Login

russian armor

Stuve DQ reduced to points penalty and warning

  • This thread is locked
A_E
27 Jul 2018, 00:48 AM
#1
avatar of A_E
Lead Caster Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2247 | Subs: 4

For context Stuve caused his quarter final match vs. VonIvan to be late, and also refused to play a 3rd place play off vs. Kimbo. This was unacceptable and after discussions resulted in a DQ.

However in hindsight this was the first tournament where Stuve has been warned or penalised in such a fashion, and there were small mitigating circumstances that were not originally taken into account. Therefore there is a general idea that a full DQ is too harsh a penalty.

As a result Stuve has been issued a -3 points deduction (as though he had only reached the quarter finals and not the match he forfeit). He has also acknowledged that he is on a final warning with regards to the rules etc.
27 Jul 2018, 01:01 AM
#2
avatar of stuve

Posts: 22

Thank you for reconsidering the disqualification and I would also like to apologize to both gcs fans and contributors/organizers for not fully understanding the importance of the third place game, im so sorry :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDyP9zxgCXU
27 Jul 2018, 01:02 AM
#3
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 3700 | Subs: 1

Disagree entirely. This discredits our penalty system, refs, organizers and harms our benefactors.
27 Jul 2018, 01:05 AM
#4
avatar of VonIvan

Posts: 2399 | Subs: 21

A_E
27 Jul 2018, 01:07 AM
#5
avatar of A_E
Lead Caster Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2247 | Subs: 4

Disagree entirely. This discredits our penalty system, refs, organizers and harms our benefactors.


Actually the penalty system as written would indicate that an overall DQ is too harsh in this instance.

I think we have shown we are more than capable of sticking to the letter of the rules we have laid out and are strong enough to ensure players play with respect and honesty.

But there is strength in admitting when you have been too strict, and I think this is a case of that.
27 Jul 2018, 01:12 AM
#6
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 3700 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jul 2018, 01:07 AMA_E


Actually the penalty system as written would indicate that an overall DQ is too harsh in this instance.

I think we have shown we are more than capable of sticking to the letter of the rules we have laid out and are strong enough to ensure players play with respect and honesty.

But there is strength in admitting when you have been too strict, and I think this is a case of that.


DQing someone who opted to play PUBG because his game wasn’t being live casted seems fine to me. If your reason to play is being casted live and won’t play when you’re not seems like a massive insult to the people who put these things together.

Who was consulted here for this decision?

Doesn’t particularly matter now though. Going back on this decision would look awful.

And as contextual reference. Might help to throw up other players current points and who’s likely to even win in the points system.
A_E
27 Jul 2018, 01:28 AM
#7
avatar of A_E
Lead Caster Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2247 | Subs: 4



DQing someone who opted to play PUBG because his game wasn’t being live casted seems fine to me. If your reason to play is being casted live and won’t play when you’re not seems like a massive insult to the people who put these things together.

Who was consulted here for this decision?

Doesn’t particularly matter now though. Going back on this decision would look awful.


I suppose a few mitigating circumstances would help you understand why I even considered re-evaluating this decision, they're not all valid in my eyes but they are things to be considered:

1) Stuve was never directly told there could be penalties or issues if he refused to play. He thought of himself as 'forfeiting' and that as a valid option. I consider it non-competitive behaviour and awful but I've been running tournaments for years. For some of our players exposure to competitive events is low, and misunderstandings can happen.

2) There was less of a stage being shown that day to the third place match in not casting it, and after having a delay for the world cup final. We had valid reasons and had planned for all of this, but not everyone sees all the posts regarding the tournament, so it can still create an atmosphere of the third place match not mattering as much.

3) Stuve had been BM'd by Kimbo during the day, even after I instructed all players to respect one another, which set the mood for him. Just a mitigating circumstance.

4) Stuve had been constructive and apologetic when approached.

5) There were miscommunications that were as a result of being understaffed for referees on Day 1, that contributed to the lateness in the quarter final game.

