No.
While I’m really not versed in the way EVO or any tournament “On the Road to EVO” is run, I don’t necessarily agree with this. Determining how a player should play is it’s own slippery slope to me. ChrisG picking random, and still bringing BALA down to his character (if that really happened; haven’t seen any footage) is impressive enough. If there was enough concern about sandbagging like that, maybe players should’ve been locked into their best characters from the beginning.
People using random rarely bothers me just because I’d have to assume they’re know what they’re doing, or know how to use every character. This doesn’t warrant penalizing to me.
All I can really wonder from this is what would’ve happened if ChrisG picked his usual team, or actually won with his random-picked team.
In order to play devil’s advocate and piggyback your “no one thought PR Rog had a chance against Dark Phoenix with Tron…” argument: no one thought Chris G had a chance with random select, but he tried it anyway. That’s how great moments happen.
Stumblebee effectively put the stake through the heart of this thread. We can now all go home.
Yes stumble, thats what ‘extraneous’ means. Note the word: ‘coupled’.
It wasn’t THAT Chris G lost, it was HOW he lost. Not putting in earnest effort, turning GF into a joke.
Fixed
ex·tra·ne·ous/ikˈstrānēəs/
Adjective:
[LIST=1]
[]Irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with.
[]Of external origin.
[/LIST]
I’d say the way Justin lost was related to the fact that him and Noel are friends.
As a sidenote: I totally agree with you, what ChrisG did was bullshit. I’m just seeing it from a different angle.
Bala was using a joke team, or as ChrisG called it, random.
K. Lets put that in the rules then. “Throwing matches is fine, unless you’re friends”. I’d LOVE to see that.
Playing devil’s advocate is not only a waste of time, it does injustice to the people who actually believe what you’re saying, so stop it.
Except, what Stumblebee is saying is the truth. It just goes against your agenda so no matter is on record as being the reason for JWong’s punishment, it will never amount to the justification in your head.
It could say, verbatim, “JWong intentionally put himself at a disadvantage in order to purposely lose to benefit a friend,” and you would still ignore the latter portion.
Shit man, I believe what I’m saying. Before I read the Justin ruling, I thought these were one in the same. Now, I think that these are separate events that should be treated separately. Using the current evo ruleset, I do think he intentionally underperformed, and therefore should be yellow carded. I just don’t think that the previous ruling holds too much sway over this situation.
I wonder if you believe that people who put down their controller when they’re down to their last character in Marvel or rage quit are underperforming too. I mean, I’ve seen many 1v3 comebacks, with or without X-factor, so who’s to say they didn’t have a chance?
All he needs to say is this
“I can beat BALA by playing random select, that scrub is free”
and every argument here becomes invalid, everyone is assuming what he felt while playing just because he picked random. If he makes a statement like that then no one can really refute anything.
I just feel that people are looking for some drama to latch on to, but what happened with Justin is completely different from what happened here with Chris G and should be treated as such.
Justin deliberately picked a losing strategy which helped out a close friend and directly impacted the seeding points EVO was handing out for that event. Chris G had nothing in the bag against a superior opponent.
I just hope the EVO staff come to a decision on this soon just so people can move on to something else to worry about.
Read the entire article instead of selecting quotes that suit your argument. I already stated, if based solely on the vague and broad statement mentioned above, then Chris G is indeed liable for penalty. But it would not be an appropriate sentence, because it delivers an equally vague message. Did you even read what I wrote?
But that is not the only reason why EVO took action against JWong. If you took the time to peruse the article on neogaf, then you would realize that it was not only JWong’s deliberate under-performance, but coupled with the fact that his actions resulted in the benefit of his friend. The rule addresses explicitly and **clearly the consequences of illegal collaboration and collusion in the tournament. The rule exists to govern illegal collusion, and not merely the “under-performance” of players. You are misinterpreting the rule and EVO’s ruling.
Read: Collusion of any kind with your competitors is considered cheating. If the Tournament Director determines that any competitor is colluding to manipulate the results or intentionally underperforming, the collaborating players may be immediately disqualified. This determination is to be made at the sole discretion of the Tournament Director. Anyone disqualified in this manner forfeits all rights to any titles or prizes they might have otherwise earned for that tournament.
See how collusion is the first word mentioned? See how this rule is designed with collusion/ illegal collaboration in mind? Apply this rule in its correct context.
I do wonder if you have considered a career in law, because from your current fallacious arguments, I would highly discourage you to do so. But I digress. The law is not black and white- similarly, this precedent set out is not exactly applicable to the current issue at hand. The problem with the Chris G case is that it is not a replication of the original JWong controversy. There is a lack of collusion involved- something extremely significant and integral in influencing the original decision. Different cases, different facts = no precedent.
EVO had already proved that Justin threw his matches, and for the benefit of a friend. That is what they mean when they write about “the player under-performing”. Remember however, that EVO’s judgement was based off two things: a) JWong threw the match and** b) that this intentional loss would help his friend.** They are not citing him for merely “under-performing”, but rather “under-performing intentionally to help a friend”
However, EVO did **not **have solid, tangible proof that there was collusion involved. Collusion requires more than one individual. EVO could only prove collusion if there was enough evidence to show that both Justin and Noel knew and had plotted in preparation. (It is possible that JWong decided to throw matches for Noel, and that Noel knew nothing of it beforehand.) That is why Noel Brown wasn’t implicated or penalized, and why collusion is not a charge mentioned in the official PR.
But everyone knows that the reason JWong threw the match was to help his friend- and this is wrong, whether or not Noel knew or approved of it. I know it, you know it, and EVO staff knew it. The only problem was that there were no texts/ recordings of such meetings/ plots ever happening- aka hard evidence.
Legal writing can only encompass so much. EVO needed to penalize Justin for this breach of ethics- to send a message, so they book him on the premise that “the player underperformed”. However, the message sent to the FGC is not “If you underperform, you’ll be penalized.” It is “If you intentionally underperform** to aid another party,** you’ll be penalized”. The penalty is designed to combat this type of shrewd plotting and “friends-help friends” philosophy. Whether or not Noel (the other party) was aware or not is moot point. Aiding your friends is wrong and should not be allowed.
Jwong and Chris G are apples and oranges. (You will probably argue this point, so keep reading)
Do you mean to tell me that you don’t think that helping Noel Brown played any factor in Jwong’s performance, or in the subsequent EVO ruling? That EVO decided to yellow card JWong **just **because he threw the match, and not because his loss was an intentional attempt to help his friend? Then I quote:
“The issue, however, is not that Justin lost. It was HOW he lost, coupled with the fact that his loss would benefit a close friend.”
There is a difference between throwing a match to help a friend, and throwing a match because you don’t want to try. Since these cases are not at all similar, your misconstrued quote does not apply. Again, context is important. Please read thoroughly before making any more misinformed comments. =]
Lol this post rules
Tried hard with random-select eh? Tell me more. I like where this is going.
So the yellow card in these cases is like a giant compliment? You can only get it if you are just so good at the game that the tournament organizers figure your opponent has no chance to win unless you sandbag?
Not reading it.
No, it wasn’t just because he picked random. If picking random = sandbagging, they’d put that in the rules. Picking random in a game you clearly don’t know 80% of the characters, and evidently not trying the rest of the match, while laughing, is sandbagging.
Oh no, Chris G was laughing and having fun while losing a hopeless battle. Yellow card!
of course you wont