Tourneys/Cups - reported game canceled due to scheme problem noticed later?

[zuck]

Yeah but then there's a risk of getting zucked. Too dangerous.

[Albus]

btw, almost nobody checks the exact scheme options to the dot ever, how could Albus possibly spot that something was wrong?

There is only one situation where I agree that the game must be void even after being reported, and it would be this: my opponent hosts the game using a scheme with wrong settings (eg, wrong SD time, wrong retreat time etc.). In this situation, if I lose the game and notice this after the game, I could ask for the game to be canceled. However, if I win the match, I might not want to cancel the game, otherwise I would be giving the one who caused the mistake (intentionally or unintentionally) an opportunity to have a second chance to beat me. But, taking into account the rule that Komito wants to apply, this player, who caused the error, would have a second chance to beat me because of an error I did not caused.

[Albus]

Komito, there is the following rule in the cup we are talking about:

"Each round you can choose only one type of special/team weapon to use (...) If in one round you use more than one type of special weapon, you lose the round."

I won my second match in group stage against the player Hal. However, in one of the matches I used a second special weapon (aqua sheep), the special weapon didn't touch anything (I threw it off the map). If we are going to follow the rule radically, my defeat should have been automatic. Maybe you didn't see this happening because you didn't was in the host and didn't saw the replay yet. What would your decision be about that?

[Kaleu]

Prove to us that this wasn't just an aesthetic decision Komito. Obviously no one benefited from this little mistake.

Did you read everything I posted about this? I spent a while explaining everything.

Also, what does aesthetics have to do with it?

Sorry, I never read most of your posts, usually I just read the first paragraph and it's enough to deduce the end
of it because it is rich of prolixity

About "aesthetic" just nvm... This made much more sense in Portuguese
I mean, you done that just because you are cup moderator and your giant ego just can't let it go, this can't stain your mod integrity, there's no other reason to selfishly choose to replay the matches as it caused no harm, no advantages to the players.

I read what Dario said and I know it sux to create a new scheme and people change it minimally wheter they dislike or don't agree with something. I am a scheme creator myself and recently my scheme featured in a cup and I would be really mad if people changed anything even upon agreement during the cup games. Cups are great opportunities to advertise a new concept to others and it's not cool to have dozens of variations, it is intended to be discussed after the cup and use the games as analytics, but what happened here clarly is not the case.

It would be much better if you asked the players what they think or if the loser felt harmed
or not instead of just arbitrary tell them to redo the matches. This, in fact, caused much more harm than good.

[TheKomodo]

There is only one situation where I agree that the game must be void even after being reported, and it would be this: my opponent hosts the game using a scheme with wrong settings (eg, wrong SD time, wrong retreat time etc.). In this situation, if I lose the game and notice this after the game, I could ask for the game to be canceled. However, if I win the match, I might not want to cancel the game, otherwise I would be giving the one who caused the mistake (intentionally or unintentionally) an opportunity to have a second chance to beat me. But, taking into account the rule that Komito wants to apply, this player, who caused the error, would have a second chance to beat me because of an error I did not caused.

I've already answered and countered that point, there is no need to go in circles and repeat myself.

Komito, there is the following rule in the cup we are talking about:

Each round you can choose only one type of special/team weapon to use (...) If in one round you use more than one type of special weapon, you lose the round. For example, you can use 2 cows on round 1 and 2 pigeons on round two, but you cannot use cows and pigeons on round 1

I won my second match against the player Hal. However, in one of the matches I used a second special weapon (aqua sheep), the special weapon didn't touch anything (I threw it off the map). If we are going to follow the rule radically, my defeat should have been automatic. Maybe you didn't see this happening because you didn't was in the host and didn't saw the replay yet. What would your decision be about that?

If this is true then yes, you would automatically lose that round.

The rule says:

"If you use more than one type of special weapon, you lose the round"

It does not say:

"If you use more than one type of special weapon, you lose the round, unless using the special weapon does not deal damage to your opponent or land, in which case it's fine".

I will need to check this game and if that actually happened that round will be your loss, however, this issue should be posted in the actual Cup page.

As I said, we can't act on things we do not know.

[Albus]

there's no other reason to selfishly choose to replay the matches as it caused no harm, no advantages to the players.

