80-normal

Alright, so Albus, you back in the Cup?.
Then, given what happened, some guidelines should be laid:
The scheme must be the one assigned to this Cup, only changing the number of victories required. Any modifications (besides the number of worms) to it will be considered intentional (good point brought up by Albus). You don't just accidentally go into the options and change something, and if the host did that's a big f@#! up and the host will have to accept whatever the moderators decide to do about it. As guidance, if the nonhosting player wants to replay, then that choice should be respected (of course that under some circumstances a different decision may be made by the mods). Other situations will be analyzed individually, and the most likely outcome is that the host will be held accountable and may be penalized in some way. If the error is in the number of worms used, since this is a plausible human error but very easy to check, the round(s) will not be accepted as a valid Cup game.

So yeah we both agree on that, I mentioned to Dario:

I think regardless of whoever hosts, if it's worm count, should be void, though specific changes inside the scheme, that isn't an accident as you said.

Worm Count is the only thing a player must change manually after you load the scheme, it comes with 3 worms standard when a player teams in. Because of this manual change, human error is more plausible.

However in other situations where the parts of the scheme which are not to be modified, have been modified, then we will apply your suggestion and give a tech win based on who hosted and modified the scheme.

If it was a 3rd party who made this modification to the scheme settings which should not be modified, they will be banned from hosting as a trusted 3rd party again.

Quote from: Dario on August 11, 2021, 01:19 PM
Alright, so Albus, you back in the Cup?.

Yes.

Once it was recognized that the decision you took, at the cost of frustrating me, and at the risk of having influenced my performance for the second match played at the same day (I think it did, but no one has the obligation to believe), was the most correct and most beneficial for the Cup, I'm ok with it. I will respect your decision.

Quote from: Dario on August 11, 2021, 01:19 PM
If the error is in the number of worms used, since this is a plausible human error but very easy to check, the round(s) will be replayed.

I agree that it is a plausible human error. But I don't agree that it's easy to spot. In the lobby, the visual aspect between 7 and 8 worms is very similar. And because it's something that rarely goes wrong, it's not common for people to look at it. During the game, however, a very attentive player will notice the difference. However, players who play more relaxed, for example, switching between windows, listening to music, drinking etc., can go unnoticed. In fact, during 1 hour of play, me, Mega'Adnan, Komito (host and streamer who was analysing the game), Vok (who was in the match), other twitch spectators (including Dario) didn't notice.

That said, let's move on!

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.

Wow Albus...

Read this carefully:

If you aren't happy with how moderators moderate their own events, don't enter, make your own and you can do whatever you want.

Quote from: Komito on August 12, 2021, 04:22 PM
Wow Albus...

Read this carefully:

If you aren't happy with how moderators moderate their own events, don't enter, make your own and you can do whatever you want.

Looks like you didn't carefully read what I said. I'm just making a request for future situations. I respected your decision.

I read what you said, if you aren't happy, leave.

I'm not going to reply again to this because the decision is final, from both Dario and I(regarding the correct scheme being used).

Quote from: Komito on August 12, 2021, 04:25 PM
I read what you said, if you aren't happy, leave.

I'm not going to reply again to this because the decision is final, from both Dario and I.

I didn't say I'm unhappy. I just want to know if in future decisions you can hear the players before.

In fact, i'll make one more reply to make this clear.

The only thing we are not willing to budge on, is using the correct scheme, we've actually taken into consideration every other point you made:

The special weapon rule was adjusted because of your valid point.

We took your advice about giving tech wins if the host is a player and edits any other scheme settings other than worms.

We even said if you and Adnan desire, you could play your game yet again.

We are going to deal with cases on an individual basis for other scenarios.

With the incorrect scheme though, consequences are set in stone, that is absolutely non-negotiable. That is the only thing we've stood our ground on and the only thing we refuse to change.

Komito, I will be happy to play the next games. I respected your previous decision. The only thing I ask is the commitment, in the future, before any decision by you or Dario, be given the opportunity for affected players to express themselves in advance. This request I make is based on my concept of justice I have acquired in my life, especially in my professional life.

Regarding the right scheme being used, no.

The impression you give is that my opinion is irrelevant in your decision making. However, I don't understand the following: if it is so unnecessary to debate the matter or hear my opinion before your decision is made, why did you do it after the decision? If it doesn't make sense before, it should make less sense later. It would be like a judge who makes a judgment without hearing the parties, but after the sentence and after the parties do what has been determined, he says: ok, now I can listen to what you have to say and I will explain why I made that decision.

There is no absolute rule, there can always be nuances in the specific case, so listening to what the player has to say is important, especially when it is a decision that will affect them. Furthermore, it was because I brought these reflections that made you stipulate rules for something that had not been foreseen before.

Does Dario also think the same? Does he also think that, in any situation involving wrong scheme setting, the player doesn't need to be heard before making a decision?

Yes Albus, players will always have a voice when there is something to debate. For example the aqua sheep incident, where hal voiced his opinion, you voiced yours and a decision was taken by the mods.

Some other times there is just nothing to debate because the game played doesn't meet the rules of this cup. For example, the game against fake SIBASA was deleted, there was nothing to debate there, the match was between Mablak and SIBASA, not between Mablak and whoever was impersonating SIBASA.

Quote from: Dario on August 12, 2021, 09:18 PM
Yes Albus, players will always have a voice when there is something to debate. For example the aqua sheep incident, where hal voiced his opinion, you voiced yours and a decision was taken by the mods.

Some other times there is just nothing to debate because the game played doesn't meet the rules of this cup. For example, the game against fake SIBASA was deleted, there was nothing to debate there, the match was between Mablak and SIBASA, not between Mablak and whoever was impersonating SIBASA.

"When there is something to debate," I agree. But Dario, let's agree that the issue that involved me was not something so obvious to decide as in your example of SIBASA (one person pretended to be another). I and other people who think like me are so absurdly contradicting the truth? This fact that involved me was something that deserved at least to hear the opinions of those involved. I don't expect you to agree with me. But I just wish I had been heard. This involved more than the match itself. I didn't like the way I was treated. I was very happy with the victory, and suddenly Komito comes up and says something like that: Oh, sorry. My mistake, you guys can play it again.

Albus, you keep saying the same things over and over, with the same response over and over.

It's like The Simpsons:

"ARE WE THERE YET? CAN YOU CHANGE IT?"

"No."

"ARE WE THERE YET? CAN YOU CHANGE IT?"

"No."

"ARE WE THERE YET? CAN YOU CHANGE IT?"

"No."

---

I am not prepared to spend my entire life talking about philosophy, cultural differences, hypothetical scenarios and theories, opinions and disagreements because you cannot accept a simple mistake with a consequence we were all responsible for.

I've apologized and accepted my part of the blame for the actual mistake and spent far too long debating over the logistics and reasoning for a mandatory, singular event specific rule that is non-negotiable. We listened to every other concern and points you made and agreed to be flexible there.

So, from now on, regarding anything to do with the mistake which was made with the number of worms and having to rematch it and why, i'll let Dario handle all your questions. I will not reply further, so don't be surprised if you ask me about it again and I ignore you.

Maybe because Dario didn't make the mistake, you might listen to him and appreciate his words more.

Otherwise, please contact MonkeyIsland and ask him to step in, as we are within our rights to make whatever rules we want for a Cup on TUS.