80-normal

We got a 3-way tie in group 1 between Leoric, Perdunok and Diego.
I can think of two options to solve this:

1) Since Perdunok had 1 tied round against Sheepworm, Leoric and Diego performed better and they would advance. The problem with this option is that drawn rounds are traditionally ignored and this mindset may have affected the result. If this option is the one to be applied, all 3 of the tied players (especially Perdunk) should be ok with it. I'd rather not choose this option because it would require to re-evaluate all the other ties of the group stage and check that considering drawn rounds doesn't change the result for anybody else

2) All 3 players (Leoric, Perdunok and Diego) play a bo1, or a new bo3 game, against the other two tied players.  A new set of bo3 games may result in another 3-way tie, so I'd rather choose a bo1. Since in the previous games no caves were played, I'd suggest playing cave if a single round, and playing cave-cave-open or cave-cave-cave if bo3; but it's up to the two players involved in a game to decide what they will do. I'd prefer if you guys played just one cave round against each other to break the tie, but if all 3 of you agree to something different then that should be fine as long as it is reasonable.

Edit: during this tie-break, tied rounds will be considered. Points for each game will be awarded according to the formula:
(won ronds + 0.5*tied rounds) / total rounds. If the single-round option is chosen and it results in a tie, an extra round will be played until someone wins one round.

I'd like to play bo3 games, they aren't that long in this scheme and it gives better chances that the best player wins the match.

Also would like to play on caves (or cco), this is just to have more variety as we haven't played (almost) any caves in the group, but if Perdunok and/or Leoric want to keep the standard ooc it's fine too.

Group 1 tie breakers, 2-1 vs Leoric with one draw, 2-0 vs Perdunok

I defeated Leoric with a score of 2: 1 in a tie-break.

To sum up all the things that I saw about this cup here and on discord, it's a cup in which...
a) you must listen to some no-name broadcaster, who isn't even its admin on the cup page, or you are kicked out
b) if you win, without noticing subtle changes (like Albus), because the no-name is not competent enough to host the cup properly, your victory against his friend is erased, and if you happen not to win another time, be sure to hear "Mega`Adnan f*cked you up"
c) If it happens that you lose a match, you are completely not used to the scheme, you give up to play next ones, and you inform about it in a civil way on Discord (like Rafka), insisting to keep your loss against your opponent, be sure to hear:
"You suck at 80hp"
"Adnan owned you"
"You f@#!ing bitch, you moan every time you lose"
"You are a little f@#!ing whiny bitch"
"I will happily remove you from the cup"
"You are banned"
"f@#!ing cancer to this community"
"@Mega`Adnan Good job absolutely destroying this piece of shit
"You are a f@#!ing disgrace"
"absolute f@#!ing monster"
d) the no-name sticks to the rules so much that his inability to count worms costs 1 participant a victory, but yet somehow if your valid match takes place, and you have manners to inform about not playing more of them, the no-name will erase your match against your will, and replace you as a participant with his own clan-mate.
e) You can't explain anything, just don't try to, or else you end up hearing loads of things on what a trash you are in real life.

Sounds like a nice ghetto cup.

To sum up all the things that I saw about this cup here and on discord, it's a cup in which...
a) you must listen to some no-name broadcaster, who isn't even its admin on the cup page, or you are kicked out
b) if you win, without noticing subtle changes (like Albus), because the no-name is not competent enough to host the cup properly, your victory against his friend is erased, and if you happen not to win another time, be sure to hear "Mega`Adnan f*cked you up"
c) If it happens that you lose a match, you are completely not used to the scheme, you give up to play next ones, and you inform about it in a civil way on Discord (like Rafka), insisting to keep your loss against your opponent, be sure to hear:
"You suck at 80hp"
"Adnan owned you"
"You f@#!ing bitch, you moan every time you lose"
"You are a little f@#!ing whiny bitch"
"I will happily remove you from the cup"
"You are banned"
"f@#!ing cancer to this community"
"@Mega`Adnan Good job absolutely destroying this piece of shit
"You are a f@#!ing disgrace"
"absolute f@#!ing monster"
d) the no-name sticks to the rules so much that his inability to count worms costs 1 participant a victory, but yet somehow if your valid match takes place, and you have manners to inform about not playing more of them, the no-name will erase your match against your will, and replace you as a participant with his own clan-mate.
e) You can't explain anything, just don't try to, or else you end up hearing loads of things on what a trash you are in real life.

Sounds like a nice ghetto cup.

I lol'ed at all of this, I love burner accounts created to lend more credibility to a narrative. Although komo could be more democratic and charitable in his responses, rafka is an emotional midget.  If he loses, he falls to pieces, his fragile ego can't take any punishment whatsoever.  This is a hard truth he must come to grips with, or alternatively, ignore and continue.  It will certainly cause more problems for him in the future.  You can single out komo all you want, but he certainly isn't pressing his own bias, dario created this cup and wanted people to play with a certain set of rules, which everyone knew when they signed up.

The albus situation is unfortunate, but living to the letter of the law is the course of action over the course of any competition.  The whole situation was unfair to both parties, both adnan and albus, and any decision would have left someone feeling raw about the outcome.  My gut tells me that the original games with adnan and albus should have remained despite the scheme and worm situation, but again, it is not my decision, and I can understand why the games were replayed. 

The element missing here is levity, and understanding the aim of these cups and league games in general is fun and competition.  People should understand that these things sometimes happen and should set aside their personal feelings for the sake of the cup.  Ultimately, there must be moderation and people are not always going to agree with the decisions handed down, but making yourself into a victim and ragequitting is certainly not the answer to any proposition.

Learn to coexist and maintain a level of humility, people.  It will serve you not only here, but in life in general.

dario created this cup and wanted people to play with a certain set of rules, which everyone knew when they signed up.

In fact, Walrus, I think in terms of what happened to me there was no pre-set rule. It was something very peculiar. An entire game played with 1 worm less, due to the mistake of a third person, and no one has noticed it (Komito, me, Adnan, VoK - who was in the match - and not even Dario who watched the stream).

The whole situation was unfair to both parties, both adnan and albus

In fact, Adnan said he didn't mind the fact that he played with 7 worms. Neither I nor he bothered. We don't think it made the result unfair.

---

If I could go back in time, I don't think I would have accepted playing that game again, or I wouldn't have played in the same day, so fast. It turns out that everything was very fast. At the moment I just thought about obeying Komito's decision, without questioning.

But this events will serve me as experience and learning. I regret bringing up this discussion after the event. I should have talked before, in private, with Dario and Komito. If I don't agree with the decision, I think it's very wrong, I will leave the competition. Or I will ask for more time to think and mature ideas. It's better than continuing to play the tournament and feeling a taste of injustice. Because, if the person continue like this, sometimes, any later and small details, can be a reason for discussions and misunderstandings (because of something that was not very well resolved in the past).

Dario and Komito's decision (in regards to my game), although I don't agree, I don't think it was absurdly wrong. It is fully justifiable and there are people who agree with that. But I only thought about the decision (whether it was correct or not) after the game (in this case, the defeat). I insist, if me, Dario and Komito had talked better before, I think this wouldn't have happened, as I think we could have reached an agreement (or at worst, I would have left the competition - but I don't think I would). I think it would have been nice if Dario and Komito had consulted me before making the decision. But I also think I should have expressed myself before obeying the decision.