|
Post by pangurban on Oct 11, 2017 6:36:03 GMT
That is a cop out for a terrible ruling. The committee member says plainly that the only specifics to the case where those of the ruling on the table. Public shaming could be avoided by just admitting a sports issue but not going into specifics if that where the case. Hiding a sports issue ruling within a gameplay ruling is both dishonest and idiotic. It definitely does not foster trust in the abilities of the judges, or organizers. So if you would be satisfied with the ruling if the WTC admitted that it was based on unacceptable player behaviour, then surely the ruling itself isn't terrible. Then the only terrible thing, or at least dishonest and idiotic thing, is that the WTC won't admit what the ruling is based on. Right? The ruling itself was not based on unsportsmanlike conduct. I don’t think that was ever indicated by the judges or the committee. That doesn’t mean some of the attitudes involved may not have been less than stellar, which is why the committee might have preferred a more tactful approach.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Oct 11, 2017 7:25:09 GMT
It seems like the head judge posted on facebook overnight and insists that the sheets were not handed in and the game result was definitely not agreed upon, contrary to all that has otherwise been said. Okay then. The whole text is: I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, the situation is resolved and has been done so with respect to the judge document and the best traditions of WM/H tournaments. As soon as I arrived at this one I knew nobody would be entirely happy. To clarify a few issues: I checked on the timeline as best we could reconstruct it, at each stage of the timeline, decisions taken affect the final result. The decision to award a game-loss was for abandoning the game. To be certain this was correct I made sure 1: On the balance of probabilities (Bearing in mind I had 2 different sides story to work with, not just the one that was made public) that the Norway Team were aware I had been called and left anyway. 2: The game was not considered over (The results sheets were at the tables when I arrived and the floor judge confirmed I was called before they were handed in). 3: The call was not entirely without merit. This is the ONLY metric to use on a call as the effect on the game proceeding simply cannot be known. I see a few people speculating on the effect of the original call and whether that should be taken into account, it cannot. We can never know what would have happened. However, given that the issue is not frivolous it is reasonable to expect both players to wait for a judge. I would like to clarify that the 3rd party who asked the floor judge to escalate was the in the french team (I think the captain, I'd have to check my notes) and this has been done at previous WTCs and I see no reason to break with precedence. I'm sorry, use of 3rd party was unclear and inconsistent there. It was not just a passerby. Hugin were listed as the winners because, after all this, the results of a game were filled in wrong (IIRC Not the final contentious game even) and had to be corrected. I'm not saying no mistakes were made here and I expect next year we'll have some guidelines from the committee for captains about some of these issues. What I am saying is: The game was not "Over" The head judge was called to rule on a non-trivial matter Both teams were aware a ruling was coming When I arrived, one team had left. With these facts established, the game loss is sadly the only choice to be made though even then I called another PP Qualified judge out of the finals rooms to discuss it before making that call. I won't be giving out much more in the way of details, but I will answer questions if you have them. If this is true, than the France team should also give some explainations, since from some facebook posts and the apology post on Jarle blog they seem to have denied to be the ones that asked for the excalation and actually said to not being even aware of that. The whole thing is strange... Norway, France and the Judges have 3 different versions (also, Norway said that the sheets were delivered), so more than one person isn't reporting the truth.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Oct 11, 2017 7:33:24 GMT
Or we can live in the knowledge that it sucked for some reason and move on. Contentious game things suck but dragging it out is the worst.
Judges have made the call, wtc was a few weeks ago. Let's just realise that it's not like either would suddenly win so it doesn't matter.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 7:52:05 GMT
The ruling itself was not based on unsportsmanlike conduct. I don’t think that was ever indicated by the judges or the committee. They have specifically avoided saying what exactly the ruling was based on. They just say that there was a dispute raised, the specific nature of which they refuse to disclose. This whole issue is all about how the judges and the committee refuse to give that indication. So I disagree with your conclusion that since the WTC haven't indicated that the ruling was based on "outside factors" (something not rule related), then that must mean that the dispute raised must be entirely rules based and must have nothing to do with player conduct.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 7:55:31 GMT
Or we can live in the knowledge that it sucked for some reason and move on. Contentious game things suck but dragging it out is the worst. Judges have made the call, wtc was a few weeks ago. Let's just realise that it's not like either would suddenly win so it doesn't matter. True enough. I guess the situation is interesting to people for the same reason people watch shows about serial killers on TV. Drama is exciting. At least nobody seems to be pointing any fingers at any specific individuals (other than Jarle making the issue public and taking some flak for that).
