious about something like this if you want results
They'll take it seriously when they receive their first, second, and third strike.
On July 27 2015 04:39 thewhiskey wrote: This is your solution? What a joke. And the naming of it only makes it worse... At least you could have thought a little about the signal you send.
Why not just put more effort into a healthy approach? Such as Creating events that players really want to attend and participate in so bad, that they don't want to drop out unless of a legitimate reason (last minute visa issues, transport problems etc.). Putting them in foreigner *host* stupid name *host* jail is such a victimising "solution". Also the perfect way to split the community and player-caster-organiser relationships.
brilliant post, agree 100%. this is a bunch of nonplayers getting together to demonize players as "ruining the game" and make themselves look better in the process without actually doing anything
all respect to your right to do this and people's right to agree with it, but i personally think it's ridiculous pointless theatrics
On July 27 2015 05:34 Lucrania wrote: I can't believe amount of positive responses this is getting. Things like this are the reason that player's unions exist in sports.
Enforcing players to show up to events doesn't seem remotely exploitive to me. That's what players unions exist for.
There's a lot of things in esports where players get taken advantage of, this isn't even close.
This just seems like a way for tournament organizers to control players. Feardragon, in all of his responses, makes it seem like he and the other tournament organizers part of this 'alliance' are entitled to any benefits they might receive the moment a player registers for their event; tournaments, showmatches, etc. It's important to remind them that athletes are the driving force behind viewership, sponsor interest in the scene, and the quality of tournaments overall. These rules won't make player's more "professional," but they will ensure that some players will flat out refuse to participate in tournaments that punish their players for being sick or changing their mind.
Being extremely sick is safe under medical emergency. Changing your mind is only safe if you give advance notice. If you decide not to show up for work one day with no notice or reason besides, l changed my mind, you have to expect consequences. This is how the world works.
And yes. Players can feel free to not participate in our events if they think this is an unreasonable demand.
If you decide not to show up for work one day with no notice or reason besides, l changed my mind, you have to expect consequences. This is how the world works.
"This is how the world works," and, "expecting them to be an adult," don't really answer any of the issues raised. These statements only say, "This is how I want and expect the world to be because that's how it's always been." If you want people to think of playing in a starcraft tournament as a kind of job give them a salary or pay them an hourly rate. The tiered reward system on which money is dispersed in tournaments is incredibly unforgiving and makes it an unreliable source of income for all but a few people. Further, it bothers me that some people see elite players as a group that needs to be "kept in line" instead of the core of the competitive scene. In addition, if a tournament organizer funds a tournament out of his own pocket and the tournament fails to attract the players who have signed up, then the organizer loses his investment. This is the way the world works, and I believe that you would say accepting the risk of losing an investment is part of being an adult.
The gravity of certain players refusing participation in community events because of Feardragon's initiative seems a bit hyperbolic to me, as I can't see how being requested to honor a commitment is exploitative or detrimental to the game, community, event, player, or organizer. Will some players feel attacked, and as a result refuse participation? Yes, likely, however; this initiative only improves the integrity of lesser-budget tournaments for the exact reason you said above: the athletes are the driving force behind viewership. If the 'athletes' don't show up, and have a very weak excuse for not doing so (as Fear stated earlier, medical/family emergencies and notifying the organizer well in advance constitute valid excuses) then you have a weakened product, which can in turn affect viewership and participation due to the perceived low-quality or mismanagement of the event.
You do raise a valid point in that these rules won't make certain players more professional, but it will hold everyone to a set of standards that promotes a more professional and sportsmanlike atmosphere. Will it be a catch-all? Absolutely not. In my view, what this initiative is doing is addressing the entitlement some players have on the issue.
In your reply, you also mentioned that the way to incentivize players to consider SC2 competitions as a "job" by giving them a salary or hourly pay. This is a pipe dream at odds to reality for "minor league" players, as the financial ability for organizers to satisfy this request is very improbable. Additionally, this is not the job of an tournament organizer, this is the job of a team organization. The tournament organizer awards the prize, not the salary. If a player seeks a team organization, they need to prove themselves worthwhile of the organization's investment. What is currently the best way for a "minor league" player to build their marketability, brand, image, and overall visibility to acquire this coveted salary/pay? By competing in community tournaments.
You also allude to organizers needing to accept the sunk cost associated with a community tournament that fails to get enough participants, despite Fear already explaining he has no issue with an event failing due to lack of participants. In this example, the onus for failure would be on the organizer for their inability to promote/market their event appropriately to fill the missing seats, rather than a sunk cost resulting from last-minute dishonored obligations from the event's participants. These are two very, very different situations that I'm concerned you're treating as one in your assumptions.
On July 27 2015 04:39 thewhiskey wrote: Why not just put more effort into a healthy approach? Such as Creating events that players really want to attend and participate in so bad, that they don't want to drop out unless of a legitimate reason (last minute visa issues, transport problems etc.). Putting them in foreigner *host* stupid name *host* jail is such a victimising "solution". Also the perfect way to split the community and player-caster-organiser relationships.
If players don't want to attend the events, then why do they sign up for them? I have no problem with an event failing because no players wanted to participate and didn't sign up.
Also the "legit" issues you gave aren't relavent. These are online tournaments so last minute visa issues and transportion problems shouldn't be a concern. If players have a legitimate family or medical emergency sure, we'll be understanding. But there have been way too many instances where a player doesn't show up and their only excuse is "oh shoot, I forgot".
There's a cost to the organizer's not having players play their matches they agree to play. Time, money, sponsor relations, viewership enjoyment, etc. all suffer if the player "didn't feel like playing" or "forgot to show up". I think it's far from unreasonable for organizers to ask players to honor commitments made, or at least give due notice that you won't be able to make it more than 20 minutes INTO the event.
That's not expecting too much of someone. That's called expecting them to be an adult.
On July 27 2015 05:13 Arianity wrote: Is this intended for Pros, or for casual players that play in Lycan league etc?
2 Months seems too lenient considering the number of events most Pros actually play in.
It'll be for anyone but for the Lycan League, this will only really be relavent if you make it more than 50% of the way through the tournament and then decide to drop out without a strong reason to do so. The only other situtaion would be if you qualify for the monthly final, accept the invite to it, and then no show without giving a heads up about it at least 36 hours in advance.
I definitely feel where you're coming from regarding past transgressions between players and organizers, and I hope this message didn't come off as antagonistic, as that is not my intent. A more constructive counterargument to this initiative would be to discuss how deals needs to be held up by BOTH players AND community organizers on conflicts such as failure to pay players on time, failure to adequately provide information necessary for players to compete (channel names/required check-in times, victory screenshot conditions, I can't think of any others off the top of my head but I'm sure there are many other conflicts) so it doesn't devolve into Us vs. Them mentality that ultimately benefits nobody.
If you decide not to show up for work one day with no notice or reason besides, l changed my mind, you have to expect consequences. This is how the world works.
"This is how the world works," and, "expecting them to be an adult," don't really answer any of the issues raised. These statements only say, "This is how I want and expect the world to be because that's how it's always been." If you want people to think of playing in a starcraft tournament as a kind of job give them a salary or pay them an hourly rate.
Literally every athlete out there rely on their results to get money. Prize money is part of it, and if you're reasonably consistent, thus attracting attention (read: viewers, clicks), you'll get sponsors or a team, that provide salary to you in some form.
The tiered reward system on which money is dispersed in tournaments is incredibly unforgiving and makes it an unreliable source of income for all but a few people.
I agree to some degree, the winner takes all tournaments aren't the best imho. Still, the rewards for being the best is what drives these professionals, if you could be mediocre (e.g. top32) and make about as much money as being #1, why would you work hard to get there?
Further, it bothers me that some people see elite players as a group that needs to be "kept in line" instead of the core of the competitive scene. In addition, if a tournament organizer funds a tournament out of his own pocket and the tournament fails to attract the players who have signed up, then the organizer loses his investment. This is the way the world works, and I believe that you would say accepting the risk of losing an investment is part of being an adult.
All parties of the alliance are fully aware of the risk of losing their investments. They spend money on online esports tournaments, come on. If, as you suggest, the tournament does not attract players, the organizers would probably quit hosting tournaments. This does not seem to be the happening. However, matches are being skipped because of noshows and dropouts, making the host of the tournament look bad to sponsors and viewers (their employers). To me this simply seems like they try and protect themselves from unserious players who they are better off without in their tournaments.
You make it seem like the organizers rely on people playing half a tournament and then dropping out, or people not showing. These people represent the exact opposite, they are the players you dont want, you want them in Foreigner Jail.
Speaking as fan and observer only I really like this whole initiative as it will hopefully make the scene outside of Korea more viable.
Grab the bollox by the horns and reward players with an inkling of honor who show up to an even that they or their team subscribed them too.
TOO MANY times have honest fans been let down by 'no shows', massive props to all those oraganisers who give these players a platform for showing solidarity and sticking together. G G
On July 27 2015 04:39 thewhiskey wrote: This is your solution? What a joke. And the naming of it only makes it worse... At least you could have thought a little about the signal you send.
Why not just put more effort into a healthy approach? Such as Creating events that players really want to attend and participate in so bad, that they don't want to drop out unless of a legitimate reason (last minute visa issues, transport problems etc.). Putting them in foreigner *host* stupid name *host* jail is such a victimising "solution". Also the perfect way to split the community and player-caster-organiser relationships.
brilliant post, agree 100%. this is a bunch of nonplayers getting together to demonize players as "ruining the game" and make themselves look better in the process without actually doing anything
all respect to your right to do this and people's right to agree with it, but i personally think it's ridiculous pointless theatrics
I will never understand how it got so far. If a player is not ready in 5 min, kick him out. If he is playing in other tournaments, it is his fault for being not ready when his next game is on. Why do players expect to take part in every online tournament at once?
Nice idea. I think it comes from the right place and the purpose is to induce a better SC2 scene.
The title though , it implies that only non korean players will be sanctioned , which I think is not true , and the first time you will have to put a korean inside the name will create some "discussions".
I disagreed with a point made by someone earlier , that the name is racist , but the more I think about it the more I agree.