6) The DQ was decided quite quickly, one day, without consulting all referees and organisers.

If you want any detailed info just PM me.
27 Jul 2018, 11:26 AM
#8
avatar of BartonPL

Posts: 2806 | Subs: 6

i want details :snfBarton:
A_E
27 Jul 2018, 11:39 AM
#9
avatar of A_E
Lead Caster Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2247 | Subs: 4

i want details :snfBarton:


You are the last Pole standing.

27 Jul 2018, 11:47 AM
#10
avatar of alcoholic
Patrion 15

Posts: 93

good news.

now you have only to pardon mad kimbo on the grounds of "not guilty by reason of insanity" and start diggin the escape tunnel for noggano and then we are all set and ready to go

:)
27 Jul 2018, 11:48 AM
#11
avatar of BartonPL

Posts: 2806 | Subs: 6

rumors says that noggano tried to escape Russia, got catched and now he's in gulag, together with jove :snfBarton:
27 Jul 2018, 11:50 AM
#12
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2165 | Subs: 1


DQing someone who opted to play PUBG because his game wasn’t being live casted seems fine to me. If your reason to play is being casted live and won’t play when you’re not seems like a massive insult to the people who put these things together.


Agree 100%. Not sure what has gotten into AE. So many sensible good decisions and then this. Why allow a guy back into your tournament after he made it obvious he doesn´t care whatsoever about the tournament, you as a organizer or all the people that donated? Makes no sense.
A_E
27 Jul 2018, 11:57 AM
#13
avatar of A_E
Lead Caster Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2247 | Subs: 4



Agree 100%. Not sure what has gotten into AE. So many sensible good decisions and then this. Why allow a guy back into your tournament after he made it obvious he doesn´t care whatsoever about the tournament, you as a organizer or all the people that donated? Makes no sense.


The guy has had one very strict and harsh penalty removed and replaced with a very strict but slightly less harsh penalty and several conditions also.
27 Jul 2018, 12:00 PM
#14
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2165 | Subs: 1

This is what you said AE:

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Jul 2018, 21:27 PMA_E


Stuve was banned from GCS2 in total.

To further clarify what happened:

Upon agreeing a time to play his match, a time of his choosing, Stuve then said he would no longer play that match and forfeit. His reason being that the match wasn't being live cast. We told him it was being saved for Tightrope to cast after, he still refused. He then played PUBG.

Does this seem like the actions of a player that is respecting the tournament that people have pledged 13,000 USD in prize money to create? No.

At this point in the process the GCS2 points situation is supposed to be seen to really start to matter, Stuve made them look completely worthless and by association made GCS2 look worthless.

Stuve forfeit any right to play in GCS2, I had top benefactors and fans of his stream tell me something needed to be done about it, all the referees that discussed it agreed on the course of action (5 referees total), and so the obvious action was taken.

On a personal point I'll add that I thought his game 1 vs. Jesuiln was the best of GCS2 so far, but we can't have players that forfeit important matches like that, it makes a mockery of the competition.


jump backJump back to quoted post19 Jul 2018, 21:51 PMA_E


I don't disagree with anything you've said.

If it was a smaller tournament with less at stake it he would probably have had a warning and that's it.

It isn't a small tournament though, it's for a huge prize pool, and therefore forfeiting without a good reason is way more of an issue as is anti-competitive behaviour of the highest order.

Also from a respect standpoint the amount of work and effort from players, fans, and organisers etc means that we can't have people just forfeiting like that and also making the points system look like a joke. It's just not right, and is unfair to everyone involved.

You got to see Stuve play some good matches, but he clearly doesn't respect the organised competition element, so it's not the end of the world for him or you his fan.


I believe banning him is the right decision, i was watching the event live and stuve caused 40 minute break because of his refusal to play also many people were hyped for kimbo vs stuve which is stolen from the viewers. His spoiled behaviour is can be dangerous for the live event if he can qualify.


