Being friends with both people involved, I think the decision shouldve been to just let them play within a 24 hour window once this was found. Seems both players "missed" Monday since there wasn't any contact by any as evidenced by Amir's screenshot. It's round FUCKING 6, let them both play, they obviously spent alot of time and effort to get here....
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
The UU Open IX - Round 7
- Thread starter Boat
- Start date
- Status
Considering the TDs appear to be intent on sticking by their decision, I think it is important that they should give a proper explanation into 3 important points raised in this case - for the sake of clarity and to protect the integrity of their decision, and indeed the tournament.
1. Based on the evidence provided by High Impulse, both players missed the scheduled time, however one player made an attempt to contact his opponent on 2/3 of the remaining extended days (during the timeframe which CBU earlier stated was acceptable), while the other player made no attempt to contact his opponent on any of the extended days - why does this result in a coinflip for both players? While neither party covered themselves in glory, there appears to only have been one party who contacted his opponent during any of the extended days, wouldn't this ordinarily result in the only active party being given the win?
2. Why was the host of the tournament allowed to lie in his justification of the activity call, with seemingly no consequence or explanation needed for this lie. As there had been no communication of CBU's inability to play beyond Monday to High Impulse, it is important that Boat clarifies why he said this when justifying the decision, as it was not accurate and should not have been factored into any activity call reached.
3. Why do Smogon's own tournament rules of falsifying activity not come into play here? Based on evidence given by High Impulse, CBU falsified activity by claiming his opponent missed the scheduled time, without making any contact to his opponent during or after this claim. Considering the original activity call was given based on this claim, and then reversed when evidence was provided by High Impulse, doesn't this come under falsifying activity? And if not why is this the case?
Eo Ut Mortus jake kjdaas Luigi Quite Quiet given as TDs you have nothing to hide here, you should be able to provide an answer to the points raised, and clarify your reason for reaching those decisions. I read the response given to High Impulse earlier and it failed to answer any of these critical points. Thank you.
1. Based on the evidence provided by High Impulse, both players missed the scheduled time, however one player made an attempt to contact his opponent on 2/3 of the remaining extended days (during the timeframe which CBU earlier stated was acceptable), while the other player made no attempt to contact his opponent on any of the extended days - why does this result in a coinflip for both players? While neither party covered themselves in glory, there appears to only have been one party who contacted his opponent during any of the extended days, wouldn't this ordinarily result in the only active party being given the win?
2. Why was the host of the tournament allowed to lie in his justification of the activity call, with seemingly no consequence or explanation needed for this lie. As there had been no communication of CBU's inability to play beyond Monday to High Impulse, it is important that Boat clarifies why he said this when justifying the decision, as it was not accurate and should not have been factored into any activity call reached.
3. Why do Smogon's own tournament rules of falsifying activity not come into play here? Based on evidence given by High Impulse, CBU falsified activity by claiming his opponent missed the scheduled time, without making any contact to his opponent during or after this claim. Considering the original activity call was given based on this claim, and then reversed when evidence was provided by High Impulse, doesn't this come under falsifying activity? And if not why is this the case?
Eo Ut Mortus jake kjdaas Luigi Quite Quiet given as TDs you have nothing to hide here, you should be able to provide an answer to the points raised, and clarify your reason for reaching those decisions. I read the response given to High Impulse earlier and it failed to answer any of these critical points. Thank you.
Both of them were active on Smogon within 20 minutes of me making this post. Just have them play the bo3 rn (within 12/24 hrs?) to end this drama. This isn’t just me bantering or w/e, i agree with SOMALIA that coinflipping a high stakes round 6 game is worse than giving them a short extension (especially since they have both been active).
I also think there should be some sort of rule against dodging your opponent’s attempts to reschedule. The log shows CBU not replying to HI’s contact attempts on Tuesday, presumably because he talked to Boat and was promised a coinflip. This would all be resolved if CBU had to reply to his opponent; if not trying to reschedule (or even replying to remind/tell HI that he would be busy after Monday) made him ineligible for a coinflip, CBU probably would have responded and they’d get the game done.