However I think the racist name came because most of the time the players involved were non koreans and we are so used to think in terms of foreigners and non koreans that the racist aspect of the title was not intended.
On July 27 2015 09:06 graNite wrote: I will never understand how it got so far. If a player is not ready in 5 min, kick him out. If he is playing in other tournaments, it is his fault for being not ready when his next game is on. Why do players expect to take part in every online tournament at once?
Because, so far, they've been allowed to do so with no consequences for signing up for all of the tournaments and then prioritizing their play in the ones they think they can win, or are interested in competing in.
It's been quite literally an action with no downsides to the players, while causing viewers (because honestly, I'm not going to address the organizers) to have to waste time waiting, gradually get bored, and then go watch something else.
While it's organizers doing it, this in the end hopefully ends up in better viewing experiences for the audience. Or maybe people really enjoyed watching endless idle screens and never knowing if they'd be able to watch the next game before they fell asleep/had to go to work/parents dragged them out/etc.
On July 27 2015 09:19 Gen.Rolly wrote: The strike council seems kinda arbitrary, I hope people don't go on a power trip and make strike-giving a big show.
Power trip would be to organize behind the scenes and blacklist offending players without any transparency.
And big shows are what SC2 needs.
They should BROADCAST the arguments, appeals, verdicts in Judge Judy style lol. Would watch.
Great initiative, perhaps even a little lenient. There are too many players who disadvantage their fellow players, the casters, organizers and viewers.
On July 27 2015 04:39 thewhiskey wrote: This is your solution? What a joke. And the naming of it only makes it worse... At least you could have thought a little about the signal you send.
Why not just put more effort into a healthy approach? Such as Creating events that players really want to attend and participate in so bad, that they don't want to drop out unless of a legitimate reason (last minute visa issues, transport problems etc.). Putting them in foreigner *host* stupid name *host* jail is such a victimising "solution". Also the perfect way to split the community and player-caster-organiser relationships.
brilliant post, agree 100%. this is a bunch of nonplayers getting together to demonize players as "ruining the game" and make themselves look better in the process without actually doing anything
all respect to your right to do this and people's right to agree with it, but i personally think it's ridiculous pointless theatrics
TIL tournament organizers are not doing anything.
??? i didn't say organizing a tournament isn't doing anything, i said making a big dramatic thread about a strike system for attendance of online game competitions isn't really doing anything.
players who don't take attendance seriously aren't going to see this and think "man id better straighten up!", they're going to think "fuck this, it's not worth it, i'm going to go back to school/get a job". i mean if they even take it seriously at all
and you can say good riddance if you want and pretend it would be doing a service to the scene to push out noshows, but at the end of the day alienating players is just going to shrink the talent pool and making the community more miserable and hateful. talk shit on someone like major if you want, the guy has a crappy attitude, but who is in NA that we want to watch instead of him? no one watches NA qualis for anything until they get to the top few pros because everything else is a joke.
like it or not we're at the mercy of those select few who have enough skill to gain a following. where is the magical talent pool of players who are going to ride to the rescue and replace all the big bad evil teenagers and twentysomethings who back out of game tournaments?
and as for people talking about the scene being taken seriously or whatever, i hate to break it to you but no one in the universe is watching the sc2 scene thinking " gee if only their tournaments ran smoother id take them more seriously." being taken seriously is a direct function of having a large sustainable market. the only way for sc2 to get more serious and have better player attendance is for the game to grow through design and marketing. it's not taken seriously because it's a niche and we're fortunate anyone good plays at all. and that's not a dead game comment, it's just reality. this isn't a massive esport, it's down the list.
On July 27 2015 09:06 graNite wrote: I will never understand how it got so far. If a player is not ready in 5 min, kick him out. If he is playing in other tournaments, it is his fault for being not ready when his next game is on. Why do players expect to take part in every online tournament at once?
Because, so far, they've been allowed to do so with no consequences for signing up for all of the tournaments and then prioritizing their play in the ones they think they can win, or are interested in competing in.
It's been quite literally an action with no downsides to the players, while causing viewers (because honestly, I'm not going to address the organizers) to have to waste time waiting, gradually get bored, and then go watch something else.
While it's organizers doing it, this in the end hopefully ends up in better viewing experiences for the audience. Or maybe people really enjoyed watching endless idle screens and never knowing if they'd be able to watch the next game before they fell asleep/had to go to work/parents dragged them out/etc.
I always thought of it more like the players calling themselves professional gamers when in reality they aren't when they do shit like this. It's just a mutual respect. Sure we all have to eat some how but if you screw the TO's over and over again by being retarded then how do you expect them to keep raising prize pools and doing their job so you have a job? It's like going to your job and telling your boss you'll be spending the afternoon working on something else because it will pay you more today. Guaranteed your ass will be out on the curb. At least these TO's are willing to go the extra mile by letting you say that 2 times.
On July 27 2015 04:39 thewhiskey wrote: Why not just put more effort into a healthy approach? Such as Creating events that players really want to attend and participate in so bad, that they don't want to drop out unless of a legitimate reason
A lot of these events are or have in the past been funded out of pocket by the organizers so that these people can get paid to play a game, if they dont think that's enough motivation then what is?
Players are what make tournaments, not casters no matter how much any caster ever will try to think that. Without players to play in tourneys, casters are absolutely worthless. Maybe better to respect your jobs and content are produced solely because there are players playing in these tourneys.
This foreigner jail thing like may have sounded good at first conception, but it's honestly a bit ridiculous.
On July 27 2015 10:34 avilo wrote: Players are what make tournaments, not casters no matter how much any caster ever will try to think that. Without players to play in tourneys, casters are absolutely worthless. Maybe better to respect your jobs and content are produced solely because there are players playing in these tourneys.
This foreigner jail thing like may have sounded good at first conception, but it's honestly a bit ridiculous.
Without tournaments, players have no reason to play. It's symbiotic.
If there is no one producing content and hosting tournaments, your skills as a player are worthless. Literally. I don't think there's a single power continuum here; if the two don't work together there's plenty of other entertainment options out there for viewers to watch. Each needs to protect their interests, but if you don't work together and in the interest of the viewers having a good product to consume, both sides die.
(1) Bad name. I get enjoying an inside joke but that only works for something like this if the name, outside of the context of the joke, appears neutral. But "Foreigner Jail" is not neutral. If you are really committing to this then change the name now. I can already picture you guys talking about foreigner jail in a joking manner. Actually I have a hard time picturing a caster talking about it in completely serious tones, and even if they did then 'foreigner jail' will sound out of place every time it's said.
(2) A competitive person reads this system as "I can drop out of two events and then another one every three months, or even sooner than that if I'm not planning to play anymore of these organizers' tournaments for the following two months." Every warning system in any competitive environment is interpreted like that. It's like fouls in basketball. It's part of the game to use them to your advantage as long as you're not getting into foul trouble. I imagine that if players use as many dropouts as you're allowing them to, you'll still feel like there are too many dropouts. If that's the case, make it stricter. edit: Apparently two strikes can decay simultaneously so it's even less strict than I thought.
On July 27 2015 10:34 avilo wrote: Players are what make tournaments, not casters no matter how much any caster ever will try to think that. Without players to play in tourneys, casters are absolutely worthless. Maybe better to respect your jobs and content are produced solely because there are players playing in these tourneys.
This foreigner jail thing like may have sounded good at first conception, but it's honestly a bit ridiculous.
Without tournaments, players have no reason to play. It's symbiotic.
If there is no one producing content and hosting tournaments, your skills as a player are worthless. Literally. I don't think there's a single power continuum here; if the two don't work together there's plenty of other entertainment options out there for viewers to watch. Each needs to protect their interests, but if you don't work together and in the interest of the viewers having a good product to consume, both sides die.
Actually, if tournaments entirely disappeared people would still play starcraft 2 contrary to your belief. I would and so would many others. And content would still be created for the game through youtube/streams etc.
Tournaments should respect players, players should respect tournaments, but i'm sorry if you believe there would be no players without tournaments because it's not true.
On July 27 2015 10:34 avilo wrote: Players are what make tournaments, not casters no matter how much any caster ever will try to think that. Without players to play in tourneys, casters are absolutely worthless. Maybe better to respect your jobs and content are produced solely because there are players playing in these tourneys.
This foreigner jail thing like may have sounded good at first conception, but it's honestly a bit ridiculous.
Without tournaments, players have no reason to play. It's symbiotic.
If there is no one producing content and hosting tournaments, your skills as a player are worthless. Literally. I don't think there's a single power continuum here; if the two don't work together there's plenty of other entertainment options out there for viewers to watch. Each needs to protect their interests, but if you don't work together and in the interest of the viewers having a good product to consume, both sides die.
Actually, if tournaments entirely disappeared people would still play starcraft 2 contrary to your belief. I would and so would many others. And content would still be created for the game through youtube/streams etc.
Tournaments should respect players, players should respect tournaments, but i'm sorry if you believe there would be no players without tournaments because it's not true.
Apparently, some players don't respect tournaments because they refuse to be on time or play at all.
Professional usually means certified or getting paid. Can't penalize people who are making no money off this game especially in the quals while the casters pocket it all comfortably. Perks for SC2 players are steep.
lol, who cares if the names a joke... Does it really matter what its called? Esports jail? sc2 jail? sc2 lock out? Temp ban? online tournament ban? strike out? Community tournament ban? and that its racist? c'mon.... In my opinion, I feel you probably dont actually care and are just making it an issue for the hell of it.. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you truly are offended by "Foreigner Jail"...In that case... I don't know what to tell ya.
Thank you very much for putting this together and appreciate all the community casters hard work. You all are awesome and keep it up!
On July 27 2015 11:25 masterrn wrote: Professional usually means certified or getting paid. Can't penalize people who are making no money off this game especially in the quals while the casters pocket it all comfortably. Perks for SC2 players are steep.
You act like casters are the first earn a dollar, but the list of names I read hear are all people who put in hundreds of hours casting free to make the small change they make now. No one caster in this scene has been handed a silver platter. It's been earned.