This is what other have said:

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Jul 2018, 11:08 AMd0ggY


This was not an act of Sportsmanship, Disrespectful to all people who put an effort or other support in this tournament and pretty much an insult to all the people who really want join the Live Event and have not gotten this far.

Since he was avaiable he could have just played the 3 games, take one for the community and put up a good fight against Kimbo to give the people the match they really wanted to see, that had everything in there, rivalry, 2 players who do like to shittalk each other in automatch sometimes, that might not be the best friends.


I fully support the DQ decision. Trolling and horsing around on stream and auto-match is all good fun but when it comes to GCS, GCS >>>> anyone.

Way too many hours have been put into organization of this event (not to mention financial contribution by community) for someone to act like a diva and cause problems for organizers throughout the tourney.


Only a handful of Stuve´s friends have disagreed with the decision. So why change it all of a sudden? This hurts your reputation, GCS2 and everyone who donated.
A_E
27 Jul 2018, 12:06 PM
#15
avatar of A_E
Lead Caster Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2247 | Subs: 4

This is what you said AE:


Then I reassessed in the light of new information and mitigating factors that were not originally considered.

We were too harsh with a full DQ and I feel this reassessing and conditional entry with penalties is fair.
27 Jul 2018, 12:13 PM
#16
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2165 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jul 2018, 12:06 PMA_E


Then I reassessed in the light of new information and mitigating factors that were not originally considered.

We were too harsh with a full DQ and I feel this reassessing and conditional entry with penalties is fair.


So the referee team came to the conclusion that it was too harsh or you individually?

A_E
27 Jul 2018, 12:19 PM
#17
avatar of A_E
Lead Caster Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2247 | Subs: 4



So the referee team came to the conclusion that it was too harsh or you individually?



If you must know the refs/organisers voted 3 to 2. And then another messaged me saying they agreed with the decision after the vote. So 4-2.

Very difficult decision though but I am confident that this is fair.

Also struntigergadafi the guy you quoted, and I constructed an approach and agreement with stuve. So I wasn't the only person assessing the situation again.
27 Jul 2018, 12:20 PM
#18
avatar of Sturmpanther
Lead Strategist Badge

Posts: 5066 | Subs: 19



So the referee team came to the conclusion that it was too harsh or you individually?


There was a vote and stuve had one more vote to be back in gcs2. Was a though situation
27 Jul 2018, 12:20 PM
#19
avatar of Siphon X.
Senior Editor Badge

Posts: 1136 | Subs: 2

The other day I was thinking about writing a post about that I thought the DQ was too harsh. However, I read through the rules again, and it allows for a lot of wiggle room, so technically the DQ was in order (that is, if at least 4 refs voted for it).

Still, I think reverting it is a good decision mainly because the DQ seems overly harsh. The rules are not really specific on what penalties to expect and forfeiting the match for 3rd; well, ok, you certainly wouldn't think that you would get 3rd place automatically. But maybe you you would automatically be counted as 4th. Or, that you would get no points for the complete qualification tournament. Being DQed from the complete tournament I think is kinda unexpected.

Now, I think it would be in order if Stuve was told beforehand that not playing the match would lead to a DQ, but it sounds like this didn't happen here, so...

Mind you, it is not the first time that a player forfeit in GSC2 (albeit for potentially more relevant reasons...).
27 Jul 2018, 14:04 PM
#20
avatar of LanceCorporalJones

Posts: 12

Speaking only as an ordinary spectator, I am glad it was possible to reconsider the DQ decision
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Oberkommando West flag |Zeva| The Angry Dutchman
  • U.S. Forces flag Nicko
uploaded by Stijndee

Board Info

250 users are online: 3 members and 247 guests
afrrs, elchino7, 7harpere6685tB1
82 posts in the last 24h
724 posts in the last week
3216 posts in the last month
Registered members: 28843
Welcome our newest member, Bocciase50x
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM