|
Post by jisidro on Oct 11, 2017 15:43:39 GMT
Not that I have seen. Which I think is part of the point. The WTC doesn't want anyone to speak about it at all, so France are basically doing it right and Norway are in violation of their implicit NDA, from the WTC perspective. Which is maybe why the WTC aren't talking to Norway. Because they know that if they tell them the issue, Norway will blab about it. I dunno. The problem with insisting on transparency is that it implies that nobody has any right to privacy about issues. And it's only easy to think that if it doesn't affect you personally. Wait, does the WTC really make it's participants sign an NDA?
Not in Poland, not in Ireland, not in Holand.
|
|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 11, 2017 15:46:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by slaughtersun on Oct 11, 2017 15:46:41 GMT
And not in belgium.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 15:49:31 GMT
Wait, does the WTC really make it's participants sign an NDA? I assume not, due to use of the word "implicit". Which is of course nonsense - the very concept of an NDA is that it's an explicit agreement between parties. There is no such thing as a "implicit NDA". Yeah. The "implicit NDA" was just my rhetorical way of trying to describe "something they don't want you to talk about in public".
|
|
|
Post by quicksand on Oct 11, 2017 16:01:20 GMT
It seems that WTC Committee did not manage to control the publicity in this case. Which of course is very understandable considering this is a hobby to all getting involved.
Head Judge making a controversial call in the final round without hearing the other party (for obvious reasons) resulted changes in the top10 placements. It was likely that the WTC Committee underestimated the response Norwegians have and did not communicate into their direction. Then Jarle published the original blog post using needlessly harsh language and hell broke loose. The vague statement by WTC Committee afterwards didn't help at all and now it even seems that they haven't done all what they said. Lots of unfortunate events and now there are only losers.
|
|
|
Post by gribble on Oct 11, 2017 16:06:01 GMT
I assume not, due to use of the word "implicit". Which is of course nonsense - the very concept of an NDA is that it's an explicit agreement between parties. There is no such thing as a "implicit NDA". Yeah. The "implicit NDA" was just my rhetorical way of trying to describe "something they don't want you to talk about in public". Fair enough. I think it's clear that WTC just wants to hush this up, which I can understand, but honestly all it's doing is calling into question the integrity of everyone involved. Someone is definitely lying - they can't all be right - and by not being more open, in effect they're making everyone liars. It's like the whole "someone in this group is a criminal" - until someone is named, effectively the whole group is treated as criminals - which isn't fair to the innocent parties.
|
|
|
Post by The Trane on Oct 11, 2017 16:07:41 GMT
If this is true there's been some other thing going on as well: "Our taxi had arrived so I ordered our last player to forfeit his game and start packing models." (http://www.courageofcaspia.com/2017/10/norway-hugin-captains-story.html) EDIT: Lost the quote there; pangurban mentioned that captains are only allowed to tell the state of another game to a player, noting else.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Oct 11, 2017 16:17:15 GMT
If this is true there's been some other thing going on as well: "Our taxi had arrived so I ordered our last player to forfeit his game and start packing models." (http://www.courageofcaspia.com/2017/10/norway-hugin-captains-story.html) EDIT: Lost the quote there; pangurban mentioned that captains are only allowed to tell the state of another game to a player, noting else.
Well, I can say I never followed this rule to the letter and never saw it followed. You won't have people that know each other side-by-side and not get comments now and then. Anything from teasing to offer of a drink I have said and heard.
By the way, before I forget... Props to the WTC organization for the flexibility in arranging pairings and fixing tables to allow a team with terrible travelling arrangements to have as good an experience as possible. "No good deed goes unpunished" springs to mind
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 16:21:19 GMT
About the "no meddling" policy thing, I don't know what the rules are verbatim (link anyone?), but I assume the point of the rule is that team members and captains aren't allowed to help their team mates with game advice. Not that they aren't allowed to talk as normal people in any way. That seems silly and un-enforcable. "You have to finish your game now, our taxi is here" is not game advice, it's just a practical statement of fact.
|
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
WTC Stats
Oct 11, 2017 16:23:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by crimsyn on Oct 11, 2017 16:23:53 GMT
Couldn't this whole thing have been avoided by the Norwegians not making plans that are contingent on a multiple round tournament ending exactly on time? I mean, that is something I do for local steamrollers, never mind a 300 person event.