In fact, I didn't see Adnan say if he wanted to rematch the game. We play because you determined. If he says he doesn't thought it was unfair play with 7 worms, would you change your decision? In other words, if neither he nor I thought this was unfair, why make us repeat a game for an error that we didn't cause?

[Albus]

Komito, there is the following rule in the cup we are talking about:

Each round you can choose only one type of special/team weapon to use (...) If in one round you use more than one type of special weapon, you lose the round. For example, you can use 2 cows on round 1 and 2 pigeons on round two, but you cannot use cows and pigeons on round 1

I won my second match against the player Hal. However, in one of the matches I used a second special weapon (aqua sheep), the special weapon didn't touch anything (I threw it off the map). If we are going to follow the rule radically, my defeat should have been automatic. Maybe you didn't see this happening because you didn't was in the host and didn't saw the replay yet. What would your decision be about that?

If this is true then yes, you would automatically lose that round.

The rule says:

"If you use more than one type of special weapon, you lose the round"

It does not say:

"If you use more than one type of special weapon, you lose the round, unless using the special weapon does not deal damage to your opponent or land, in which case it's fine".

I will need to check this game and if that actually happened that round will be your loss, however, this issue should be posted in the actual Cup page.

As I said, we can't act on things we do not know.

I think you are too extreme with the literalness of the rules. Each rule must be interpreted in the light of the concrete case. Have you ever heard the following phrase: "not the letter but the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life"? I heard that phrase regarding legal interpretation. The legislator, for example, when creating a law, he cannot foresee all the concrete situations that may arise. It is impossible for a rule to fairly cover every case that might exist. It is necessary, case by case, to verify the best solution (this is why judges exists too). I used the second special weapon in this game, but I threw it off the map, it didn't touch anything at all. I think it would be unfair make me lose this round for that (the opponent didn't even complain). Likewise, regarding my game against Adnan, I haven't seen him say that he thought it was unfair for us to play with 7 worms. Why not hear Adnan's opinion about it? If neither he nor I thought it was unfair to repeat a game because of a mistake you made, why "force" us to repeat the game for an error that we did not directly cause?

PS: I attached the round against hal, where at 8:33 I used the second special weapon, against the rules. The aqua sheep didn't touch anything in the map, but if you're going to strictly follow the rules, you should nullify this game. However, Hal didn't mind.

[TheKomodo]

I mean, you done that just because you are cup moderator and your giant ego just can't let it go, this can't stain your mod integrity, there's no other reason to selfishly choose to replay the matches as it caused no harm, no advantages to the players.

To begin with, i'm not interested in your opinion about my personality, if you want to actually discuss this, please stick to the subject and refrain from using ad hominems.

I've already explained my actions, if you want to challenge them, please do so in a constructive manner, I am open to challenging my perspectives in life, i'd appreciate more people debating seriously using good examples, theories, logic, statistics and research.

If you personally believe it is selfish to choose to replay the matches as it caused no harm, that's your opinion, it is not a fact.

You don't see the harm it causes, it could be ignorance, it could simply be you don't care. Whatever the reason is doesn't change the fact that from my perspective it's no wonder Worms Armageddon will never be taken seriously as a professional eSport because there is too much leniency and lack of discipline.

I am putting in an incredible amount of time and effort trying to push the competitive scene for this game to more people.

Since my return to WA last August, i've pulled all nighters studying how to create special FX in After Effects and making videos for CWT streams, i've spent countless more hours learning how to use OBS efficiently and planning and setting up the layout.

Almost all of my spare money that i've been saving up for almost 2 years, I spent on equipment specifically for streaming because after CWT I was so excited to help this community and do everything I humanly possibly can to make us look good!

I never ignore any newcomer who has questions about the game, i've spent entire hours at a time teaching newcomers various schemes, tips and tricks how to play this game, sharing all knowledge i've gained since 1999 to help them get the most out of their experience.

I've planned to make tutorials for various aspects of the game, i'm streaming any major event I can, League Playoffs, Cup matches, CWT, you name it, I want to make it special for people!

I literally had to convince Albus to even post this in public in the first place because he didn't want to originally, why would a selfish person influence someone to bring an issue into the light for everyone to get involved and discuss it? Why would a selfish person actively seek and engage in a debate to challenge their own perspectives?

Is it because i've had different opinions about Hysteria, BnG and other League issues over the years, does that make me selfish? Then if that's true, aren't we all selfish?

It would be much better if you asked the players what they think instead of just arbitrary tell them to redo the matches. This, in fact, caused much more harm than good.

