|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 10, 2017 19:08:18 GMT
There is nothing to support that opinion. You are filling in a lot of lines without any support. I get that. For the record, I do have support that this is exactly what happened. I can't name my source. I know that sucks and doesn't help my cause. But, essentially, I laid out my argument on the WTC Facebook page and within 20 minutes had someone respond to me privately that my gut was correct. The alternative is to believe that the judges at the WTC are absolute hacks, which is what I and many others' knee jerk reaction was. But the more I thought about it the less and less likely that seemed. I came to three conclusions: 1) Norway Cheated; either intentionally (a blatant mismeasurement) or unintentionally (had too many models on the table) 2) Did something unsportsman-like 3) Something I can't think of. If the first option happened I think the WTC would have named it ("X player deployed an extra/illegal model"). If the second option then the EOs of the event would not want to publicly shame anyone. The WTC response seems to indicate the second option, their response was vague, which is an indicator of trying to not publicly humilate anyone. The Unnamed Third Party supports this as well, why have an anonymous complaint? The only real reason is to make an allegation on sportsmanship. A complaint that says "X player was being a dick" is a very real reason to stay anonymous, and it's also a reason why a head judge would be called, and it's also a reason why a game that had been "won" would be reversed. Ok I will take this at face value for the sake of arguement. That is a poor way to go about it. Call a spade a spade. You can support your judges ruling on the manner in a way that doesn't sound ridiculous. Say the match was concluded via sportsmanship issues in favor of France. Giving France a win in a game they clearly lost is an awful answer. If it was a sportsmanship issue call it that. You do not have to get into details. Hiding that fact does no good now nor going forward. |
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353 
|
Post by wishing on Oct 10, 2017 19:22:30 GMT
The sportsmanship theory would explain the strange situation of a game result seemingly being reversed after the fact. It doesn't make sense for the head judge to step in and reverse the result of a game if it was just a question of rules technicalities, since the game result was apparently agreed on and put to record, and rules are played wrong all the time. But if a player did something deemed by the judge to be unacceptable behaviour, then it it makes sense to me that the judge would want that behaviour to be punished - i.e. the loss - while at the same time wanting to protect the privacy of the individuals involved by not making it public that unacceptable behaviour had taken place. I guess.
I guess then the point is that it's an unfortunate situation where a issue that is ideally handled privately is the subject of interested public scrutiny... but then we'll just have to content ourselves that only the people involved will really know what happened, and just know that the end result has ended up being the tournament results that now stand.
If the Norwegians really feel like innocent victims here, then I don't blame them for being bitter and not wanting to come back next year. But hopefully, given some time to cool down, people will get over it and let bygones be bygones.
|
|
|
|
Post by snarlyyow on Oct 10, 2017 19:23:32 GMT
I get that. For the record, I do have support that this is exactly what happened. I can't name my source. I know that sucks and doesn't help my cause. But, essentially, I laid out my argument on the WTC Facebook page and within 20 minutes had someone respond to me privately that my gut was correct. The alternative is to believe that the judges at the WTC are absolute hacks, which is what I and many others' knee jerk reaction was. But the more I thought about it the less and less likely that seemed. I came to three conclusions: 1) Norway Cheated; either intentionally (a blatant mismeasurement) or unintentionally (had too many models on the table) 2) Did something unsportsman-like 3) Something I can't think of. If the first option happened I think the WTC would have named it ("X player deployed an extra/illegal model"). If the second option then the EOs of the event would not want to publicly shame anyone. The WTC response seems to indicate the second option, their response was vague, which is an indicator of trying to not publicly humilate anyone. The Unnamed Third Party supports this as well, why have an anonymous complaint? The only real reason is to make an allegation on sportsmanship. A complaint that says "X player was being a dick" is a very real reason to stay anonymous, and it's also a reason why a head judge would be called, and it's also a reason why a game that had been "won" would be reversed. Ok I will take this at face value for the sake of arguement. That is a poor way to go about it. Call a spade a spade. You can support your judges ruling on the manner in a way that doesn't sound ridiculous. Say the match was concluded via sportsmanship issues in favor of France. Giving France a win in a game they clearly lost is an awful answer. If it was a sportsmanship issue call it that. You do not have to get into details. Hiding that fact does no good now nor going forward. The problem with this is that it ignores the purpose of the WTC, which is to foster a positive international community of players. Norbert isn't an idiot. I bet the WTC planned to handle the whole thing privately with Norway. Instead of DQ'ing the whole team, they gave one player a loss. I bet the EOs were going to explain why privately to Norway, hoping no one noticed the change online. But then team Norway made the thing public which then required the WTC to respond publicly. Instead of a sportsmanship problem that could be resolved amicably privately, Norway lashed out. The WTC, wanting to maintain the image of a positive international event, had to think of a way to quell the problem without naming names. Their solution? This vague response which really boils down to two sentences sandwiched in the middle of their statement, essentially: "A third party brought forth a dispute, Norway wasn't there, so we had to rule against Norway." That's how they attempted to save face and save everyone's dignity. If they called out Norway as a team, or a specific player, or named their source, or indicated anything about anyone at all they would be essentially throwing the positive experiences of the event away. I don't think the EOs expected this backlash to their statement but in hindsight it's totally predictable. Giving France a win, assuming the sportsmanship complaint happened during that round, is entirely acceptable since DQ'ing the entire team seems overly severe for perhaps one problem in one game by one player. |