On July 27 2015 10:34 avilo wrote: Players are what make tournaments, not casters no matter how much any caster ever will try to think that. Without players to play in tourneys, casters are absolutely worthless. Maybe better to respect your jobs and content are produced solely because there are players playing in these tourneys.
This foreigner jail thing like may have sounded good at first conception, but it's honestly a bit ridiculous.
Without tournaments, players have no reason to play. It's symbiotic.
If there is no one producing content and hosting tournaments, your skills as a player are worthless. Literally. I don't think there's a single power continuum here; if the two don't work together there's plenty of other entertainment options out there for viewers to watch. Each needs to protect their interests, but if you don't work together and in the interest of the viewers having a good product to consume, both sides die.
Actually, if tournaments entirely disappeared people would still play starcraft 2 contrary to your belief. I would and so would many others. And content would still be created for the game through youtube/streams etc.
Tournaments should respect players, players should respect tournaments, but i'm sorry if you believe there would be no players without tournaments because it's not true.
On second thought, I don't see the point in arguing with someone that doesn't make money from tournaments in any case.
Just... You did see what happened to the NHL, right?
I think privacy should be a serious consideration. I made a decision to talk about my depression publicly but if it was private and I had some incident that made me miss a match, I'd take the strike before I trust such a sensitive issue to strangers. It is incredible how much private information gets spread around when people meet up at events, have a few drinks and decide to share a little something with a trusted friend, and that friend does the same, etc. Shit like that happens in the "real world" too even when lifelong careers are on the line. The checks and balances system makes it so the source of a leak is harder to determine and even if evidence of indiscretion came to light it might not result in severe consequences for the culprit.
Since a lot of people seem to think the system isn't strict enough, and since some players may rather take a strike than explain themselves, I think you have to give players the benefit of the doubt. I mean you should make sure to be respectful of players and let the system do the work and not assume a player is lazy or disrespectful whenever he misses a match.
If you do decide to make it strict to the point that a single unexplained absence is quite severe for a player, then you are assuming a level of trust from players that you haven't earned and haven't made any effort of guaranteeing.
On July 27 2015 12:05 NonY wrote: I think privacy should be a serious consideration. I made a decision to talk about my depression publicly but if it was private and I had some incident that made me miss a match, I'd take the strike before I trust such a sensitive issue to strangers. It is incredible how much private information gets spread around when people meet up at events, have a few drinks and decide to share a little something with a trusted friend, and that friend does the same, etc. Shit like that happens in the "real world" too even when lifelong careers are on the line. The checks and balances system makes it so the source of a leak is harder to determine and even if evidence of indiscretion came to light it might not result in severe consequences for the culprit.
Since a lot of people seem to think the system isn't strict enough, and since some players may rather take a strike than explain themselves, I think you have to give players the benefit of the doubt. I mean you should make sure to be respectful of players and let the system do the work and not assume a player is lazy or disrespectful whenever he misses a match.
If you do decide to make it strict to the point that a single unexplained absence is quite severe for a player, then you are assuming a level of trust from players that you haven't earned and haven't made any effort of guaranteeing.
This is a REALLY good point. Thank you for bringing it up. There are issues that we haven't built up trust with players yet to handle a situation like that, I agree. Hopefully we can get to that point eventually but for now, we do need an alternative solution for something like that.
I'm wary about just simply always giving trust to all players for unexplained absences since it's so easy to abuse(I mean, I was in High School once. I know how making up fake excuses goes), but I also agree that this is a scenario I hadn't considered. I want to think on this one some more to see if I can come up with a good compromise. Maybe a form of evidence for the problem that isn't extremely revealing for the full depth of the situation? I'm not sure. I do sort of feel that trust should be a two way street. This organization has not earned the trust of players enough to have sensitive information like that disclosed safely, and similarly players haven't earned trust not to abuse a loophole for this system. Ultimately, I agree a compromise must be made, but I believe we still have to think a bit harder about what that compromise is.
Thank you so much for bringing this up though. This is 100% not the category of players we want to be penalizing if possible.
Edit: Conversation so far in the organization seems to lean toward people being able to approach me specifically and let me know if there is a more private situation they don't want made public, and I will simply have the power to remove strikes without giving justification for those particular situations. I don't really know what I can say that won't be biased because this puts me in a position where I can only say players would have to trust me if they want to remain without a strike & not give any information about the situation. I know that my own confidence and pride in being someone who doesn't talk about things that aren't my business to talk about may count for very little. But I hope I can build up that trust over time.
I'm not sure if people will find that to be an acceptable solution. I want to continue thinking on this to find a better solution. My feelings on putting absolute faith in players for unexplained absences is that if we do that, we may as well not have a system at all. The few "bad eggs" among a population of mostly "good eggs" ruin the system for everyone and makes it largely ineffective. I hope you see my point in why there is a large hesitance in simply always trusting this.
I wish something like this was in place a long time ago, back when I was still involved heavily in the semi-pro scene. It's something that has been desperately needed for a long time, and one of the main reasons why the NA scene in particular has suffered over the years.
This is very similar to the way leagues use to run back in sc:bw. You missed 2 matches in a row you or your team was banned for that season. This organization is not much different from that, I like it. It forces more professionalism for undisciplined competitors. The one thing I also like is that there is a clause that states if you had a unforeseen unavoidable incident that caused you to miss the match, obviously with some proof, then that competitor would not receive a strike.
On July 27 2015 09:16 baiesradu wrote: Nice idea. I think it comes from the right place and the purpose is to induce a better SC2 scene.
The title though , it implies that only non korean players will be sanctioned , which I think is not true , and the first time you will have to put a korean inside the name will create some "discussions".
I disagreed with a point made by someone earlier , that the name is racist , but the more I think about it the more I agree.
However I think the racist name came because most of the time the players involved were non koreans and we are so used to think in terms of foreigners and non koreans that the racist aspect of the title was not intended.
That's just my opinion, and I could be wrong .
By the way, Koreans are certainly not exempt from this. The title is a play off of "Kespa Jail". This is moreso a "jail" ran by foreigners, not for foreigners.
On July 27 2015 12:05 NonY wrote: I think privacy should be a serious consideration. I made a decision to talk about my depression publicly but if it was private and I had some incident that made me miss a match, I'd take the strike before I trust such a sensitive issue to strangers. It is incredible how much private information gets spread around when people meet up at events, have a few drinks and decide to share a little something with a trusted friend, and that friend does the same, etc. Shit like that happens in the "real world" too even when lifelong careers are on the line. The checks and balances system makes it so the source of a leak is harder to determine and even if evidence of indiscretion came to light it might not result in severe consequences for the culprit.
Since a lot of people seem to think the system isn't strict enough, and since some players may rather take a strike than explain themselves, I think you have to give players the benefit of the doubt. I mean you should make sure to be respectful of players and let the system do the work and not assume a player is lazy or disrespectful whenever he misses a match.
If you do decide to make it strict to the point that a single unexplained absence is quite severe for a player, then you are assuming a level of trust from players that you haven't earned and haven't made any effort of guaranteeing.
This is a REALLY good point. Thank you for bringing it up. There are issues that we haven't built up trust with players yet to handle a situation like that, I agree. Hopefully we can get to that point eventually but for now, we do need an alternative solution for something like that.
I'm wary about just simply always giving trust to all players for unexplained absences since it's so easy to abuse(I mean, I was in High School once. I know how making up fake excuses goes), but I also agree that this is a scenario I hadn't considered. I want to think on this one some more to see if I can come up with a good compromise. Maybe a form of evidence for the problem that isn't extremely revealing for the full depth of the situation? I'm not sure. I do sort of feel that trust should be a two way street. This organization has not earned the trust of players enough to have sensitive information like that disclosed safely, and similarly players haven't earned trust not to abuse a loophole for this system. Ultimately, I agree a compromise must be made, but I believe we still have to think a bit harder about what that compromise is.
Thank you so much for bringing this up though. This is 100% not the category of players we want to be penalizing if possible.
Edit: Conversation so far in the organization seems to lean toward people being able to approach me specifically and let me know if there is a more private situation they don't want made public, and I will simply have the power to remove strikes without giving justification for those particular situations. I don't really know what I can say that won't be biased because this puts me in a position where I can only say players would have to trust me if they want to remain without a strike & not give any information about the situation. I know that my own confidence and pride in being someone who doesn't talk about things that aren't my business to talk about may count for very little. But I hope I can build up that trust over time.
I'm not sure if people will find that to be an acceptable solution. I want to continue thinking on this to find a better solution. My feelings on putting absolute faith in players for unexplained absences is that if we do that, we may as well not have a system at all. The few "bad eggs" among a population of mostly "good eggs" ruin the system for everyone and makes it largely ineffective. I hope you see my point in why there is a large hesitance in simply always trusting this.
But would this work in actual practice? Yes, you have people like Nony who have been extremely forthcoming with his struggles with depression, but what about some random player who isn't? If a player messaged you and was like "sorry i didn't make this event i signed up for, i was depressed, are you going to be the one to "judge" whether they are really depressed or not, and if, therefore, they should get a pass on a strike? Because if players just start messaging you things that aren't true in hopes to get out of punishment, how will you be able to weed out the fakers from honest individuals?
If esports in general is truly going to be considered a professional sport, then these are the steps that need to be in place. I guess the thing is where do you draw the line between professional and amateur? It's like, do amateur tournaments/players command the same guidelines as professionals? Or for instance, lets say a amateur in a $100 weekly tournament and someone like Bomber were to back out of "Hell its aboot time"(if he were going), the amateur in the 100 dollar tournament is essentially getting the same punishment. Some of these community tournaments have pretty big money, and some of them are just $100-$200 dollar tournaments, so do they command the same professionalism? The latter seem more just for fun and for players to practice in a tournament setting to increase their skill and move up. To me it seems that they should be treated a bit differently(or maybe not?), but that would make the system more complex if you were to add like 2 different strike systems. For instance 4-5 strikes in a amateur setting, and 3 strikes if the tournament has over $1000 prize pool (just random numbers). I truly believe in what your starting, just want it to be as best as possible and throwing my 2 cents in the pot.
I think this is a really good idea albeit a very late one.
