WC2013 Grand Finals

[Monomax]

I just wanna say that after my day 1, I decided to go take a break and relax. Whatever happened and was decided on IRC while I was not there was unknown to me. Major rule like that should NOT be stated on IRC.

Thats no ordinary tournament, thats WORLD !! Man, taking such a decision without writing it is HUGE.

I dont accept that ruling.
TO decided that this was the final decision.

[Gondorian]

I just wanna say that after my day 1, I decided to go take a break and relax.

Don't blame you!

Whatever happened and was decided on IRC while I was not there was unknown to me.

No decision was made on IRC. The decision had been made long before.

Major rule like that should NOT be stated on IRC.

The rule was already stated on the thread, and the original bracket, but clarified on IRC.

Failure of the forum's tournament system to show brackets properly led to Challonge being used but obviously that could not affect the tournament's format. If we changed the format at short notice just because of a technical hitch, that would be really bad. Instead, nothing specified before the event changed at all throughout.

[Raphael Majere]

The rules for the events are the following:

Day 1

The competition begins Saturday 7pm GMT November 23rd
• The matches will be bo3, double elimination with no sideboards (deck lock) with a bo5 finals

Day 2

• The competition begins Sunday 2pm GMT November 24th
• The matches will be bo3, double elimination with a 10 card sideboard (deck lock) with a bo5 finals

What is double elimination?

A double-elimination tournament is a type of elimination tournament competition in which a participant ceases to be eligible to win the tournament's championship upon having lost two matches. It stands in contrast to a single-elimination tournament, in which only one defeat results in elimination. For more information about double elimination tournaments click here (external link).

1. No decision was made on IRC. The decision had been made long before.

2. The rule was already stated on the thread, and the original bracket, but clarified on IRC.

3. Failure of the forum's tournament system to show brackets properly led to Challonge being used but obviously that could not affect the tournament's format. If we changed the format at short notice just because of a technical hitch, that would be really bad. Instead, nothing specified before the event changed at all throughout.

Firstly, mojumbo stated on the rules for Day 1: The matches will be bo3, double elimination with no sideboards (deck lock) with a bo5 finals.

He also stated that "A double-elimination tournament is a type of elimination tournament competition in which a participant ceases to be eligible to win the tournament's championship upon having lost two matches. It stands in contrast to a single-elimination tournament, in which only one defeat results in elimination. "

That statement is quoted from wikipedia, which is good and accurate.

He also provided us with the link: "For more information about double elimination tournaments click here (external link)."

Below, everyone can see the pic as provided by wikipedia:



The finals as stated by Mojumbo is NOT the Blue arrow round. The finals is the one with the RED arrows.

Which means, when the 16 of us read the rules before the start, we understood that the RED arrows is the FINALS, not the round indicated by the Blue arrow.

Below, we can see how Challonge has got it right:



Still using the relevant colors of Blue and Red, the 16 players understood from the rules that the Blue box is NOT the finals, the Red box is the FINAL round. The Red box "FINALS" never took place.

The above is case number 1.

Case number 2:

Massive Screw-up of the losers brackets of Day 1

3. Failure of the forum's tournament system to show brackets properly led to Challonge being used but obviously that could not affect the tournament's format. If we changed the format at short notice just because of a technical hitch, that would be really bad. Instead, nothing specified before the event changed at all throughout.

The format was not changed but because the players played the WRONGLY assigned opponents due to the failure of the forum's tournament system (this is not a failure on the players' part) , that completely went AGAINST the spirit, goals and core ideals of the said format.

The problem was highlighted to Mojumbo on the spot. But Mojumbo did not address the problem correctly. He insisted that we play on the wrong brackets: leading to the players playing with incorrect opponents.

Also critical to the case: why wasn't the forum's tournament system (double-elim) tested rigorously before the WC?

I would be happy to discuss case number 2 in detail on another thread, if required. Let me know. I have all the information and pics.

(PS: Please kindly do not edit/delete or close this thread/discussion, because if there is anything wrong in what I said, please point it out here.)

[Gondorian]

Seems like there are now two debates going on:

1) Whether Mojumbo's modified double-elimination format should have been used at all.

2) Whether that format could have been communicated more clearly.

As far as I can tell, Monomax takes issue with the communication. Had he known the format beforehand, he might have challenged it but would likely have accepted it.

Then others think the format itself was wrong, like Raphael Majere, who did understand the format and accepted it at the time.

We probably need two threads to cover both, to ensure the aspects of communication vs format are tackled the best they can be. But, right now, I think it's best to take a step back from this, so that's what I'm doing.