|
cain
Junior Strategist
Posts: 243
|
Post by cain on Oct 10, 2017 19:27:23 GMT
I'm on my phone right now but i'll try. The facts we know have been explained above: the fact that there was agreement between teams and the first judge. We also know that those results were given to the organization and entered into the site. We also know that given these facts the norwegian team left the building saying "we cant wait...". We know that the head judge was called to rule "something" we dont know. What was it? The table situation? It shouldnt be, because the table state was impossible to replicate because both teams had already cleared the tables. The ruling? Both teams had agreed on the original ruling and results had been given... why and most importantly how can you overrule something when there is no evidence? (See tables cleared). The sportsmanship issue makes no sense...if the team had been bad they should all be disqualified. That didnt happen. If the norwsy player was bad...he should have been disqualified by the judge... he wasnt. So this leads us to hearsay and speculation. Nothing leads us to believe the behaviour issue... all other arguments point to a strange decision indeed andvwithoyt more information we cant know for sure. Yes i understand that If they wasnt there that wasnt possible. But wouldnt it be likely that the headjudge or wtc told Norway that the result had been reversed later per phone or email because of unsportmanship ? Especially after the blog outburst. |
|
|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 10, 2017 19:34:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by slaughtersun on Oct 10, 2017 19:34:00 GMT
It is possible that the issue might have been with sportsmanship but if thats the case this "politically correct" way of trying to deal with the issue has been terrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by snarlyyow on Oct 10, 2017 19:34:21 GMT
I'm on my phone right now but i'll try. The facts we know have been explained above: the fact that there was agreement between teams and the first judge. We also know that those results were given to the organization and entered into the site. We also know that given these facts the norwegian team left the building saying "we cant wait...". We know that the head judge was called to rule "something" we dont know. What was it? The table situation? It shouldnt be, because the table state was impossible to replicate because both teams had already cleared the tables. The ruling? Both teams had agreed on the original ruling and results had been given... why and most importantly how can you overrule something when there is no evidence? (See tables cleared). The sportsmanship issue makes no sense...if the team had been bad they should all be disqualified. That didnt happen. If the norwsy player was bad...he should have been disqualified by the judge... he wasnt. So this leads us to hearsay and speculation. Nothing leads us to believe the behaviour issue... all other arguments point to a strange decision indeed andvwithoyt more information we cant know for sure. Yes i understand that If they wasnt there that wasnt possible. But wouldnt it be likely that the headjudge or wtc told Norway that the result had been reversed later per phone or email because of unsportmanship ? Especially after the blog outburst. Well, the blog post was taken down but if memory serves the blog post was put up the day after the event ended. It isn't absurd to think the EOs hadn't talked to the Norwegian players yet. So Norway was understandably upset that they received a loss for a game they had won. Like us, they probably presumed (and did presume) that the issue was an illegal counter charge. Then the French team said "Nope, we had nothing to do with this." And the blog post was edited. Then, several days later, taken down completely. So it might figure that the EOs contacted the Norwegians and said "Look, we understand you're upset. We did not communicate properly with you and we apologise. We're going to release a statement on why this happened but we'd like if you just didn't say anything anymore because we don't want to fan these flames, and we don't want to call you out. Let's just let bygones be bygones." |
|
|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 10, 2017 19:35:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 10, 2017 19:35:44 GMT
It being a sportsmanship issue makes the most sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by snarlyyow on Oct 10, 2017 19:44:03 GMT
It being a sportsmanship issue makes the most sense. Yeah, once you think about it it does, doesn't it? Like, was it a game state issue? It doesn't make any sense that it was unless the judges are complete hacks, which they are not. But we're all assuming it was. We're all assuming this thing that doesn't make sense is why what happened happened, which is why we're so angry. But if we say "This is the EO trying to not publicly humiliate anyone" it all sort of comes together. |
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 10, 2017 19:47:19 GMT