Apart from that, the whole thing seems kind of ridiculous for a game about grown men playing with dolls...
|
|
|
Post by gribble on Oct 11, 2017 16:33:12 GMT
About the "no meddling" policy thing, I don't know what the rules are verbatim (link anyone?), but I assume the point of the rule is that team members and captains aren't allowed to help their team mates with game advice. Not that they aren't allowed to talk as normal people in any way. That seems silly and un-enforcable. "You have to finish your game now, our taxi is here" is not game advice, it's just a practical statement of fact. I would say the only thing problematic is that Jarle says he ordered the teammate to forfeit. To me that seems pretty close to "game advice". Had he simply said he advised his teammate the taxi to the airport had arrived, then I don't think it would fall afoul of the intent behind the rule, and I don't think anyone reasonable would begrudge a player in the midst of a game being informed about such a thing.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 16:35:07 GMT
Couldn't this whole thing have been avoided by the Norwegians not making plans that are contingent on a multiple round tournament ending exactly on time? I mean, that is something I do for local steamrollers, never mind a 300 person event. Yeah, but since the thing wasn't avoided, the discussion is now more about how the situation was handled rather than the practical travel arrangements part. It's true that a lesson learned about how to avoid this exact thing happening again is "Don't book flights that mean you have to leave anywhere near the time the tournament is scheduled to end", but I don't think that's something we can realistically count on. This is a game, after all, not a livelihood. It's meant to be inclusive, not draconian. Saying "You people are to blame for booking the flights you did, you should have taken the tournament more seriously and not flown home until the following day" is a bit draconian in my view.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 16:39:17 GMT
I would say the only thing problematic is that Jarle says he ordered the teammate to forfeit. To me that seems pretty close to "game advice". Had he simply said he advised his teammate the taxi to the airport had arrived, then I don't think it would fall afoul of the intent behind the rule, and I don't think anyone reasonable would begrudge a player in the midst of a game being informed about such a thing. Yeah but... it's not actual game advice. Obviously the point of game advice is when the outside party is trying to help the person to win. There is no practical difference between "The taxi is here, I order you to finish the game" and "The taxi is here, FYI. You know, plane to catch and all that". The first is just all macho and authoritative. But the point is obviously the same. It's still the player's choice whether to concede the game or not. Which in no way helps him win and is thus not game advice.
|
|
|
Post by gribble on Oct 11, 2017 16:50:27 GMT
I would say the only thing problematic is that Jarle says he ordered the teammate to forfeit. To me that seems pretty close to "game advice". Had he simply said he advised his teammate the taxi to the airport had arrived, then I don't think it would fall afoul of the intent behind the rule, and I don't think anyone reasonable would begrudge a player in the midst of a game being informed about such a thing. Yeah but... it's not actual game advice. Obviously the point of game advice is when the outside party is trying to help the person to win. There is no practical difference between "The taxi is here, I order you to finish the game" and "The taxi is here, FYI. You know, plane to catch and all that". The first is just all macho and authoritative. But the point is obviously the same. It's still the player's choice whether to concede the game or not. Which in no way helps him win and is thus not game advice. Well... in a single player tournament, sure. In a team tournament, then I'd say game advice covers anything which helps the team to win. An order to forfeit in this context takes on a slightly different meaning. Once you start saying it's ok for team captains to issue orders to players of games in progress, I think you open a door that shouldn't be opened. But yeah, agreed that in this case the "common sense" interpretation is that the effect is largely the same.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 11, 2017 16:57:13 GMT
Because self defense doesn’t make you in the wrong. If you see someone instigate a fist fight first, that’s not an excuse to start another one yourself however. Butting in in a team mate’s game is not self defense even if someone else butted in before you did and you want to even the odds. It’s still butting in. I am glad I don't have to rely on you having my back, a Captain is meant to look out for their team, and that includes jumping in to even the odds if they are being ganged up on. Which he totally could have done without getting involved in the argument. “Hey, buddy, back off a bit. They can sort it out among themselves or they can call a judge, but you have no business here.” Works just fine, and is less likely to escalate the argument into the fubar mess that happened here.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 17:03:07 GMT
Well... in a single player tournament, sure. In a team tournament, then I'd say game advice covers anything which helps the team to win. An order to forfeit in this context takes on a slightly different meaning. Once you start saying it's ok for team captains to issue orders to players of games in progress, I think you open a door that shouldn't be opened. Well, true. You could also say it opens the door to collusion if the captain is allowed to say "Hey sport, maybe you should take a dive now, wink wink". So in principle, I agree with you. I just don't think it is relevant to object in any way in this case.
|
|