This is the following scenario what IMO killed alot of tournaments:
Assumptions : SC2 players are between the ages 16-30. SC players have high-end jobs/high education or generally a high intellect (it's just the type of game that attracts these people).
Tournaments in 2010-2012 :
Tournaments used to start between 19:00 and 20:00 on weekdays and had alot of players signing up for it. There were alot of tournaments aswell and some people signed up for 3 tournaments at a time. Due to this fact, tournaments ended way past 0:00, forcing the tournament organizers to either move the tournament up or reduce the playing field.
I won't name any names, but I've waited litterally hours on pro players that were busy playing 3 tournaments and kept saying I have to wait. These were players, that would end up top 16 in all 3 tournaments they were playing, thus delaying every tournament.
This sucked for me, since I was 85% sure I was going to lose this game anyways, yet still had to wait for 60+ minutes to play a game, where they would rush me within 5minutes and die (because i was not that bad). Since I could beat amateur players 95% of the time, this scenario happened almost litterally every tournament and I got used to it.
Tournaments in 2013 and onwards :
Tournament organizers realized that tournaments were taking far too long and needed to do something about this. ESL moved their tournaments to 18:00, sometimes even 17:00. Other organizers did the same. There would still be 2 tournaments run at the same time, but with alot less participants. The tournaments still get dragged out, because people were still playing 2 tournaments, BUT everyone who is old enough to work can't join any tournament anymore or has to rush home.
By moving the tournaments starting time to 18:00, organizers effectively singled out everyone who was not a Pro player from the age of 22+. I'm sure I'm not the only one when I say that this litterally killed my passion. I'm 26 and have a good job, I have thought about going pro but it's far too unreliable for me, I was also not good enough (yet). Where could I now test my abilities? Only the Sunday cups were left, which start at 14:00, which is fine, but sunday is just not a good day for me.
For LotV, I hope organizers will hold onto such a list, so that when tournaments collide players aren't able to play 2 at a time. Which would result in tournaments being able to be played within X hours, so that they can start on a later time again. This would result in everyone that either works or has college untill late, can actually join. Increasing the player pool again and increasing the stale environment we're getting now. In a game where atleast 50% of the players are atleast 20+ and probably have jobs, how can you make them interested again?
I'm aware that the biggest reason for this alliance is to keep people like major and naniwa show up for invitationals and stuff, but I think this is a serious issue.
This still feels like a really satirical post nonetheless, but it's key to the problem SC2 is having..
I'm surprised we haven't seen a similar blacklist from players towards organisers paying out late or not paying out at all. I guess they're in a position to do that. Either way, it's been a long time coming
On July 27 2015 12:05 NonY wrote: I think privacy should be a serious consideration. I made a decision to talk about my depression publicly but if it was private and I had some incident that made me miss a match, I'd take the strike before I trust such a sensitive issue to strangers. It is incredible how much private information gets spread around when people meet up at events, have a few drinks and decide to share a little something with a trusted friend, and that friend does the same, etc. Shit like that happens in the "real world" too even when lifelong careers are on the line. The checks and balances system makes it so the source of a leak is harder to determine and even if evidence of indiscretion came to light it might not result in severe consequences for the culprit.
Since a lot of people seem to think the system isn't strict enough, and since some players may rather take a strike than explain themselves, I think you have to give players the benefit of the doubt. I mean you should make sure to be respectful of players and let the system do the work and not assume a player is lazy or disrespectful whenever he misses a match.
If you do decide to make it strict to the point that a single unexplained absence is quite severe for a player, then you are assuming a level of trust from players that you haven't earned and haven't made any effort of guaranteeing.
This is a REALLY good point. Thank you for bringing it up. There are issues that we haven't built up trust with players yet to handle a situation like that, I agree. Hopefully we can get to that point eventually but for now, we do need an alternative solution for something like that.
I'm wary about just simply always giving trust to all players for unexplained absences since it's so easy to abuse(I mean, I was in High School once. I know how making up fake excuses goes), but I also agree that this is a scenario I hadn't considered. I want to think on this one some more to see if I can come up with a good compromise. Maybe a form of evidence for the problem that isn't extremely revealing for the full depth of the situation? I'm not sure. I do sort of feel that trust should be a two way street. This organization has not earned the trust of players enough to have sensitive information like that disclosed safely, and similarly players haven't earned trust not to abuse a loophole for this system. Ultimately, I agree a compromise must be made, but I believe we still have to think a bit harder about what that compromise is.
Thank you so much for bringing this up though. This is 100% not the category of players we want to be penalizing if possible.
Edit: Conversation so far in the organization seems to lean toward people being able to approach me specifically and let me know if there is a more private situation they don't want made public, and I will simply have the power to remove strikes without giving justification for those particular situations. I don't really know what I can say that won't be biased because this puts me in a position where I can only say players would have to trust me if they want to remain without a strike & not give any information about the situation. I know that my own confidence and pride in being someone who doesn't talk about things that aren't my business to talk about may count for very little. But I hope I can build up that trust over time.
I'm not sure if people will find that to be an acceptable solution. I want to continue thinking on this to find a better solution. My feelings on putting absolute faith in players for unexplained absences is that if we do that, we may as well not have a system at all. The few "bad eggs" among a population of mostly "good eggs" ruin the system for everyone and makes it largely ineffective. I hope you see my point in why there is a large hesitance in simply always trusting this.
With various depressions you often don't even know you're having it until later on.
With the 3 strikes, I think there's room, and I don't think there's much reasons to manage. It shouldn't be a big deal to cancel your participation for a tournament if you're realizing after 2 strikes that there's some kind of issue preventing you to participate in the tournaments you were scheduled for.
I don't even think you need a reason, just cancel in time. The organisations in question should accomodate this.
It's just like any job or any appointment in life.
If you can't make it, let someone know or they're going to be consquences..
If you can't make a doctor's appointment- let them know 24 hours in advance or pay. If you can't make it to work - let them know or get fired. If you can't make it to school for an exam - let them know or fail your class. If you can't make it to a friend - let them know or they'll stop being your friends in the long run (seriously it's fucking annoying when someone doesn't show up when you've planned something).
Why should a potentially PAID excercise/game be any different? The players that are professional about this, shouldn't be the ones that suffer from unprofessionalism. It should be the ones with no regard for others, that should be punished and a system like this helps this.
On July 27 2015 12:05 NonY wrote: I think privacy should be a serious consideration. I made a decision to talk about my depression publicly but if it was private and I had some incident that made me miss a match, I'd take the strike before I trust such a sensitive issue to strangers. It is incredible how much private information gets spread around when people meet up at events, have a few drinks and decide to share a little something with a trusted friend, and that friend does the same, etc. Shit like that happens in the "real world" too even when lifelong careers are on the line. The checks and balances system makes it so the source of a leak is harder to determine and even if evidence of indiscretion came to light it might not result in severe consequences for the culprit.
Since a lot of people seem to think the system isn't strict enough, and since some players may rather take a strike than explain themselves, I think you have to give players the benefit of the doubt. I mean you should make sure to be respectful of players and let the system do the work and not assume a player is lazy or disrespectful whenever he misses a match.
If you do decide to make it strict to the point that a single unexplained absence is quite severe for a player, then you are assuming a level of trust from players that you haven't earned and haven't made any effort of guaranteeing.
This is a REALLY good point. Thank you for bringing it up. There are issues that we haven't built up trust with players yet to handle a situation like that, I agree. Hopefully we can get to that point eventually but for now, we do need an alternative solution for something like that.
I'm wary about just simply always giving trust to all players for unexplained absences since it's so easy to abuse(I mean, I was in High School once. I know how making up fake excuses goes), but I also agree that this is a scenario I hadn't considered. I want to think on this one some more to see if I can come up with a good compromise. Maybe a form of evidence for the problem that isn't extremely revealing for the full depth of the situation? I'm not sure. I do sort of feel that trust should be a two way street. This organization has not earned the trust of players enough to have sensitive information like that disclosed safely, and similarly players haven't earned trust not to abuse a loophole for this system. Ultimately, I agree a compromise must be made, but I believe we still have to think a bit harder about what that compromise is.
Thank you so much for bringing this up though. This is 100% not the category of players we want to be penalizing if possible.
Edit: Conversation so far in the organization seems to lean toward people being able to approach me specifically and let me know if there is a more private situation they don't want made public, and I will simply have the power to remove strikes without giving justification for those particular situations. I don't really know what I can say that won't be biased because this puts me in a position where I can only say players would have to trust me if they want to remain without a strike & not give any information about the situation. I know that my own confidence and pride in being someone who doesn't talk about things that aren't my business to talk about may count for very little. But I hope I can build up that trust over time.
I'm not sure if people will find that to be an acceptable solution. I want to continue thinking on this to find a better solution. My feelings on putting absolute faith in players for unexplained absences is that if we do that, we may as well not have a system at all. The few "bad eggs" among a population of mostly "good eggs" ruin the system for everyone and makes it largely ineffective. I hope you see my point in why there is a large hesitance in simply always trusting this.
With various depressions you often don't even know you're having it until later on.
With the 3 strikes, I think there's room, and I don't think there's much reasons to manage. It shouldn't be a big deal to cancel your participation for a tournament if you're realizing after 2 strikes that there's some kind of issue preventing you to participate in the tournaments you were scheduled for.
I don't even think you need a reason, just cancel in time. The organisations in question should accomodate this.
I agree. I think 3 strikes gives players ample opportunity. If a player has a medical condition that routinely keeps them from completing tournaments then they should probably focus on that issue more than "am I eligible to sign up".
The biggest problem this faces is that tournaments have "always" had rules to punish players that did not show up on time. If those weren't enforced before why would things change now?
On July 27 2015 12:05 NonY wrote: I think privacy should be a serious consideration. I made a decision to talk about my depression publicly but if it was private and I had some incident that made me miss a match, I'd take the strike before I trust such a sensitive issue to strangers.
I can understand this. Talked with Ravi and Oli about this last night.
In order to give deference to these situations and also to prevent abuse, I think it would be best to allow a person in this situation to speak directly to (and only to) Ravi. He's a trustworthy individual. If you feel a matter is too personal to share with the rest of the council, then you can go only to Ravi. He's level headed and as objective as one could hope someone in this community to be.