Yes i understand that If they wasnt there that wasnt possible. But wouldnt it be likely that the headjudge or wtc told Norway that the result had been reversed later per phone or email because of unsportmanship ? Especially after the blog outburst. Well, the blog post was taken down but if memory serves the blog post was put up the day after the event ended. It isn't absurd to think the EOs hadn't talked to the Norwegian players yet. So Norway was understandably upset that they received a loss for a game they had won. Like us, they probably presumed (and did presume) that the issue was an illegal counter charge. Then the French team said "Nope, we had nothing to do with this." And the blog post was edited. Then, several days later, taken down completely. So it might figure that the EOs contacted the Norwegians and said "Look, we understand you're upset. We did not communicate properly with you and we apologise. We're going to release a statement on why this happened but we'd like if you just didn't say anything anymore because we don't want to fan these flames, and we don't want to call you out. Let's just let bygones be bygones." Yeah, this makes sense to me too. Saying that the situation has been handled badly is unfair I think. Assuming that the WTC and the affected individuals wanted to keep this whole thing out of the "press", just quietly changing the result seems logical. Just a shame that the Norwegians had time to raise hell and draw attention to it before they were talked to. Which presumably they have been. If they have taken down the blog post and issued no further statements about their issue, then they must be interested in having this whole thing die down too, rather than keeping up their public "we were wronged!" stance. |
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 10, 2017 20:06:06 GMT
Well, the blog post was taken down but if memory serves the blog post was put up the day after the event ended. It isn't absurd to think the EOs hadn't talked to the Norwegian players yet. So Norway was understandably upset that they received a loss for a game they had won. Like us, they probably presumed (and did presume) that the issue was an illegal counter charge. Then the French team said "Nope, we had nothing to do with this." And the blog post was edited. Then, several days later, taken down completely. So it might figure that the EOs contacted the Norwegians and said "Look, we understand you're upset. We did not communicate properly with you and we apologise. We're going to release a statement on why this happened but we'd like if you just didn't say anything anymore because we don't want to fan these flames, and we don't want to call you out. Let's just let bygones be bygones." Yeah, this makes sense to me too. Saying that the situation has been handled badly is unfair I think. Assuming that the WTC and the affected individuals wanted to keep this whole thing out of the "press", just quietly changing the result seems logical. Just a shame that the Norwegians had time to raise hell and draw attention to it before they were talked to. Which presumably they have been. If they have taken down the blog post and issued no further statements about their issue, then they must be interested in having this whole thing die down too, rather than keeping up their public "we were wronged!" stance. Not unfair. One of the Norwegian players on the team posted in the chat just this morning complaining about the ruling. He said he would have liked to see what rule they broke from their rule book. |
|
|
|
Post by snarlyyow on Oct 10, 2017 20:08:16 GMT
Yeah, this makes sense to me too. Saying that the situation has been handled badly is unfair I think. Assuming that the WTC and the affected individuals wanted to keep this whole thing out of the "press", just quietly changing the result seems logical. Just a shame that the Norwegians had time to raise hell and draw attention to it before they were talked to. Which presumably they have been. If they have taken down the blog post and issued no further statements about their issue, then they must be interested in having this whole thing die down too, rather than keeping up their public "we were wronged!" stance. Not unfair. One of the Norwegian players on the team posted in the chat just this morning complaining about the ruling. He said he would have liked to see what rule they broke from their rule book. Which chat? |
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 10, 2017 20:09:17 GMT
Yes i understand that If they wasnt there that wasnt possible. But wouldnt it be likely that the headjudge or wtc told Norway that the result had been reversed later per phone or email because of unsportmanship ? Especially after the blog outburst. Well, the blog post was taken down but if memory serves the blog post was put up the day after the event ended. It isn't absurd to think the EOs hadn't talked to the Norwegian players yet. So Norway was understandably upset that they received a loss for a game they had won. Like us, they probably presumed (and did presume) that the issue was an illegal counter charge. Then the French team said "Nope, we had nothing to do with this." And the blog post was edited. Then, several days later, taken down completely. So it might figure that the EOs contacted the Norwegians and said "Look, we understand you're upset. We did not communicate properly with you and we apologise. We're going to release a statement on why this happened but we'd like if you just didn't say anything anymore because we don't want to fan these flames, and we don't want to call you out. Let's just let bygones be bygones." Hacks are going to hack. They where either hack judges (totally beleivable especially with my interactions with judges) or hack EOs. It doesn't really matter which. |
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 10, 2017 20:11:14 GMT
Not unfair. One of the Norwegian players on the team posted in the chat just this morning complaining about the ruling. He said he would have liked to see what rule they broke from their rule book. Which chat? Under the wtc post on face book. Specifically in the response to Trevor bonds reply, lohrmann or something. I looked it up he was one of their cryx players. I am unsure if he was the one asked to scoop or not. |
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 10, 2017 20:13:42 GMT
Not unfair. One of the Norwegian players on the team posted in the chat just this morning complaining about the ruling. He said he would have liked to see what rule they broke from their rule book. That sounds like direct confirmation that the issue wasn't a rules issue, but rather something else. How does that make the WTC criticism fair? |
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 10, 2017 20:15:18 GMT
Not unfair. One of the Norwegian players on the team posted in the chat just this morning complaining about the ruling. He said he would have liked to see what rule they broke from their rule book. That sounds like direct confirmation that the issue wasn't a rules issue, but rather something else. How does that make the WTC criticism fair? I was pointing out that they evidentially had not learned of why the game result was changed. Nor where they "letting it die" |
|