Edit: ok come on guys LOL just play
I also think there should be some sort of rule against dodging your opponent’s attempts to reschedule. The log shows CBU not replying to HI’s contact attempts on Tuesday, presumably because he talked to Boat and was promised a coinflip. This would all be resolved if CBU had to reply to his opponent; if not trying to reschedule (or even replying to remind/tell HI that he would be busy after Monday) made him ineligible for a coinflip, CBU probably would have responded and they’d get the game done.
Edit: ok come on guys LOL just play
Last edited:
teal6 this is a situation where we could use the help of the Head TD...
If an extension is out and no activity can be awarded, the only remaining option is a coinflip. I don't think the host and TDs are trying to make a case for why a coinflip is the right call, just that it's just the least wrong one.
I know the immediate response is that not giving an extension is just bureaucratic bullshit. I can understand that. As a player, I'd rather see these two play because it's simply not fair that CBU gets to advance to R7 without a R6 opponent. Just understand that that's the perspective of a player looking at a coinflip and not a group of people that have to keep the bigger picture of Grand Slam IX and tournament rules & guidelines in mind.
Speaking from the perspective of a tournament host, these are my thoughts on this situation:
The "common sense" solution of extending the extension sounds like the easiest solution, but it disregards the rules on extensions and the purpose of deadlines. Tournaments need to move along and deadlines enforce that. Not to mention that this matchup has other matchups depending on it and any delay could potentially delay the playoffs of Grand Slam. If you think this is just a nitpick, see blarghlfarghl vs skelos from last year's NU Open finals. That's a matchup where it literally did not matter who won, not a single thing about Grand Slam VIII playoffs changed as a result. Instead of extending until the heat death of the universe, No Winner was declared and that was that.
I could maybe see another extension for CBU and High Impulse if they really tried to get the series done and just couldn't find a compatible time, but that's not what happened here. The major factor behind this series not getting done wasn't time, it was poor communication and availability from largely CBU's end. Rewarding that with another extension would be a mistake and not at all the point of giving extensions.
If there's not a case for an extension, what about activity? From the screenshot provided by HI, it looks like he should be slightly favored, but I personally wouldn't award activity for only that. It's also not the entirety of their scheduling, so I asked HI for the rest of their PMs. I won't disclose anything specific because I didn't get permission to share, but simply put: any favor in activity from the extension is cancelled out by what happened before the extension. I wouldn't award activity to either side after looking at the full picture.
I could maybe see another extension for CBU and High Impulse if they really tried to get the series done and just couldn't find a compatible time, but that's not what happened here. The major factor behind this series not getting done wasn't time, it was poor communication and availability from largely CBU's end. Rewarding that with another extension would be a mistake and not at all the point of giving extensions.
If there's not a case for an extension, what about activity? From the screenshot provided by HI, it looks like he should be slightly favored, but I personally wouldn't award activity for only that. It's also not the entirety of their scheduling, so I asked HI for the rest of their PMs. I won't disclose anything specific because I didn't get permission to share, but simply put: any favor in activity from the extension is cancelled out by what happened before the extension. I wouldn't award activity to either side after looking at the full picture.
I know the immediate response is that not giving an extension is just bureaucratic bullshit. I can understand that. As a player, I'd rather see these two play because it's simply not fair that CBU gets to advance to R7 without a R6 opponent. Just understand that that's the perspective of a player looking at a coinflip and not a group of people that have to keep the bigger picture of Grand Slam IX and tournament rules & guidelines in mind.
I've also seen this being thrown around and it's totally uncalled for. As much as I think CBU was pretty scummy about this, it literally says "making up fake logs or deleting communication" and "forging logs". CBU claimed he was online and High Impulse wasn't in his activity post; it was found that he couldn't back up these claims according to the new guidelines so activity wasn't given to him (eventually). None of this is anywhere near egregious enough for a tourban, and for what it's worth, the poster of this shouldn't have gotten a tourban for what they did either.
Last edited:
You should do it bro. You look like you have the gusto to appeal to the people and make difficult decisions under community pressure. Shit, have bugzinator as your assman TD. Tandem of the year imo.