If you have a valid personal matter, he can wave your strike. However, if it appears you're attempting to abuse the system and avoid the council, you have the option to take a strike (you have 3, after all) or you can let the council deliberate.
The council was implemented to protect the players, not fuck them over. We were concerned tournament organizers would have their "problem children" that would be given a strike in situations where other players would be given a pass.
We respect the desire to keep your significant personal matters private and are open to feedback on this move.
i don't like this entire idea one bit. It s supposed to bring more professionalism into the scene but all it will really do is create drama and give Rifkin a way to let off some steam (maybe thats an upside to it? ). Face it, none of us are here for the money. We watch, play (and probably cast too) for the love of the game, because we enjoy the community here, have our friends around and derp and trashtalk a lot. We really don't need a penalizing system that forces itself onto the player without their agreement in place. Btw, why does it have to be a blacklist system? wouldn't a whitelist one that rewards you with say letting you enter some sort of higher profile tournament be a lot more adequate/less drama and hate inducing?
I tried to participate in the Ting 2v2 Cup. My opponent did not reply to my teammate. They announced the Friday chat channel but I was playing in the Saturday one so I had no way of finding out where the chat channel was nor was it posted on the tournament thread/page. So this opponent who speaks Korean takes the forfeit win. We talk to the admin (Nath) and he told the winning team that he has no time and just granted them the forfeit win. I didn't even get to communicate with my opponent properly nor get to play a match.
We've also seen tournaments where a player was mistreated in this December tournament. The admin/caster told him "our house our rules" - which is perfectly acceptable but hypocritical if this player penalty system goes through.
If we're going to implement "professional rules", let's have a sufficiently staffed tournaments too. Saying we're short-handed is not that much better than the player saying g2g..
Shoutout to Pharside for being the best ESL admin!
On July 28 2015 09:27 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: I suggest and/or hope players and viewers alike will boycott anything involved with this organization.
Won't be necessary, as everything outside of WCS or a major event is more or less irrelevant.
The entire topic is just beating around the bush at calling out less than a handful of players. I read it, had a chuckle then dismissed it as impudent.
As someone who has previously set up show matches and events I'm actually really happy something like this is set up. If I was worried about inviting any players to play in an event I can always check the list to make sure no one was close to being placed in "jail"
Hey everyone. This is an f.y.i. that the organization has discussed a lot of the feedback that was given for this initial proposal and we are going to try some changes to the rules before things get rolling based on that feedback. A fairly large number of people, including players, felt that the system was not strict enough. We agreed and decided to find the best way to make the system more effective.
Our options were to decrease the number of strikes(most suggested option from the community) from 3 to 2, increase the amount of time a strike would last before expiring from 3 months to something longer, or increase the amount of time a player would spend in jail from 2 months to something longer.
Ultimately, we decided the best option was to increase the amount of time a strike would last before expiring from 3 months to 9 months. Reducing the number of strikes a player could get before being put in foreigner jail would also affect players who simply had unfortunate circumstances more, so we wanted to avoid this if possible. Increasing jail time would also make it more likely for players to lose motivation to play the game at all if they didn't qualify for WCS or offline events, which is not the intended purpose of this system. We decided by increasing the amount of time it takes for a strike to expire because this leaves players with a sense of consequence for no-showing and should hopefully disincentivize thoughts that were mentioned in feedback like "I can skip one event a month."
Some other smaller changes were made to the rules such as some clarifications about certain situations and edge cases. For example, Nony where a player may have a family/medical emergency but not want it publicly disclosed. If you want to see the new ruleset, you can find it here.
I also want to remind everyone that the objective of this system is not to turn this into "organizers versus players". The members of the TOA were selected carefully as reliable organizers who generally aren't the ones "screwing over players" as it's been pointed out. At some point, I personally hope we can start also creating standards for the organizers in this organization as well so that we too will be held accountable for poor player treatment. For now, we don't want to overreach with an already ambitious project. One step at a time.
As always, if you have any questions, feel free to leave them here and we'll do our best to address the ones that haven't already been answered or addressed already.
On July 27 2015 10:45 NonY wrote: (1) Bad name. I get enjoying an inside joke but that only works for something like this if the name, outside of the context of the joke, appears neutral. But "Foreigner Jail" is not neutral. If you are really committing to this then change the name now. I can already picture you guys talking about foreigner jail in a joking manner. Actually I have a hard time picturing a caster talking about it in completely serious tones, and even if they did then 'foreigner jail' will sound out of place every time it's said.
(2) A competitive person reads this system as "I can drop out of two events and then another one every three months, or even sooner than that if I'm not planning to play anymore of these organizers' tournaments for the following two months." Every warning system in any competitive environment is interpreted like that. It's like fouls in basketball. It's part of the game to use them to your advantage as long as you're not getting into foul trouble. I imagine that if players use as many dropouts as you're allowing them to, you'll still feel like there are too many dropouts. If that's the case, make it stricter. edit: Apparently two strikes can decay simultaneously so it's even less strict than I thought.
Of course players are going to game this system like there is no tomorrow. If you got a dq on top of a cash fine for not showing up or dropping a tournament then attitudes would change. Players would of course be angry at first but they'd get over it.
On July 28 2015 15:09 feardragon wrote: Hey everyone. This is an f.y.i. that the organization has discussed a lot of the feedback that was given for this initial proposal and we are going to try some changes to the rules before things get rolling based on that feedback. A fairly large number of people, including players, felt that the system was not strict enough. We agreed and decided to find the best way to make the system more effective.
Our options were to decrease the number of strikes(most suggested option from the community) from 3 to 2, increase the amount of time a strike would last before expiring from 3 months to something longer, or increase the amount of time a player would spend in jail from 2 months to something longer.
Ultimately, we decided the best option was to increase the amount of time a strike would last before expiring from 3 months to 9 months. Reducing the number of strikes a player could get before being put in foreigner jail would also affect players who simply had unfortunate circumstances more, so we wanted to avoid this if possible. Increasing jail time would also make it more likely for players to lose motivation to play the game at all if they didn't qualify for WCS or offline events, which is not the intended purpose of this system. We decided by increasing the amount of time it takes for a strike to expire because this leaves players with a sense of consequence for no-showing and should hopefully disincentivize thoughts that were mentioned in feedback like "I can skip one event a month."
Some other smaller changes were made to the rules such as some clarifications about certain situations and edge cases. For example, Nony where a player may have a family/medical emergency but not want it publicly disclosed. If you want to see the new ruleset, you can find it here.
I also want to remind everyone that the objective of this system is not to turn this into "organizers versus players". The members of the TOA were selected carefully as reliable organizers who generally aren't the ones "screwing over players" as it's been pointed out. At some point, I personally hope we can start also creating standards for the organizers in this organization as well so that we too will be held accountable for poor player treatment. For now, we don't want to overreach with an already ambitious project. One step at a time.
As always, if you have any questions, feel free to leave them here and we'll do our best to address the ones that haven't already been answered or addressed already.
Why not just tell them to kick rocks if they drop your tournament more than once? I'm sure a year or even 6 months of not being able to have the option to play will make them think about it more than two slaps on the wrist they can use anytime they want.
On July 28 2015 06:13 Mistakes wrote: Why isn't Kane's beautiful post Community News?
Because a joke and/or a butthurt reaction (I honestly can't tell) generally aren't considered news.
It's a joke. 100%. And I was joking as well. But it seems just as valid is the TOA thing they came up with. Would be funny to see this top news side by side.
Totally support this. No-shows are the bane of organizer's existence, forever alienating some sponsors. We have to remember this is an industry, with real-life business commitments. If you're a pro, or play on a professional level, this is paramount.
Good idea, unprofessional behavior needs to be punished if "professional" e-sports is ever to be taken seriously. For that reason alone NANIWA deserves to be bull whipped and banned for life.
At any rate, as someone who's been following SC2 tournament casts fairly regularly I have to say that most casters have not been very clear about why people aren't showing up. Simply and consistently and more clearly pointing out unprofessional behavior in a cast would have gone a long way, too.
Having said that, I support the "foreigner jail" idea.
On July 27 2015 10:45 NonY wrote: (1) Bad name. I get enjoying an inside joke but that only works for something like this if the name, outside of the context of the joke, appears neutral. But "Foreigner Jail" is not neutral. If you are really committing to this then change the name now. I can already picture you guys talking about foreigner jail in a joking manner. Actually I have a hard time picturing a caster talking about it in completely serious tones, and even if they did then 'foreigner jail' will sound out of place every time it's said.
(2) A competitive person reads this system as "I can drop out of two events and then another one every three months, or even sooner than that if I'm not planning to play anymore of these organizers' tournaments for the following two months." Every warning system in any competitive environment is interpreted like that. It's like fouls in basketball. It's part of the game to use them to your advantage as long as you're not getting into foul trouble. I imagine that if players use as many dropouts as you're allowing them to, you'll still feel like there are too many dropouts. If that's the case, make it stricter. edit: Apparently two strikes can decay simultaneously so it's even less strict than I thought.
Of course players are going to game this system like there is no tomorrow. If you got a dq on top of a cash fine for not showing up or dropping a tournament then attitudes would change. Players would of course be angry at first but they'd get over it.
A cash fine to players making drastically less then minimum wage should learn them a lesson.
Frankly every time I see the entitlement of people on the internet I laugh a little.
On July 27 2015 10:45 NonY wrote: (1) Bad name. I get enjoying an inside joke but that only works for something like this if the name, outside of the context of the joke, appears neutral. But "Foreigner Jail" is not neutral. If you are really committing to this then change the name now. I can already picture you guys talking about foreigner jail in a joking manner. Actually I have a hard time picturing a caster talking about it in completely serious tones, and even if they did then 'foreigner jail' will sound out of place every time it's said.
(2) A competitive person reads this system as "I can drop out of two events and then another one every three months, or even sooner than that if I'm not planning to play anymore of these organizers' tournaments for the following two months." Every warning system in any competitive environment is interpreted like that. It's like fouls in basketball. It's part of the game to use them to your advantage as long as you're not getting into foul trouble. I imagine that if players use as many dropouts as you're allowing them to, you'll still feel like there are too many dropouts. If that's the case, make it stricter. edit: Apparently two strikes can decay simultaneously so it's even less strict than I thought.