|
|
|
Post by The Trane on Oct 11, 2017 7:59:24 GMT
At least nobody seems to be pointing any fingers at any specific individuals I hope it stays this way. The Intermob is brutal and can cause serious harm to individuals. Whereas I recognize that there is prestige and cred involved in this, we're still talking about adult (predominantly) men pushing toy soldiers around on a 4'*4' table.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 8:01:31 GMT
If this is true, than the France team should also give some explainations, since from some facebook posts and the apology post on Jarle blog they seem to have denied to be the ones that asked for the excalation and actually said to not being even aware of that. The whole thing is strange... Norway, France and the Judges have 3 different versions (also, Norway said that the sheets were delivered), so more than one person isn't reporting the truth. Yeah, Jarle's apology post says: "The fact is that team France Falbala never went behind our backs in any way. I have been in touch with Sylvain, their captain, and he assures me they had no hand in what happened here. This all appears to be a huge misunderstanding. I don't know where the miscommunication occured nor how exactly this all happened. I hope the WTC committee will get to the bottom of this and that the original game result of 3-2 in favour of Norway Hugin will be restored." But the head judge says: "I would like to clarify that the 3rd party who asked the floor judge to escalate was the in the french team (I think the captain, I'd have to check my notes) and this has been done at previous WTCs and I see no reason to break with precedence." These two statements don't seem to match. It's like a cop show on TV.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 11, 2017 8:02:53 GMT
It seems like the head judge posted on facebook overnight and insists that the sheets were not handed in and the game result was definitely not agreed upon, contrary to all that has otherwise been said. Okay then. The whole text is: I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, the situation is resolved and has been done so with respect to the judge document and the best traditions of WM/H tournaments. As soon as I arrived at this one I knew nobody would be entirely happy. To clarify a few issues: I checked on the timeline as best we could reconstruct it, at each stage of the timeline, decisions taken affect the final result. The decision to award a game-loss was for abandoning the game. To be certain this was correct I made sure 1: On the balance of probabilities (Bearing in mind I had 2 different sides story to work with, not just the one that was made public) that the Norway Team were aware I had been called and left anyway. 2: The game was not considered over (The results sheets were at the tables when I arrived and the floor judge confirmed I was called before they were handed in). 3: The call was not entirely without merit. This is the ONLY metric to use on a call as the effect on the game proceeding simply cannot be known. I see a few people speculating on the effect of the original call and whether that should be taken into account, it cannot. We can never know what would have happened. However, given that the issue is not frivolous it is reasonable to expect both players to wait for a judge. I would like to clarify that the 3rd party who asked the floor judge to escalate was the in the french team (I think the captain, I'd have to check my notes) and this has been done at previous WTCs and I see no reason to break with precedence. I'm sorry, use of 3rd party was unclear and inconsistent there. It was not just a passerby. Hugin were listed as the winners because, after all this, the results of a game were filled in wrong (IIRC Not the final contentious game even) and had to be corrected. I'm not saying no mistakes were made here and I expect next year we'll have some guidelines from the committee for captains about some of these issues. What I am saying is: The game was not "Over" The head judge was called to rule on a non-trivial matter Both teams were aware a ruling was coming When I arrived, one team had left. With these facts established, the game loss is sadly the only choice to be made though even then I called another PP Qualified judge out of the finals rooms to discuss it before making that call. I won't be giving out much more in the way of details, but I will answer questions if you have them. If this is true, than the France team should also give some explainations, since from some facebook posts and the apology post on Jarle blog they seem to have denied to be the ones that asked for the excalation and actually said to not being even aware of that. The whole thing is strange... Norway, France and the Judges have 3 different versions (also, Norway said that the sheets were delivered), so more than one person isn't reporting the truth. Not so strange given that it was an emotional/stressful situation involving a dozen people, and probably none of them actually have the whole picture. Which is not to say one or more of them aren't shading the truth a little, just that the confusion is not surprising to me.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 11, 2017 8:07:04 GMT
The ruling itself was not based on unsportsmanlike conduct. I don’t think that was ever indicated by the judges or the committee. They have specifically avoided saying what exactly the ruling was based on. They just say that there was a dispute raised, the specific nature of which they refuse to disclose. This whole issue is all about how the judges and the committee refuse to give that indication. So I disagree with your conclusion that since the WTC haven't indicated that the ruling was based on "outside factors" (something not rule related), then that must mean that the dispute raised must be entirely rules based and must have nothing to do with player conduct. There was at least one post stating specifically that the countercharge was the only thing being looked at. The way this whole fallout was handled is more than likely affected by other factors, but according to someone from the WTC the dispute itself was based solely on a gameplay dispute.
|
|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 11, 2017 8:13:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by jisidro on Oct 11, 2017 8:13:56 GMT
I don't get the shroud os mystery surrounding all the explanations... It's more intriguing than the case itself.
