Discussion in 'ITS' started by karolis, Mar 13, 2018.
I believe it is fiction, but believable fiction.
First of all remember the first warning, second stay on topic and the topic is how TO and players should deal with situations like this, if you really want to discuss why and how retreat rules were implemented in game along with the historical context create a new topic and I will explain you both they why and the how.
And above all remember that it is expected from you to have a civil discuss.
My Google-Fu brought me this, make of it what you will:
‘It's a gross paraphrase of a part of a speech Trudeau gave on ending Canadian airstrikes in Syria. The actual quote is this :
"Call us old-fashioned, but we think that we ought to avoid doing precisely what our enemies want us to do. They want us to elevate them, to give in to fear, to indulge in hatred, to eye one another with suspicion and to take leave of our faculties."
He's saying that by bombing them, we're legitimizing both them and our anxieties vis-à-vis Islamic terrorism. First this was mocked because he appears to be saying "our enemies want us to kill them, so we won't", this then morphed into "if you kill your enemies, they win" and the countless other variants.’
Honestly mate, and I don’t want to come off as a dick here, but that seems to me to be a lack of experience. Once you’ve tried losing or tying because you overkilled and you tasted that sour taste in your mouth, you will forever remember to be keenly aware of the enemy models left. Very aggressive players that goes for kills will know this by heart YMMV.
So how about staying on topic and be civil among yourselves?
Would be nice wouldn't it?
So first they ("westerns") started civil war, and supported islamist (which led to ISIS creation) and then they said sorry?
Western countries are so hilarious...
Nothing in that subject is as white and black as you make it there and this isn’t the place to kick such a big hornets nest. :/
Taking it into account, I believe final decision, while at least partially correct, was probably not the best way to handle it.
The first issue is responsibility and sportsmanship: @karolis was not responsible for the mistake and, based on his description and his opponents admission, did everything within the realms of sportsmanship to allow his opponent opportunity to correct the mistake, even asking a 3rd party to check (something the statement specifically says not doing was a fault on his part). The only way for Karolis to check would have been to ask to see his opponent's full list, which seems a bit unsporting and rude.
The second issue is Karolis' opponent gained an unfair advantage from his own mistake. If anyone gains an unfair advantage intentionally from their own actions (outwith the rules of the game) then that person should not be allowed to benefit, however In this case intent is impossible to prove, so we must assume it was unintentional, and in this case reversing the result should only be done with the consent of both players.
The final issue is the precedent set and the solution: I believe a fairer way would be to clarify that when you declare retreat you must reveal your full list. This way both players can check the full list for discrepancy, at that point if both players sign off then it's a done deal.
As far as I understood it, he says he asked a 3rd party believing he was part of the organization, thus a judge, but the organization says the person asked was not a judge.
Bear in mind that if the TO troops were on the back of he list's page, they are easy to overlook. And if they are mixed between the other troops, it is also easy to pass them without realizing those TO's are there. I try to keep an order in my lists for precisely that reason (grouping the linked troops, servitors following directly their master, Hidden Deployment at the end of the group...).
The problem here it's simple: if you are not in retreat, you have revealed what little means you might have to try and resist. I think adding together the points for the dead troops and comparing it with the total (400-420-440 in this tournament) is a better option, and it has been mentioned before (plus the OP indicated he needed to have killed 330 enemy points, give or take up to 5 points due to not totally filling the 400 points).
Of course it is not, but repeating the same mistakes several times which in the end led to many innocents dead and general situation going FUBAR with FTL speed.
@eciu @Zewrath please stay on topic, or if you want to speak about that, go to the off topic forum, since speaking of that here will end in the thread being closed.
And it will be closed please stay on topic.
All my miniatures are marked by the rules (some one had spread the rumor in Nordic masters , but then TO checkt each figure one by one and there was no problems) , they are also all precysly trimmed then pined then glued with epoxy (not event super glue) and event have scenic epoxy bases. Ant then washed with black ink. Yes, they are not painted, but - first the ITS rules clearly says that miniatures can be unpainted and secondly I paint moustly for model shows ets. I really don't want to play with miniature on which I spend 50 or 100 h painting. Sorry for that.
And I want to remind every one here that the main question which I raised is not that someone cheeted or about painted or unpainted minis or how I'm friendly or strict and ashole at the game table.
Main question stays the same:
Is it really good to have no protest possibility? And is it good that even if some major misunderstanding with hidden info acurs after several hours after the game which 100% changed the outcome of the game - noting is responsible and noting happens and you can blame joust yourself?
This was lests say one of biggest worlds infinity tournamnet. And this precedent is bad.