Of course players are going to game this system like there is no tomorrow. If you got a dq on top of a cash fine for not showing up or dropping a tournament then attitudes would change. Players would of course be angry at first but they'd get over it.
A cash fine to players making drastically less then minimum wage should learn them a lesson.
Frankly every time I see the entitlement of people on the internet I laugh a little.
I can see no legal basis on tournaments admins fining players. it's never gonna happen. Worst they can do is banning them from their tournament
On July 27 2015 10:45 NonY wrote: (1) Bad name. I get enjoying an inside joke but that only works for something like this if the name, outside of the context of the joke, appears neutral. But "Foreigner Jail" is not neutral. If you are really committing to this then change the name now. I can already picture you guys talking about foreigner jail in a joking manner. Actually I have a hard time picturing a caster talking about it in completely serious tones, and even if they did then 'foreigner jail' will sound out of place every time it's said.
(2) A competitive person reads this system as "I can drop out of two events and then another one every three months, or even sooner than that if I'm not planning to play anymore of these organizers' tournaments for the following two months." Every warning system in any competitive environment is interpreted like that. It's like fouls in basketball. It's part of the game to use them to your advantage as long as you're not getting into foul trouble. I imagine that if players use as many dropouts as you're allowing them to, you'll still feel like there are too many dropouts. If that's the case, make it stricter. edit: Apparently two strikes can decay simultaneously so it's even less strict than I thought.
Of course players are going to game this system like there is no tomorrow. If you got a dq on top of a cash fine for not showing up or dropping a tournament then attitudes would change. Players would of course be angry at first but they'd get over it.
A cash fine to players making drastically less then minimum wage should learn them a lesson.
Frankly every time I see the entitlement of people on the internet I laugh a little.
I can see no legal basis on tournaments admins fining players. it's never gonna happen. Worst they can do is banning them from their tournament
They have the same basis as any other tournament or league - pay the fine or you can't play here again. Not saying it's a good idea, but...
On July 27 2015 10:45 NonY wrote: (1) Bad name. I get enjoying an inside joke but that only works for something like this if the name, outside of the context of the joke, appears neutral. But "Foreigner Jail" is not neutral. If you are really committing to this then change the name now. I can already picture you guys talking about foreigner jail in a joking manner. Actually I have a hard time picturing a caster talking about it in completely serious tones, and even if they did then 'foreigner jail' will sound out of place every time it's said.
(2) A competitive person reads this system as "I can drop out of two events and then another one every three months, or even sooner than that if I'm not planning to play anymore of these organizers' tournaments for the following two months." Every warning system in any competitive environment is interpreted like that. It's like fouls in basketball. It's part of the game to use them to your advantage as long as you're not getting into foul trouble. I imagine that if players use as many dropouts as you're allowing them to, you'll still feel like there are too many dropouts. If that's the case, make it stricter. edit: Apparently two strikes can decay simultaneously so it's even less strict than I thought.
Of course players are going to game this system like there is no tomorrow. If you got a dq on top of a cash fine for not showing up or dropping a tournament then attitudes would change. Players would of course be angry at first but they'd get over it.
A cash fine to players making drastically less then minimum wage should learn them a lesson.
Frankly every time I see the entitlement of people on the internet I laugh a little.
I can see no legal basis on tournaments admins fining players. it's never gonna happen. Worst they can do is banning them from their tournament
They have the same basis as any other tournament or league - pay the fine or you can't play here again. Not saying it's a good idea, but...
yeah that's what i'm saying, the player can say "fuck off" and not pay his fine
I really don't have an interest in fining players. Pretty sure the ones that are full time are making little enough as it is and most of the ones that aren't are often times broke college/high school students or not making a lot anyways.
On August 01 2015 03:45 feardragon wrote: I really don't have an interest in fining players. Pretty sure the ones that are full time are making little enough as it is and most of the ones that aren't are often times broke college/high school students or not making a lot anyways.
On what legal basis can you fine players ? on which jurisdiction ? A private institution fining an individual so he can use its service, I'm pretty sure it's called extortion
On August 01 2015 03:45 feardragon wrote: I really don't have an interest in fining players. Pretty sure the ones that are full time are making little enough as it is and most of the ones that aren't are often times broke college/high school students or not making a lot anyways.
On what legal basis can you fine players ? on which jurisdiction ? A private institution fining an individual so he can use its service, I'm pretty sure it's called extortion
I'm far from an expert on the matter, but I think just having the players acknowledge that by entering a tournament they have to respect the organizer's terms is enough. It's not "legal" in any ways (as in, there are no laws ruling that), but it doesn't need to be. Kinda like organizers of car races like the NASCAR or the FIA can fine teams & drivers whatever the country without needing a "real" law to be applied.
On August 01 2015 03:45 feardragon wrote: I really don't have an interest in fining players. Pretty sure the ones that are full time are making little enough as it is and most of the ones that aren't are often times broke college/high school students or not making a lot anyways.
On what legal basis can you fine players ? on which jurisdiction ? A private institution fining an individual so he can use its service, I'm pretty sure it's called extortion
I'm far from an expert on the matter, but I think just having the players acknowledge that by entering a tournament they have to respect the organizer's terms is enough. It's not "legal" in any ways (as in, there are no laws ruling that), but it doesn't need to be. Kinda like organizers of car races like the NASCAR or the FIA can fine teams & drivers whatever the country without needing a "real" law to be applied.
Well, no they can't. They are association based on a country law (french for FIA, USA for nascar), and they can't prosecute in the name of that country, only tell the authority of a contract violation. Any fine given without appearing before a court of law of a representative of the state is void and will be easily overturned should there be a judgement
On August 01 2015 03:45 feardragon wrote: I really don't have an interest in fining players. Pretty sure the ones that are full time are making little enough as it is and most of the ones that aren't are often times broke college/high school students or not making a lot anyways.
On what legal basis can you fine players ? on which jurisdiction ? A private institution fining an individual so he can use its service, I'm pretty sure it's called extortion
I'm far from an expert on the matter, but I think just having the players acknowledge that by entering a tournament they have to respect the organizer's terms is enough. It's not "legal" in any ways (as in, there are no laws ruling that), but it doesn't need to be. Kinda like organizers of car races like the NASCAR or the FIA can fine teams & drivers whatever the country without needing a "real" law to be applied.
Well, no they can't. They are association based on a country law (french for FIA, USA for nascar), and they can't prosecute in the name of that country, only tell the authority of a contract violation. Any fine given without appearing before a court of law of a representative of the state is void and will be easily overturned should there be a judgement
On August 01 2015 03:45 feardragon wrote: I really don't have an interest in fining players. Pretty sure the ones that are full time are making little enough as it is and most of the ones that aren't are often times broke college/high school students or not making a lot anyways.
On what legal basis can you fine players ? on which jurisdiction ? A private institution fining an individual so he can use its service, I'm pretty sure it's called extortion
I...said we weren't fining them....I'm very confused right now.
On August 01 2015 03:45 feardragon wrote: I really don't have an interest in fining players. Pretty sure the ones that are full time are making little enough as it is and most of the ones that aren't are often times broke college/high school students or not making a lot anyways.
On what legal basis can you fine players ? on which jurisdiction ? A private institution fining an individual so he can use its service, I'm pretty sure it's called extortion
I...said we weren't fining them....I'm very confused right now.
well, it doesnt really matters what you said, you can't either way ^^
A strike was given to State and Enderr today for no-showing for the NA Ladder Heroes Monthly Finals. State contacted me about an hour before the event and let me know he would be unable to attend(and I'm very grateful for that since I was able to find GAMETIME to replace him in the event). Enderr I was never able to reach and was dq'd about not being around in time for his match, 10 minutes after the event started.
you should make a liquipedia page for strikes, for easy reference. actually you should make a liquipedia page for this so people can find info about it easier
On August 02 2015 12:46 feardragon wrote: A strike was given to State and Enderr today for no-showing for the NA Ladder Heroes Monthly Finals. State contacted me about an hour before the event and let me know he would be unable to attend(and I'm very grateful for that since I was able to find GAMETIME to replace him in the event). Enderr I was never able to reach and was dq'd about not being around in time for his match, 10 minutes after the event started.
Wait so why was State given a strike? I feel like if you had ample time to find a replacement then what's the issue? If you couldn't find a replacement I understand but there was one and the event carried on.
On August 02 2015 13:00 lichter wrote: you should make a liquipedia page for strikes, for easy reference. actually you should make a liquipedia page for this so people can find info about it easier
I considered doing a Liquidpedia for this but the excel spreadsheet was easier to maintain for organizer's without being editable by anyone else who shouldn't be putting in random info. I'd be grateful if someone wanted to help maintain a synchronized liquidpedia list to the excel spreadsheet but I'm already having trouble remembering to update the liquidpedia for my own events when others aren't helping me with it.
On August 02 2015 12:46 feardragon wrote: A strike was given to State and Enderr today for no-showing for the NA Ladder Heroes Monthly Finals. State contacted me about an hour before the event and let me know he would be unable to attend(and I'm very grateful for that since I was able to find GAMETIME to replace him in the event). Enderr I was never able to reach and was dq'd about not being around in time for his match, 10 minutes after the event started.
Wait so why was State given a strike? I feel like if you had ample time to find a replacement then what's the issue? If you couldn't find a replacement I understand but there was one and the event carried on.
So consider this, a replacement was found but it wasn't the "next runner up" for the event. I specifically scheduled the event around all the qualified players' availability, including State. PandaBearMe should have been able to participate in the event before GAMETIME(qualifications for the event are based on points earned throughout the month and PandaBearMe had more than GAMETIME), but was not in a situation where he could play because he was only given an hour's notice. On top of that, this was a somewhat unideal time for the event because if the games were longer, it could have potentially run over the time where players would be qualifying for the next month's qualifying ladder lock for the same event, dampening their chances at qualifying next time because they were playing. This was an unfortunate reality given player availability, including State who is going to be at IEM and really wasn't available any time in the next 2 weeks besides today and yesterday.