No, it wouldn't inherently be much better, that's your subjective opinion, which has absolutely nothing to do with what the goal is here.

As i've already explained those kind of actions do not help in the slightest to achieve a professional and disciplined environment which treats everyone equally.

If people don't want a disciplined environment, they are free to not participate, it doesn't make me evil or selfish to make a decision and stick with it.

You say it caused more harm than good, how can you prove this? What is your reason for making such a bold statement without any evidence whatsoever? What exactly is the harm being done?

You think it's harmful that Albus doesn't get special treatment?

Do you want me to award him a win he didn't technically win?

Do you want me to allow anyone to play by whatever scheme settings they want?

Do you think we should just tell people to play whatever scheme they want?

Actually, why even stop there, why don't we let people play each other at 'Magic: The Gathering' and report here in this 80hp as their win? Or wait even better why don't we all play russian roulette and whoever doesn't die, gets the prize?

You know what, EENY MEENY MINY MO, that one wins!

Yes, i've exaggerated a bit here, that's how I feel though when people want special treatment because of a mistake, if you open the flood gates you are inviting trouble in future, this makes me feel like people do not respect the scheme which was selected.

The reason why this decision was made is specifically to prevent more harm being done in future. I'm not sure why you cannot understand that especially considering how much detail i've went into with my earlier post.

Edit:

Oh, and i've also mentioned this isn't because i'm a Cup Moderator, this is because i'm the designated moderator of a specific Cup. Also, if Dario feels like changes should be made, or if MonkeyIsland steps in and makes a decision about this specific Cup i'm quite happy to cater to them, although i'd be personally disappointed and would lose interest in organizing future events due to a lack of respect for equality and discipline.

[TheKomodo]

Albus - I've replied to the game in question, please discuss that matter there:

https://www.tus-wa.com/cups/game-227946

[Kaleu]

I will only reply to what I judge important to discuss, cuz all I see is you bragging over and over of what you do and what you've done to worms in the past and bla bla, lot of people have done a lot for worms, I have done plenty, but I don't see the necessity to brag about it everytime I post. We know you love worms, you are passionate etc etc, bragger.

Talking about my opinion on your personality and accusing me of ad hominem was just funny because you don't seen to know the definition and correct use of this term. In this case I raised a characteristic of yours that has everything to do with your posture as a moderator and with the decision made in the context, because you were egocentric, it was not something I simply made up to attack you personally out of context, this is not ad hominem.

Spoiler! View

"Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong"

No, it wouldn't inherently be much better, that's your subjective opinion, which has absolutely nothing to do with what the goal is here.

What are you saying? It is not a subjective opinion if I say that only the people who could have been harmed say whether they felt harmed or not, it's a fact, what we saw here is you decided for them, so you assumed this is the best for both, how can this be subjective at all?
This would apply if we consider someone mentally ill, unable to define right or wrong, good or bad, which clearly is not the case.
In other words: only someone interdicted or with a disability needs others to decide for them (in this case the legal guardian), you decided without even listening to their opinion so I stick with my statement that - yes, it would be much better to ask them.

[Albus]

Dario may wish to be more lenient in certain situations and i'd respect that, though we have discussed this specific scenario and Dario agrees about this specific situation:

Komito, I didn't quite understand the connection between Dario response and our case under discussion. In fact, "no variations are allowed". I agree with that, but this seems to be aimed at situations where players deliberately play a variation of the scheme, which, I repeat, is not logical to allow this to happen. On the other hand, in our presente case, we didn't deliberately play a variation of the scheme (7 instead of 8 worms). We didn't want this. You was the host and you forgot to put 8 worms, and everyone (players and stream viewers), for lack of attention, didn't notice it during the entire match. Only hours later, another player reported the problem.

[Dario]

I don't think the game with 7 worms should be considered a game from this cup, because it wasn't played in accordance to the scheme settings. In this case, the scheme was tested and balanced for 8 worms, 1 less worms makes a huge difference, so a match with 7 worms can't count as a match for this cup. Yes, it isn't explicitly written, but in the scheme description and in every one of the past tournaments it was said that 8 is the number of worms. My mistake for not writing that down, many times some things seem so obvious that we don't even write down rules for some situations. I like the point about professionalism, and I think that if variations (intentional or not) are to be allowed, then it has to be explicitly said so in the cup description.