#headtdalumn
Look mate I've been done by TDs in the past. You take it & deal with it at the end of the day. There's nothing wrong with them standing by their decisions as long as they are willing to back them up. Don't know why anyone would have a problem with some clarity being provided as that's all that's being asked of here.
bro i lost all my power after i made a very public thread tagging chaos telling him to pay his employees. i am sorry my friend but i have been defeated. good luck in whatevers going on here though
Diophantine
Banned deucer.
If High Impulse doesn’t get the win then I call for the removal of every TD on smogon. Time after time tournament hosters make the worst calls without caring about the result and TDs just let them do whatever. The same thing happened to me in the LGPE opening tour round 3 and My opp got the act win and no further investigation was made by TDs despite my proof (and them actually agreeing with me).
i really stay away from this kinda stuff 'cuz i understand how much of a thankless job hosting tours and being a td is, but this can't possibly be the right call guys. can we please have some form of explanation? i have no relationship with any party involved, but this really doesn't make any sense
as a former UU open champion I approve this message
High Impulse contacted me yesterday evening contesting this decision. I responded a few hours later, and he followed up with me this afternoon. I've spent the last few hours talking to him and also gathering information from the hosts and other TDs to ensure I correctly understood the situation and the appropriate policy measures to take. If the interim silence has reflected poorly on the TD team, I'll eat it. I'll always prioritize speaking with the affected individuals before any sort of PR.
We have confirmed between the participants that this match can get done within the next 16 hours and have accordingly granted the extension. This is based on a number of extenuating factors, and we cannot always guarantee that an extension will be afforded in similar circumstances. I want to emphasize that this decision was based on what information was assembled regarding the situation and not public outcry. High Impulse presented his case to me in PMs, we heard it out, and that's all that really matters.
I'd like to address some specific points raised in the thread.
We have confirmed between the participants that this match can get done within the next 16 hours and have accordingly granted the extension. This is based on a number of extenuating factors, and we cannot always guarantee that an extension will be afforded in similar circumstances. I want to emphasize that this decision was based on what information was assembled regarding the situation and not public outcry. High Impulse presented his case to me in PMs, we heard it out, and that's all that really matters.
I'd like to address some specific points raised in the thread.
CBU wasn't promised anything as far as we can tell. If he was under the impression he was eligible for an activity win, it was by his own, incorrect assumption.
High Impulse only followed up from his missed time 24 hours after the fact, giving just a little over a day for the two to schedule a game, and he didn't offer availability, but just asked if CBU could play then, when there was no indication as to whether or he was actually online and available. Given that he missed the initial, pre-extension time, I think it's fair to consider both participants roughly equal at fault in not getting the match done.
CBU told the host he would be unavailable after the weekend and posted it on several others' walls while scheduling with them that weekend, before the extended match was to take place. Calling it "well-documented" is meaningless and misleading to the public, who does not have access to the same correspondence, but it's a willfully unfair misrepresentation to frame a poor turn of phrase as something as malicious as a lie.
CBU's basis for an activity claim was that he could not find High Impulse on main or tours. No, this is not the proper way to check in with your opponent per the new, clarified rules, but it strikes me as draconian to frame an inability to follow the rules as a malicious and infractionable offense when we're in the same breath affording an extension to two people who failed to complete their match because of it.
None of those rules dictated our decision to initially coinflip the match versus grant an extension. In fact, those rules are exactly what nullified CBU's activity win. He didn't check in with High Impulse at the scheduled time; otherwise, the match would've probably gotten done. We stand by these rules and hold the belief that more matches will get done if people follow them.
High Impulse vs CBU
Won vs CBU in 3.
Thank you for all the support, it means a lot to me. Thanks to Eo for allowing a further extension too.
Thank you for all the support, it means a lot to me. Thanks to Eo for allowing a further extension too.
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8uu-1165565955-zcwcykareyynvmcxgwjyaogbr7uxrw1pw
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8uu-1165573614-7wfpk4g1fadcqif8ila5260etocmi49pw
won in 2 nailbitters vs ub, ggs and gl in poffs
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8uu-1165573614-7wfpk4g1fadcqif8ila5260etocmi49pw
won in 2 nailbitters vs ub, ggs and gl in poffs
pokemonisfun
Banned deucer.
Not that you need to since it was a r6 game, but do you have replays by any chance? CBU is a top player and I study his games and you're apparently very good too
- Status