So compromises were made to make the event happen at a time that was convenient for his schedule, but he wasn't able to make it. There's nothing personal involved in this. In fact, I really don't enjoy giving strikes. But we have the rules laid out for a reason. We have a minimum amount of time needed to give notice and it wasn't met. I don't think State is a terrible person or want him banned from the online events run by the organizer's in this, but I also don't want to be biased and start letting players I like get away with things whilst punishing players I dislike(don't even know who that would be). It's only his first strike and we stuck with a 3 strike system for a reason.
Missing an event here or there isn't a big deal. Life happens. Missing events consistently is a problem. I hope and want to believe this is the former problem for State. Hope that makes sense.
On August 02 2015 12:46 feardragon wrote: A strike was given to State and Enderr today for no-showing for the NA Ladder Heroes Monthly Finals. State contacted me about an hour before the event and let me know he would be unable to attend(and I'm very grateful for that since I was able to find GAMETIME to replace him in the event). Enderr I was never able to reach and was dq'd about not being around in time for his match, 10 minutes after the event started.
Wait so why was State given a strike? I feel like if you had ample time to find a replacement then what's the issue? If you couldn't find a replacement I understand but there was one and the event carried on.
Getting lucky in finding a replacement doesn't mean ample time was given.
Think of the converse: Should a player earn a strike if they give the appropriate (24h or whatever it is) notice and a replacement is not found? No. Enforcing rules is about consistency, not the result in one particular instance.
I just discussed the situation with him that caused him to miss the tournament, and it was an emergency situation he would like to remain private. The excuse falls under the "immediate emergency" section of the rules, leaving as a reasonable excuse to not earn a strike. He provided evidence of the situation happening so the strike will be removed in accordance to the rules.
On August 01 2015 03:45 feardragon wrote: I really don't have an interest in fining players. Pretty sure the ones that are full time are making little enough as it is and most of the ones that aren't are often times broke college/high school students or not making a lot anyways.
On what legal basis can you fine players ? on which jurisdiction ? A private institution fining an individual so he can use its service, I'm pretty sure it's called extortion
I'm far from an expert on the matter, but I think just having the players acknowledge that by entering a tournament they have to respect the organizer's terms is enough. It's not "legal" in any ways (as in, there are no laws ruling that), but it doesn't need to be. Kinda like organizers of car races like the NASCAR or the FIA can fine teams & drivers whatever the country without needing a "real" law to be applied.
Well, no they can't. They are association based on a country law (french for FIA, USA for nascar), and they can't prosecute in the name of that country, only tell the authority of a contract violation. Any fine given without appearing before a court of law of a representative of the state is void and will be easily overturned should there be a judgement
I don't think you understand what a fine is. No one is saying that any tournament would prosecute a player - the enforcement method, like in every other sports or gaming league ever, is that the player/team wouldn't be able to participate further if they didn't pay the fine within a reasonable time.
On August 01 2015 03:45 feardragon wrote: I really don't have an interest in fining players. Pretty sure the ones that are full time are making little enough as it is and most of the ones that aren't are often times broke college/high school students or not making a lot anyways.
On what legal basis can you fine players ? on which jurisdiction ? A private institution fining an individual so he can use its service, I'm pretty sure it's called extortion
I'm far from an expert on the matter, but I think just having the players acknowledge that by entering a tournament they have to respect the organizer's terms is enough. It's not "legal" in any ways (as in, there are no laws ruling that), but it doesn't need to be. Kinda like organizers of car races like the NASCAR or the FIA can fine teams & drivers whatever the country without needing a "real" law to be applied.
Well, no they can't. They are association based on a country law (french for FIA, USA for nascar), and they can't prosecute in the name of that country, only tell the authority of a contract violation. Any fine given without appearing before a court of law of a representative of the state is void and will be easily overturned should there be a judgement
I don't think you understand what a fine is. No one is saying that any tournament would prosecute a player - the enforcement method, like in every other sports or gaming league ever, is that the player/team wouldn't be able to participate further if they didn't pay the fine within a reasonable time.
I'm pretty sure I know what a fine is. And no, you can't fine anyone without legal basis, or it's extortion. No matter how small the fine is
Of course you can... I can run a party that imposes a $5 fine for any people who turn up late.... There's no 'legal' basis for that. The people have a choice whether they want to pay the $5, or not come to the party. That's their choice.
If I remove their choice, and say they have to pay $5, otherwise I'll hurt them or people they know. That's extortion.
Sometimes, people are so melodramatic over things... get a grip - this is a scheme to help clean up no-shows at online gaming tournaments in a relatively niche area.
Of course you can... I can run a party that imposes a $5 fine for any people who turn up late.... There's no 'legal' basis for that. The people have a choice whether they want to pay the $5, or not come to the party. That's their choice.
well, yes there is legal basis, and if you do this and someone press charge against you're gonna be in trouble. Not knowing about the law doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the whole thing is bad, I'm only saying that fining people at your will is not legal
Of course you can... I can run a party that imposes a $5 fine for any people who turn up late.... There's no 'legal' basis for that. The people have a choice whether they want to pay the $5, or not come to the party. That's their choice.
well, yes there is legal basis, and if you do this and someone press charge against you're gonna be in trouble. Not knowing about the law doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the whole thing is bad, I'm only saying that fining people at your will is not legal
So in that party example what's the difference between a fine and charging a higher entrance fee for people who arrive after a certain hour?
Of course you can... I can run a party that imposes a $5 fine for any people who turn up late.... There's no 'legal' basis for that. The people have a choice whether they want to pay the $5, or not come to the party. That's their choice.
well, yes there is legal basis, and if you do this and someone press charge against you're gonna be in trouble. Not knowing about the law doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the whole thing is bad, I'm only saying that fining people at your will is not legal
You're the one that doesn't know what you're talking about, just like the post above me mentions this is not extortion. If I have a party and ask everyone that comes to pay me 5 dollar for sharing the cost of the food and the drinks. If one person shows up, eats and drinks but doesn't pay.
The next time I have a party I tell him that if he wants to come this time he has to pay 10 dollars since he didn't pay the first time. I impose a fine on him for not paying my initial fee for coming to the party.
This is the same thing as what we are discussing, and no the fact that he "owes" me the 5 dollars from before doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how much you owe someone demanding their money is still extortion as I am sure you know. All this means is that saying pay/do X or I won't let you Y is not extortion and its not even fining. Its just phrased wrongly, which someone that has any understanding of the law should understand.
I've been in court many times, normally as a defense witness. I'm not legally trained, nor bar certified, but I have been involved in multiple cases, and dealt closely with barristers.
Can you show me exactly where it's illegal under law to fine someone in a private situation?
As you made that claim, so the burden of proof is on you to actually provide something that supports what you're saying.
Maybe there's crossed wires, but you almost seemed to imply that any sort of fine is illegal. If that's the case, how do you think libraries fine for late returns, or car rental agencies fine for damage?
There are a lot of issues to consider here. I understand that it is hard to support yourself as a professional player in Starcraft 2 and it makes sense to try and take part in as many tournaments as possible.
The organisers in the alliance can be said to run good events and be trustworthy, however many players are still going to want to sign up to tournaments run by people not in the alliance.
There are many reasons for a game to be missed and a tournament to be off schedule. Such as a player does not show up which can negatively impact the show. or there are technical difficulties, or the organisers are inexperienced and run into problems that they were not prepared for. Travel arrangements for live events or even just to get home being disrupted and causing players to miss on-line events, to name a few.
Lets say a player signs up for two online tournaments. The game for tournament 1 is to be played at 5pm, the game for tournament 2 is to be played at 8pm and the player is also trying to consistently run their personal stream starting at 10pm each day.
Tournament 1 is then delayed for any combination of reasons beyond the players control and the game is moved to 8pm. The player then decides to pull out of tournament 1 and play the game for tournament 2. Then after making this choice tournament 2 is delayed, again for any combination of reasons and the game is moved to 10pm. Which disrupts and has a negative effect on the player trying to build their own personal stream. All of this also eats into any time to dedicate practice towards a larger event where thousands of dollars could be won instead of hundreds or tens. A player might win nothing at all due to not having the time to practice. On top of all of this they might now get a strike, if a compromise cannot be reached,for pulling out of a tournament with little notice.
It is all connected and delays or things not running to schedule can have this knock on effect which causes others to have to pull out. Everything mentioned about opportunity costs for tournament organisers is also true for players and circumstances or actions that are beyond a players or an organisers control can cause them to have to miss games just as much as a simple mistake.
A solution could be to only sign up for one tournament at a time or for organisers to communicate with one another and not allow players to sign up if they were already playing in another tournament running at similar times. But then is starcraft 2 big enough for a player to establish themselves without playing in as many tournaments as possible? Likewise do organisers really want to push players into playing in less tournaments and potentially get less 'big' names to take part? Although perhaps them not signing up at all is better than signing up and then pulling out with little notice.
Also with this strike system I suspect the well established players will not care as much. They may not sign up for as many tournaments and focus on their own streams, which has the potential to be more beneficial to them, particularly if they get comparable views for themselves as the part of the tournament that will show them playing. Or they will focus more on practicing for the larger events, which if they do well in, will bring them greater recognition and attention from sponsors. The less well established players and organisers that are not part of this are going to suffer more.
If many players are missing games for no particular reason better than they forgot, It seems like a worthwhile first step to try and take. It is good that this is committed to a certain level of transparency and they mentioned developing a list for the purpose of punishing organisers for making mistakes and being unprofessional just as this one is designed to punish players for making mistakes and being unprofessional. However are the organisers going to assign strikes to themselves? Or are players going to have to form a group to do that. Which then means even with the best motives for improving Starcraft 2 tournaments and whether intended or not an 'organisers versus players' debate is only going to increase.
Can we stop discussing the codified legality of privately imposed fines?
Its derailing the thread.
Sorry ZeromuS, I just wanted to clarify that it isn't illegal to fine someone. When someone accuses the thread starter of conducting something that is against the law, I thought it worthwhile to just highlight that in fact TeamLiquid, nor the OPs, are engaging in criminal behaviour with this project.