If there is no responsibility it can go far beyond that - so if I use clasifed deck of piked cards (which all let's say can be heal some one and coup de gra) and someone spots it only after the results was announced its ok? Becouse my opponent didint chect all my deck?
Or the same goes with badly balanced dices let's say.
Or leitenants info.
Or a lot of other things - all of them you fizicaly cant check after the battle.
So the problem is quite bigger then just outcome of one game I believe. The problem is does we encourage and justify big mistakes or no.
Yea, I like this suggestion a lot. If it's part of the rules, it avoids a lot of the feelings of unsportsmanlike conduct that could surround these kinds of audits otherwise. Ultimately we have to decide if the onus is going to be on the players or TOs. From a logistics standpoint, the players is probably ideal despite that neither answer is perfect.
At the risk of what it may invite, what if we take this a step further? Imagining a hypothetical scenario where after tournament if there is unwavering evidence that a player intentionally cheated (which is NOT the case here) , what do we think should be the precedent for that? I personally think that should result in reversals of all the games they played that tournament, but I understand both logistic and philosophical problems with that.
I might not be one of the best people answering your question but...
"Is it really good to have no protest possibility?"
This question itself is on the wrong. You have right to protest, and you had the possibility to. But if after the game you accept the result and bring it to the organization, you are telling them that there is nothing wrong. After the game, you had to ask for the full list. Even if its a gentleman's game, you have the right to see because you are not sure and the other player can make mistakes. And then, when counting points, if you see something is odd, then you call the judges and protest before delivering the match results.
But if instead a judge you call a 3rd party, you wait hours after the event is finished, and you didn't asked for the enemy list before delivering, then its both players fault
I want to make a small point here. I have seen several posts here disqualifying Leirbag as a cheater and as someone who has played him and watched him play a lot of times I feel I must intercede for him. He is a really honest player, that always plays on a very sportsmanslike fashion. He is very kind with players of all player levels and never ever seen him rage in a game, despite frequently disputting high level places on the very difficult Barcelona tournament scene.
I was really shocked when I knew of the incident. Sure, it's not an error I would expect him to make but I do believe that it was not in bad intention. Please, do not spread misinformation and smear the reputation of a really exemplar player based in a single incident.
I do believe humans tend to forget things, so I am informed at least and I suppose one might have forgotten he has undeployed troops, I have lost a game were I forgot I had AD troops so...
I am open to debate about how it should be handled post tournament conclusion, but do it civil and with clear points for and against please.
Now I can see how counting retreat can be done in reverse and be more practical.
I see a lot of defense on TO and judges part, but all you are saying is "Karolis, you were too late, Karolis this, karolis that".
The other player made a terrible mistake which changed the outcome of a battle (and the tournament I guess?). He admits that.
What are you going to do about it the next time?
If the answer is the same - nothing - it encourages cheating, doesn't it?
Why not asking to the TO or an official Referee? After 5 rounds/2 days you should both know who they were...
In my tournament, I am the law (quote! ^_^ even if i more open to discuss than Dredd) and the players know that they ask anything to someone else at their own risk.
When something like that occurred (and believe me it always does, sooner or later) we had a little chat with both parts, resolved the problem with them knowing that there was no way to go back to results, and then exposing the fact to the Community.
I know that the prize was great, but it is not fair TO THE OTHER PLAYERS to re-redact the final classification for an error, enormous as it could be in this case. As long as the results are not disclosed, you have a chance of consideration. Otherwise, well... I'm sorry for both players.
BTW, any player who ever did something like (even far less than) that DO KNOW to have a cross-hair on their back. They are under special observance and lost my "trust card". I even debriefed both them and their opponent on the previous errors threatening disqualification if something went wrong again on the same page.
Probably assigning a judge just for that game, probably using a check list with the most usual questions for both finalist ("have you asked the list of your opponent?, are you totally sure there was no doubt on the rules applied? do you want to access the private information on the lists and TO placemant before giving the results?, etc"). The TO have not said that the solution was perfect, the TO didn´t wanted such an uncomfortable issue to happen but it did. The TO tried to take the best solution but at this level probably you both don´t want to know what the TO are going to do in the future, just to show everybody how unfair Karolis and you feel the final decission was.
From what I understand the player was under the impression the person was a Judge, the person should have clarified he is not a Judge instead of trying to solve the issue and enforcing the belief he was a Judge, in such major events Judges should be easily identifiable, even if that means simply briefing on first day the players who and only who are the judges.
Now I personally I would expect the top table to have a judge presence because of the high stakes, the stress of the players ectr ectr, I can see the arguments for and against it and it is just my personal opinion on the subject.
I do not think we should put the blame on anybody and I can see the logic of "it is done".