|
by LD_Mike, Level 25
Last updated at February 25, 2008, 5:25 pm
|
it in a piece with the controversy surrounding Warden, Sasquatch, and the
infamous match.
Then people threw some extra kerosene on the fire -- gallons and gallons of kerosene --- along
with a firecracker or two, and I changed my mind. There's so much to say about
the other situation that this subtopic completely lost its place. If nine out
of ten words were going to be about the "bribery", or whatever we want to call
it, I might as well make it 10/10 and take the misfit words out.
But I still wanted to weigh in on CEVO's decision regarding
the actual match, so let's take a quick look at that. This will deal with
everything regarding the actual forfeiture of the match, e.g. Sasquatch's lack
of demos, the packeting, match pausing, etc.

I hope you're game for CEVO talk; this is just Part One.
remaining rounds after the pause due to Sasquatch's failure to produce demos
during the standard twenty-four hour window. That resulted in a 10-8 win for
compLexity.
I have small complaints with this ruling. The first is that
it doesn't follow any of the listed rules in CEVO's official page. Here are the
rules governing missing demos.
10.40
Evidence Requests
20.30 Player POV (First Person Demos)
Sasquatch didn't turn in a demo, and the rules are pretty clear:
"If a player has been requested to submit demos to an official for
whatever reason, the player has forty-eight (4
does not have the requested information, THE FOLLOWING PENALTIES WILL BE
ENFORCED:
- 1st Offense: Warning + match overturn ...
...If a player fails to start their demo prior to the beginning of match
play, any round not recorded in the demo will be overturned and
rewarded to the other team."
The window is something of a technicality since the
forty-eight hour standard would have interfered with the playoffs, but
according to the letter of the law, the match should have been overturned and a
warning issued to Sasquatch. Neither of those happened. The match went into the
record books as 10-8, and no warning was issued to Devastation or Sasquatch.
But besides the actual wording, I disagree with the thought
that the match should be decided with rules and regulations instead of Colts,
AKs, and AWPs. I'm aware this flies in the face of the first sentence, which
clearly states "for whatever reason", and Sasquatch's demos were requested to
verify his money. My only qualm is that Sasquatch's money wasn't an issue. His
team had won five rounds in a row, and he offered to take the worst-case
scenario. If we're going to ignore the exact wording of the rules, we might as
well get some dramatic CS out of it, as fans.
Still, I realize I'm not arguing from a position of
strength, here. I'm not presenting this as an argument that CEVO did something wrong, just as something that I would have liked to see. I want to know who would have won that match if they had played out, and I think CS fans would agree.

