As a participant in the tournament, I would like to make the following request: before any final decision by the moderators, be given an opportunity for the parties affected by the decision to express themselves.
Today I have a better understanding of why I was so frustrated with what happened and I say with certainty: what frustrated me most was not the decision per se to cancel my game but the way it was externalized. Everything was decided unilaterally and very quickly. I believe that if a dialogue had been opened, with you explaining your reasons and listening to my opinion (even if you wouldn't accept), this whole situation would have been better.
Each person will have their opinion about the decision (whether it was fair or not). Despite considering it disproportionate and not agreeing, it is the duty of the participant of any tournament to respect the moderator's decision, as long as it is not a complete absurdity, which is not the case in the present case, as your decision has a minimum reasoning. And that's why I apologized. I apologized if it gave the impression that I didn't respect the moderators' decision.
But now, after some time, I understand that what came into conflict were some basic principles that I hold of justice.
I'm going to copy here some excerpts from article 5 of the Federal Constitution of my country, which was written on the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international treaties:
TITLE II - Fundamental Rights and Guarantees
CHAPTER I - Individual and Collective Rights and Duties
Article 5. All persons are equal before the law, without any distinction whatsoever, Brazilians and foreigners residing in the country being ensured of inviolability of the right to life, to liberty, to equality, to security and to property, on the following terms: LV – litigants, in judicial or administrative processes, as well as defendants in general are ensured of the adversary system and of full defense, with the means and resources inherent to it;
This principle, for example, prohibits the judge in the process, as a general rule, from making a decision without hearing the parts of the process (inaudita altera parte).
However, it is jurisprudentially accepted the understanding that this right is not only valid between the State and the citizen (vertical effectiveness), in private relations the subjects must equally respect these principles (horizontal effect of fundamental rights). The Supreme Court of my country, for example, has already decided that an association cannot expel an associate without guaranteeing the right to full defense, even though it is a case of a relationship between individuals ruled by its own statute.
We should not make decisions without listening to the other parties. As I said, what bothered me most was not the decision or the defeat per se, but the whole appearance of authoritarianism overlaid on the situation. I'm not saying I was forbidden to express myself, but a few seconds after Komito became aware of the problem, he determined for us to play again. So I got the feeling that my opinion would be irrelevant.
Komito says he is very experienced with tournament moderation. However, I suggest that, even if you have already made your decision beforehand, keep it to yourself and listen to what the participants have to say, as this makes the player feel important, and not just a mere object of the tournament or entertainment for streams. Every player (noob or pro) is important, and listening to what he has to say makes him feel valued and part of the community. Therefore, I would like to know if, henceforth, before any final decision, Dario and Komito ensure that the players involved can express their opinion.
Cups