I think the main problem, comes from the fact that the vast majority of people signing up to these tournaments aren't considering SC2 a career, and so naturally won't be expected to approach it fully professionally at all times. It strikes me that some entrants simply enter for something to do, a way to kill time if you will, and possible earn a little bonus to boot.
If this, as I suspect, is the case - then trying to turn it something 'super professional' isn't really an achievable goal. Fact is, many of these tournament entrants are minors, the vast majority aren't doing this as a serious full time career, and frankly, most of tournaments listed wouldn't even come close to supporting a person financially. So expecting people to be professional in that regard isn't realistic.
If you offer $100k for winning, then sure, make people turn up to the minute/second.
And this is also missing another serious element, if someone does no show three times, and gets a strike - how are you going to stop them playing on alternate smurf accounts? With a lack of accountability in online world (anonymous, multiple accounts) - then really, how are the bans to be enforced?
Oh no, I can't play in a tournament for 9 months, well, $15 buys a new account that bypasses that problem.
On August 04 2015 01:51 Startyr wrote: Lots of stuff
I agree with the example you gave. That's why we included this for now:
In the event that a player is playing in multiple events, and is forced to drop out of one, tournament organizers will try to reach a compromise in match playing before issuing a strike.
We very specifically aren't bringing in new members into this "alliance" so that it is a group of people that do tend to pay out in a reasonable amount of time, aren't "out to get players", willing to schedule with others for players in multiple events, etc. In the future, we may make a more concrete ruleset for this, but creating concrete rules for this kind of situation can get messy so we want to see how things play out first so the rules we make are based on reality, not theory.
P.S. Nobody is being fined! Why are people talking about the legality of fines? I don't care if it's legal or illegal because nobody is being fined! I appreciate those trying to give me warning about something I'm doing that could be illegal, as well as those trying to defend my right to do it, but it's not relevant. =[
I still don't see how, if a player wants to bypass a ban, you can stop them from - or detect them if - they want to make another secondary account to play on.
Bans in sport typically are done by registered authorities, that require a reasonable amount of proof of identification before enrolment.
Has this been discussed by the alliance members, as frankly, unless I'm missing something, any ban you issue is literally pointless, as it's so easy to circumvent?
It looks like the lower level tournament hosts are participating in this "JAIL." I think this was a poor direction to go in. I get that small tournaments want bigger names playing to build interest, but punishing higher tier players doesn't seem to be the answer.
Why are higher level players cancelling? Just because they don't want to play? Probably not "Just because," but for some reason outside of the tournament that is more important than the small prize offered. Maybe they were participating just to help the tournament organizer out? I don't know.
Your small tournament isn't WCS, or any other premiere tournament. Get creative in rewarding higher tier players to join. This doesn't always have to be monetary.
Just off the top of my head: You could do a Player Spotlight Tourney where you follow DeMuslim through the tournament. He get's positive exposure in the scene. More of a role than just grinding a small tourney for chump change. If they don't want you to stream their games then... why ban them from tourney since they weren't going to draw viewers anyways.
TL;DR get creative with hosting smaller tournaments instead of punishing players for small tourney no-shows. This seems like a lot of unnecessary work to put people in "Jail" for small tourneys.
On August 04 2015 02:22 hZCube wrote: I still don't see how, if a player wants to bypass a ban, you can stop them from - or detect them if - they want to make another secondary account to play on.
Bans in sport typically are done by registered authorities, that require a reasonable amount of proof of identification before enrolment.
Has this been discussed by the alliance members, as frankly, unless I'm missing something, any ban you issue is literally pointless, as it's so easy to circumvent?
There is more to tournaments than simply winning money. If they want to make an alt account to play in open qualifiers, so be it. Better hope they don't get caught.
Playing in tournaments and events is not only a source of income, but: a boost to their team's exposure making them more valuable, giving themselves exposure so bigger teams may be interested, something to add to their SC2 "resume". If the event is invite-only or a qualifier to a LAN, they've got no chance playing in those.
A player isn't very valuable to their team if he's been blacklisted from most events for several months. A player doesn't want to miss out on LAN qualifiers and invite-only events. This systems creates a lot of reasons for the player to try to avoid being banned from events.
I can understand people disagreeing with the possible effectiveness of it, but the fact that you call it "literally pointless" leads me to believe you haven't put enough thought into it.
But I think you underestimate how easy it would be to rebrand as a player, most of these people are relatively unknown - and could easily enter under a wholly new name with little to no consequences.
And, this is my point - they aren't blacklisting 'people' - they are blacklisting b.net ID's.
Don't get me wrong, I can see the point - it's obviously a good idea to try to eliminate these kind of problems, I'm just saying - that for me, this solution won't really be that effective.
It's the same as people whining to Blizzard to ban map hackers - they'll just re-appear under new handles within hours/days. Getting accounts in sc2 is easy. That's the problem :/
In Korea, some games requires a Korean SSID (Social Security number), that ties that account to an individual. This is much harder to exploit, but isn't available in the western market.
I didn't want to be a total kill-joy, was just providing the other side of the coin in that a potential 'absenter' who ruins tournaments, can easily bypass this system as it stands.
I'd actually find it hard to believe that a player, who gives such little regard for the tournaments (as displayed by them ruining at least three?) - would sit back and say 'oh noes, i got banned, that's it then'. I suspect, people of that persuasion, will just re-roll an alt and carry on. I might be proven wrong.
On August 04 2015 06:02 hZCube wrote: True, 'literally' is maybe an exaggeration.
But I think you underestimate how easy it would be to rebrand as a player, most of these people are relatively unknown - and could easily enter under a wholly new name with little to no consequences.
And, this is my point - they aren't blacklisting 'people' - they are blacklisting b.net ID's.
Don't get me wrong, I can see the point - it's obviously a good idea to try to eliminate these kind of problems, I'm just saying - that for me, this solution won't really be that effective.
It's the same as people whining to Blizzard to ban map hackers - they'll just re-appear under new handles within hours/days. Getting accounts in sc2 is easy. That's the problem :/
In Korea, some games requires a Korean SSID (Social Security number), that ties that account to an individual. This is much harder to exploit, but isn't available in the western market.
I didn't want to be a total kill-joy, was just providing the other side of the coin in that a potential 'absenter' who ruins tournaments, can easily bypass this system as it stands.
I'd actually find it hard to believe that a player, who gives such little regard for the tournaments (as displayed by them ruining at least three?) - would sit back and say 'oh noes, i got banned, that's it then'. I suspect, people of that persuasion, will just re-roll an alt and carry on. I might be proven wrong.
If they're unknown players, we're usually talking about players who are in an open-bracket situation, who are only minimally affected by this. The events where "no-showing"
The system can probably be avoided by a player who is very unknown, but most of the events run by the organizers that have problems with no-shows involve some sort of qualification process against at least somewhat known players. Even the Lycan League and Olimoleague monthly finals require placing highly against very good players multiple times to qualify. So while it's possible a total unknown player could get banned but still be good enough to qualify for one of these slightly bigger events, I would argue that they will become more well known just by being able to play.
So I see your point, but I don't think it's a big concern. Well known players that are caught actively trying to avoid the ban will risk being banned from all events entirely. I compared the situation to map-hacking because similar to map hacking, if you get caught, regardless of whether blizzard bans your account or not, very few tournaments will ever knowingly allow you in ever again. You may be able to weasel your way around it for a little bit, but this stuff eventually does catch up with you if you become relevant. If you never become relevant, cool. You're probably barely playing in events where this system will even matter.
Myungsik received a strike from this weekends Fight Night event. He was 40 minutes late in showing up, which was too late before we could find a replacement to play vs aLive. Details are in the doc in the OP.
Once LOTV releases, will the strike counts renew? I have to honestly say that I can't see this even working within other main stream events that are offering a lot of money. If an event wants PartinG for viewership purposes, they will do whatever they can do in order to get PartinG(as an example)...also people have family emergencies, are these taken into consideration?
On August 04 2015 04:51 loft wrote: It looks like the lower level tournament hosts are participating in this "JAIL." I think this was a poor direction to go in. I get that small tournaments want bigger names playing to build interest, but punishing higher tier players doesn't seem to be the answer.
Why are higher level players cancelling? Just because they don't want to play? Probably not "Just because," but for some reason outside of the tournament that is more important than the small prize offered. Maybe they were participating just to help the tournament organizer out? I don't know.
Your small tournament isn't WCS, or any other premiere tournament. Get creative in rewarding higher tier players to join. This doesn't always have to be monetary.
Just off the top of my head: You could do a Player Spotlight Tourney where you follow DeMuslim through the tournament. He get's positive exposure in the scene. More of a role than just grinding a small tourney for chump change. If they don't want you to stream their games then... why ban them from tourney since they weren't going to draw viewers anyways.
TL;DR get creative with hosting smaller tournaments instead of punishing players for small tourney no-shows. This seems like a lot of unnecessary work to put people in "Jail" for small tourneys.
"punishing higher tier players"
Everyone is treated equally afaik. It doesn't matter what your excuse is really, though it's said in the first page of the thread if it was an emergency it's not an issue. But you should always be on time for anything in life. That's part of being an adult. I disagree with your idea that just because these aren't majors it's okay for players to show up whenever they want. These smaller tournaments are good for the scene and it hurts them greatly when they get no shows.
As it stands, it looks like only a handful of players got a strike so no big deal. Working as intended.
On May 31 2016 09:33 Shellshock wrote: is Scarlett in foreigner jail for leaving the Map test tournament? or just BasetradeTV jail?
I haven't seen any official statement from BTTV or anything regarding Scarlett, but from what I have seen she has been absent from a lot of online tournaments that she has committed to (map test, ladder heroes tourney). Pretty disappointing.
On May 31 2016 09:33 Shellshock wrote: is Scarlett in foreigner jail for leaving the Map test tournament? or just BasetradeTV jail?
I haven't seen any official statement from BTTV or anything regarding Scarlett, but from what I have seen she has been absent from a lot of online tournaments that she has committed to (map test, ladder heroes tourney). Pretty disappointing.
She got banned from Ting Open 2. I think it was a basetradetv only thing.