5 comments
Romantic Feb 25, 2008 at 5:38 pm
+0 votes
10-8 means the match was overturned in favor of coL... you dumb? And how do you know no warning was issue to Devastation/Sasquatch? Clearly if he does it again it will be penalized as a second offense.
Slasher Feb 25, 2008 at 5:44 pm
+1 votes
Devastation did not get a warning. Look here - http://www.gameriot.com/blogs/LANDodger-Blog/CEVO-Rules-on-compLexity-v-Devastation/
LD_Mike Feb 25, 2008 at 5:49 pm
+2 votes
I should have referenced the post in Slasher's comment to make it more clear; CEVO said that there was no warning. That's how I know there was no warning.
The match wasn't "overturned" in favor of coL because an overturn results in a "x" to zero match score -- like Week 2 here, for instance: http://www.cevo.com/index.php?page=teams&func=view&id=6573&div=112 There's also a note made as "overturned" next to the final score. The match between Dev and coL has neither of these.
If they overturned just the rounds where Sasquatch didn't have a demo, the score would have been 10-3 (dev had 3 rounds in the first half, and first to 10 wins).
The match wasn't "overturned" in favor of coL because an overturn results in a "x" to zero match score -- like Week 2 here, for instance: http://www.cevo.com/index.php?page=teams&func=view&id=6573&div=112 There's also a note made as "overturned" next to the final score. The match between Dev and coL has neither of these.
If they overturned just the rounds where Sasquatch didn't have a demo, the score would have been 10-3 (dev had 3 rounds in the first half, and first to 10 wins).
Romantic Feb 25, 2008 at 6:50 pm
+1 votes
It's called "overturning the rest of the rounds to be played in favor of coL."
coL 6-8 Devastation
coL 10-8 Devastation
Overturning in favor of coL has to result in "x" to zero match score? Look at your example again. What difference do you notice? On that game in Week 2, the match finished. The coL vs Devastation match didn't. How are you going to overturn a match that FINISHED while keeping the same score? "13-13 match was overturned"? Placing it as 13-0 is necessary because there's obviously no other way to write it. Just giving coL the remaining points was enough to secure coL the win because the game was not finished. Changing anything else isn't necessary.
Furthermore, saying devastation got a warning then making a link to your OWN BLOG is not really credible. In the blog I didn't see a link to CEVO saying they specifically did not get a warning for not recording a demo. I'm not saying i'm convinced either way that they did or did not get one, but your whole basis is around these facts and unless you back it up, it seems like you're pulling it out of the air.
coL 6-8 Devastation
coL 10-8 Devastation
Overturning in favor of coL has to result in "x" to zero match score? Look at your example again. What difference do you notice? On that game in Week 2, the match finished. The coL vs Devastation match didn't. How are you going to overturn a match that FINISHED while keeping the same score? "13-13 match was overturned"? Placing it as 13-0 is necessary because there's obviously no other way to write it. Just giving coL the remaining points was enough to secure coL the win because the game was not finished. Changing anything else isn't necessary.
Furthermore, saying devastation got a warning then making a link to your OWN BLOG is not really credible. In the blog I didn't see a link to CEVO saying they specifically did not get a warning for not recording a demo. I'm not saying i'm convinced either way that they did or did not get one, but your whole basis is around these facts and unless you back it up, it seems like you're pulling it out of the air.
LD_Mike Feb 25, 2008 at 8:28 pm
+1 votes
I understand your concerns, and a healthy does of skepticism isn't a bad thing, but that link is the only one available to us as far as I know. CEVO never made an official release; GameRiot talked to the CEVO officials and this is our understanding of what was said. 
Just a couple other things in response:
It is called "overturning the rest of the rounds to be played in favor of coL". Which is not the same as overturning the match, which is what the rules called for, which is my original point. Or, they could have chosen to use the second stipulation, which was ... "...If a player fails to start their demo prior to the beginning of match play, any round not recorded in the demo will be overturned and rewarded to the other team." That would have resulted in a 10-3 win.
Also, nowhere in the rule does it state that the match has to be finished for there to be an overturn.
Changing anything else might not be necessary to determine who wins, but CPI takes into account the margin of victory, and also rewards forfeits differently than played wins. Maybe nothing would change, but I think it's still important to follow the letter of the law based on the ruling, if that was their decision.
Just a couple other things in response:
It is called "overturning the rest of the rounds to be played in favor of coL". Which is not the same as overturning the match, which is what the rules called for, which is my original point. Or, they could have chosen to use the second stipulation, which was ... "...If a player fails to start their demo prior to the beginning of match play, any round not recorded in the demo will be overturned and rewarded to the other team." That would have resulted in a 10-3 win.
Also, nowhere in the rule does it state that the match has to be finished for there to be an overturn.
Changing anything else might not be necessary to determine who wins, but CPI takes into account the margin of victory, and also rewards forfeits differently than played wins. Maybe nothing would change, but I think it's still important to follow the letter of the law based on the ruling, if that was their decision.
« Previous |
1 |
Next » |
eSports Commentary, Coverage, Humor. One blog to rule them all.
1 Subscriber
Started February 1, 2008
54 Total Entries
54 Total Entries
THE SPOTLIGHT
Arrested over tip, Hassan terrorist, Chuck, Avatar…


Your Comment is being posted. Please wait...