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 11, 2017 8:45:50 GMT
The ruling itself was not based on unsportsmanlike conduct. I don’t think that was ever indicated by the judges or the committee. They have specifically avoided saying what exactly the ruling was based on. They just say that there was a dispute raised, the specific nature of which they refuse to disclose. This whole issue is all about how the judges and the committee refuse to give that indication. So I disagree with your conclusion that since the WTC haven't indicated that the ruling was based on "outside factors" (something not rule related), then that must mean that the dispute raised must be entirely rules based and must have nothing to do with player conduct. Incorrect. They stated the post was an attempt to explain the reasoning behind the decision. They attempted to say what the ruling was based on explicitly. They did so very poorly. No the whole issue is a lack of clarity with regards to how the ruling was made or the justifications for it. They also stated explicitly that the complaint was solely a game play issue, and that outside factors where definitely not a factor. The head judges comments resolved the issues I had. I believed the etc is in the right now per his comments on the issue. They used unambiguous plain language and you missed the point.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 8:50:22 GMT
There was at least one post stating specifically that the countercharge was the only thing being looked at. The way this whole fallout was handled is more than likely affected by other factors, but according to someone from the WTC the dispute itself was based solely on a gameplay dispute. In the post I saw on facebook, Tim asked "Were there any other issues than the countercharge thing related to this decision?" and the WTC person said "No, it was just the countercharge thing". And obviously this rules issue is what the whole thing arises from. There isn't a second rules issue, like, ooops, the Norway player actually also had too many models on the table or something. There is just a single rules issue. The rules issue is the countercharge thing. That's what that answer meant. My point is simply that there is obviously some other factor involved that isn't being disclosed. Something that is related to the discussion of the countercharge rules issue. The WTC judge simply says that the issue "was not trivial". He doesn't say why it was not trivial. If it was just "someone made a rules mistake", then it would be trivial. People make rules mistakes in every single game. I don't see how anyone could think that an issue requiring reversal of game results and an enquiry by the WTC committee afterwards is all just about someone making a rules mistake.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 8:53:20 GMT
Incorrect. They stated the post was an attempt to explain the reasoning behind the decision. They attempted to say what the ruling was based on explicitly. They did so very poorly. No the whole issue is a lack of clarity with regards to how the ruling was made or the justifications for it. They also stated explicitly that the complaint was solely a game play issue, and that outside factors where definitely not a factor. The head judges comments resolved the issues I had. I believed the etc is in the right now per his comments on the issue. They used unambiguous plain language and you missed the point. I don't see what you see in the explanations given. Can you provide quotes where they explicitly state what you claim they state? Maybe I missed the point, but then help me see your point by backing it up.
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 11, 2017 9:05:07 GMT
That is a cop out for a terrible ruling. The committee member says plainly that the only specifics to the case where those of the ruling on the table. Public shaming could be avoided by just admitting a sports issue but not going into specifics if that where the case. Hiding a sports issue ruling within a gameplay ruling is both dishonest and idiotic. It definitely does not foster trust in the abilities of the judges, or organizers. So if you would be satisfied with the ruling if the WTC admitted that it was based on unacceptable player behaviour, then surely the ruling itself isn't terrible. Then the only terrible thing, or at least dishonest and idiotic thing, is that the WTC won't admit what the ruling is based on. Right? If they admitted it was a sports issue yes it is a terrible ruling. They should not rule against a game infraction based on a sports issue. The sports issue should be raised as a separate complaint. If they ruled in the favor of France on the game infraction based on a sports issue the integrity of the judging staff is definitely in question. The only way a judge can and should rule on a game rules infraction is to enforce the rules in the judge document/game. Adding outside factors like sports to what is essentially a rules question opens up a huge can of worms. They did admit what the ruling was based on. The original explanation was flimsy and did not hold water. The explanation given by the head judge was satisfactory for me to agree with his rationale. If given that point of view (of the head judge) then, yes, that is the only was the wtc could have ruled. I don't like how this was handled by any side of the argument. Both sides wronged the other in some way. The Norwegian captain for cracking off publicly, the etc for posting an unnecessarily vague explanation full of holes, and the French for lying.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 11, 2017 9:09:58 GMT
If I were the WTC I would just give the full story at this point, naming and shaming everyone involved, I know they want to avoid people getting personally abused like the 'Finger of God' player a few years back, but this endless speculation and calling their ability to judge correctly into question is damaging the reputation of the WTC and puts the likelihood of future WTC's in jeopardy.
If you don't want to be publically berated and humiliated then don't cheat and don't be unsporting. WTC are making a martyr of themselves to protect someone who is in the wrong.
|
|