I guess that the aqua sheep round is fine as long as Hal accepts it.

[TheKomodo]

I will only reply to what I judge important to discuss, cuz all I see is you bragging over and over of what you do and what you've done to worms in the past and bla bla, lot of people have done a lot for worms, I have done plenty, but I don't see the necessity to brag about it everytime I post. We know you love worms, you are passionate etc etc, bragger.

The reason why I shared all that information is because you called me selfish so I was defending myself by giving examples of being selfless. So as it turns out I am interested as clearly you have my attention.

You were attacking my character using that as an argument and your specific reason when you talked about my "giant ego", actually believing that is why i'd do all this, rather than stick to the actual subject and counter my actual reasons for doing it.

You literally said:

I mean, you done that just because you are cup moderator and your giant ego just can't let it go

That part of your argument was based on my official position and my personality, not debating or trying to counter the actual information and points i've made which make it an ad hominem:

"in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."

in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.

This doesn't mean position as in manager or moderator or owner etc, it means their position in an argument with the information they use. It means attacking an opponent's character or motives rather than answering the argument or claim, which is exactly what you done.

Ego has nothing to do with this. Let's just pretend this IS about my ego, how would this situation help my ego? I already feel ashamed, embarassed and guilty because it was MY mistake which i've publicly admitted and apologized for multiple times.

Regarding this specific thread, i'm done discussing my personality with you, and will ignore any posts in future here which don't directly relate to the actual issue about the decision made about the 80hp Cup and why.

I'm happy to discuss anything related to the actual subject.

What are you saying? It is not a subjective opinion if I say that only the people who could have been harmed say whether they felt harmed or not, it's a fact, what we saw here is you decided for them, so you assumed this is the best for both, how can this be subjective at all?

It's not clear whether you are specifically talking about this situation, or if you are generalizing what you said to be applied to any situation.

Since this conversation is about the 80hp Cup, i'll assume it's aimed at that.

It is 100% definitely a subjective opinion, this is exactly what you said which I responded to:

It would be much better if you asked the players what they think or if the loser felt harmed
or not instead of just arbitrary tell them to redo the matches. This, in fact, caused much more harm than good.

You specifically said "This, in fact, caused much more harm than good.", and that is a subjective opinion, not a fact.

I've already went in to great detail to explain specifically why it can cause more harm in the future if allowed, you are not looking at the bigger picture, this decision affects more than simply the game between Albus and Mega`Adnan.

If you truly believe it does more harm than good, explain why, give me hypotheticals, give me facts, statistics, anything which is related to this specific situation, related to Worms Armageddon, not like your example with mental illness.

You are merely writing down your feelings without anything to back it up, I need something to relate to, some kind of well constructed reasoning and logic if I am to even consider seeing things from your perspective.

You simply won't achieve anything here unless you put in the effort.

Edit:

Bah, I had already wrote a paragraph about this though somehow must have deleted it lol:

This would apply if we consider someone mentally ill, unable to define right or wrong, good or bad, which clearly is not the case.
In other words: only someone interdicted or with a disability needs others to decide for them (in this case the legal guardian), you decided without even listening to their opinion so I stick with my statement that - yes, it would be much better to ask them.

Your example is no use here.

This is a situation discussing rules and actions in a video game, rules for a Cup are decided separately for each Cup by the moderators, every Cup has "house rules" in other words.

So yes, the moderators will decide the rules for the players when things don't happen the way they should, just like I have to accept that this is MonkeyIslands website and he can make any decision whatsoever that I must respect whether I like it or not.

Although, if enough people share concern, and make good enough constructive criticism, changes can and will be made.

[MonkeyIsland]

@Komito, what would be your decision if Kaleu refused to play the rematch?

Would you:

1. Proceed Albus to the next round?
2. Proceed none of the players.

[TheKomodo]

@Komito, what would be your decision if Kaleu refused to play the rematch?

Would you:

1. Proceed Albus to the next round?
2. Proceed none of the players.

Do you mean Mega`Adnan?

I will assume you are refering to the match Albus Vs Mega`Adnan specifically for the 80hp Cup:

As the match was void, they would be required to play their match again, so the same rules apply, they would have until the deadline to play their match or the player who shows the most effort will be progressed.

At the end when the deadline is reached Groups will be progressed based on their standings at that time, so those who are equal will be judged on their activity and effort to organize games.