[Raphael Majere]

Seems like there are now two debates going on:

1) Whether Mojumbo's modified double-elimination format should have been used at all.

2) Whether that format could have been communicated more clearly.

As far as I can tell, Monomax takes issue with the communication. Had he known the format beforehand, he might have challenged it but would likely have accepted it.

Then others think the format itself was wrong, like Raphael Majere, who did understand the format and accepted it at the time.

We probably need two threads to cover both, to ensure the aspects of communication vs format are tackled the best they can be. But, right now, I think it's best to take a step back from this, so that's what I'm doing.

The format was communicated incorrectly.

[Flycheung]

No offense to LD who is a great player, but he hasn't earned the win and it would be truly a shame of he was crowned champion based on a ruling that makes no sense.

No offence to you, but you are way out of line here. Suggestion, If you going to argue bout ruling, you could start with rulings about QM seasons 1st.

[Shadow Mann]

I just wanna say that after my day 1, I decided to go take a break and relax. Whatever happened and was decided on IRC while I was not there was unknown to me. Major rule like that should NOT be stated on IRC.

Thats no ordinary tournament, thats WORLD !! Man, taking such a decision without writing it is HUGE.

I dont accept that ruling.
TO decided that this was the final decision.

I wouldn't accept that ruling either. (double elimination, but you were eliminated with only one loss isn't right)

[Airact]

Just to be on track.


The TO first says the tournament is a traditional double elimination tournament (with the various deckbuilding rules which are irrelevant here).
The players don't raise objections.
During Day 1 the rules change and the players still don't raise objections.
Day 2 is ruled the same way as day 1 (except with different deckbuilding rules, which are still irrelevant).
Some players raise objections after the tournament.

Is this correct?


I'll take part with saying that during the day 1 stream, the double elimination ruling was discussed in the stream chat and if I recall correctly, it did not get the attention of the commentators. I also don't recall any big objections being raised in the chat. I might be wrong about this, though.

I didn't really think that much into this as I've seen double elimination tournaments being executed in different ways (including this one) so I didn't think of it being anything odd.

[pyrogene]

Just because it is called double elimination does not mean it is a hard and fast rule that is unbreakable that you can only be eliminated after 2 loses. Just look at the same wikipedia article everyone loves to cite.

Another aspect of the system used in Judo is that losers of the first round (of the W bracket) only advance to the L bracket if the player they lost to wins his or her second round match. If a player loses to a second round loser, they are eliminated from the tournament.

Another is the modified single elimination tournament which guarantees at least two games per competitor, but not necessarily two losses for elimination. The brackets are similar to the double elimination format, except the two finalists from the L bracket (each with one loss) face the two finalists from the W bracket (neither with a loss) in a single elimination semi-final and final.

So you can have a system when players can get eliminated with just one loss and still call it a "double-elimination".

Just to be on track.


The TO first says the tournament is a traditional double elimination tournament (with the various deckbuilding rules which are irrelevant here).

Don't think it was specifically said it was a "traditional" format. In fact, the only thing that went into specifics was the actual brackets on the forums (not Challonge) posted beforehand which had a single finals regardless. Busti asked on it here but there were no reply to him.

Also mention of "a bo5 finals" and "the bo5 finals" rather than "1 or 2 finals" in the OP.

[TheSt4lker]

Clearly, there was some confusion by at least one player, and more and more inconsistencies are being pointed out now in the rules (like the definition of double-elimination compared to the description of the format as having a bo5 final) but there are 3 things to remember here:

1) the format was set beforehand and should be stuck to by the TO, especially when one player has fully understood it. Changing the format away from what's intended and away from what was understood by one in favour of a misinterpretation by the other would be ridiculous. If you disagree, I'd be really interested to hear why you think LyingDragon, rightful Day 2 champion, should now have to put that on the line in another best of five.

2) whether the format was known or not, both players in that best of 5 had the chance to win and LyingDragon took it convincingly 3-0.

3) the inconsistencies in the description of the event should not have happened, but alas they did. That's unfortunate, but they were there to be clarified long before Day 1 began. Had each player read all the rules carefully, and raised any inconsistencies they found before the start, there would not be any issues here at all.

It's a real shame this is now putting a cloud over a fantastic weekend of matches and a very well organised event by Mojumbo and SamuelJ. Monomax should be heard and empathised with, but not via public backlash.

I've added some bold to your comments Gondorian. If I was monomax I wouldn't have raised any inconsistencies, because there are none. Post 2 of this thread clearly says you have to lose twice to be eliminated. Very clear and concise. I would have taken them at face value, and expected to be eliminated twice. Not once.