Implemented Do not give a bye if your opponent is DQ'd because of cheating, let the person who lost last round back in

[pokemonisfun]

Updated proposal as of August 15th, 2021:

If a certain player, say Player A, has cheated against a person, say Player B, in a tournament and Player A is DQ'd in the very next round, Player B will be allowed back in to play against whoever Player A was matched up against.

I want to suggest that if a person, say Player A, gets DQ'd for cheating, his or her current round opponent, say Player B, will not get a bye. Instead, Player B will have to play the person Player A beat in the previous round, say Player C. In other words, Player C gets a second chance instead of Player B getting a free win.

The reasons for adopting this policy is as follows, in no particular order:

• It helps maintain the integrity of the tournament and competition by keeping the same number of matches as originally scheduled. Giving someone a free win/bye, if their opponent gets DQ'd, would reduce the number of matches in the tournament by 1.
• There is no "extra" benefit caused by this. The extra benefit is already going to be caused because Player A cheated and is DQ'd. This change would transfer the benefit from Player B (getting a free win) to Player C (getting a second chance)
  • In fact, the extra benefit is lesser with this policy change. It's better to give Player C a second chance because their loss came earlier in the tournament compared to Player B's free win later in the tournament; it's better to affect the early rounds rather than the later rounds.
  • The extra benefit also more justifiable, you could at least argue Player C was cheated out of a fair chance. Player B doesn't really deserve the free bye at all, they didn't do anything for it.

I understand there is at least one major issue with this policy: what happens if someone gets DQ'd in round 3 or later of a tournament, after they beat two or more people? Who should be given the second chance?

To this concern, I'd say two points:

• At the very least, you could still adopt this policy chance for anyone who gets DQ'd in round 2 of a tournament so this issue doesn't appear. You could maintain the old policy of giving free wins to Player B if player A get's DQ'd in round 3 or later.
• Additionally, you could try to make it competitive by putting everyone Player A beat in a mini tournament, and whoever wins that mini tournament or "tiebreak" of sorts, can challenge Player B. This is certainly a viable option in at least smaller playoff tournaments that last only 4 rounds.
  • For longer tournaments, like one of the Opens that last 10 rounds about, we could still maintain the status quo policy of giving a free win to Player B after a certain round.

Anyways I proposed this to every TD last week and nobody immediately communicated any issues with it but I'm sure I'm missing something still. Feel free to heavily criticize. Overall, I just think this makes our tournaments more competitive and lessens the effect of cheaters.

 

[Wigglytuff]

Generally speaking, this proposal underestimates the negative competitive impact of giving a player that has lost a second chance up the bracket.

I don't know much about OST9 (zoomer moment) but I do know two things:
1: Hugo won OST9.
2: Hugo shouldn't have won OST9. He originally lost in Round 2 but was allowed a second life off of a technicality, similar to what is being proposed here.

A win is a win, but I would think less of a tournament winner that legitimately (as far as we are aware, more on this later) lost a series but was given a second life than a tournament winner that received a bye because their opponent did some spooky business and ate a ban. One of those involves legitimately losing a series, the other one doesn't. This proposal essentially standardizes a mechanism by which people that have legitimately lost in a single elimination bracket can still go on to win the tournament. This is a potential negative situation that I think is not given enough weight in the OP.

-

Separate of that, though, I have issue with the rationale present in the proposal.

There are two separate arguments that are packaged together as one in the OP, with the benefits of one covering for the downsides of the other. Specifically:

It helps maintain the integrity of the tournament and competition by keeping the same number of matches as originally scheduled. Giving someone a free win/bye, if their opponent gets DQ'd, would reduce the number of matches in the tournament by 1.

The extra benefit also more justifiable, you could at least argue Player C was cheated out of a fair chance. Player B doesn't really deserve the free bye at all, they didn't do anything for it.

These are actually two separate reasons for why, upon their opponent being tournament banned from another series, you might (so these aren't necessarily good reasons in all contexts) give someone that lost a second chance up the bracket. The former makes a utilitarian argument about conserving the # of series played in the tournament and about affecting the earlier rounds rather than the later, while the latter states that because Player A cheated in another series, it is reasonable to presume that they cheated in their series vs Player C, and therefore that series wasn't a legitimate loss to begin with.

The problem with the latter is that to act as if someone being caught cheating in one series is sufficient grounds to do away with the presumption of innocence in all of their other series is a deviation from the current operating protocol. The wording is more ambiguous in the proposal ("you could at least argue Player C was cheated out of a fair chance"), but since you are proposing that we act as if Player C was cheated out of a fair chance, then there needs to be sufficient justification as to why, or this is not a valid argument.

With the second argument nullified, one question I had when reading the thread was why this proposal only applies to tourbanned users ("DQ'd for cheating") and not regular banned users. The current policy regarding banned users disqualifies users banned while not in the playoffs of a tournament. The same arguments of competitive integrity, # of matches scheduled, etc. apply equally between someone that was banned for ghosting and someone that was banned for roleplaying as a candle in the Lobby room on PS!.

I think this illuminates the problem of this proposal: it's easier to get behind when we're talking about someone that was DQ'd for cheating, because "you could at least argue Player C was cheated out of a fair chance." However, as mentioned above, this is not a valid distinction. It's more difficult to get behind this proposal when it's being applied for a Player C that lost to someone that got banned for roleplaying as a candle in Lobby. And as mentioned, there is not sufficient distinction being made between someone that is tourbanned and someone that is banned for other non-tour related infractions to justify only applying it to tourbanned users within the framework of the OP.

In short, the rationale of this proposal has two arguments tangled together - one with a faulty premise - that makes it difficult to address. One of the arguments needs to be isolated as the primary thrust and the proposal modified to account for it. This would look like:
1) Argue that we should presume a cheater to have cheated in all of their series, and therefore give the hypothetical Player C a second chance.
or
2) Argue that we should attempt to preserve the competitive integrity of tournaments and # of matches scheduled, etc, and expand the scope of the proposal to also include regular banned users (because the same arguments apply to them), such as someone that got banned for roleplaying as a candle in Lobby.

The flaws are much more apparent with either of these. As it stands, the current proposal is logically untenable.

edit: restructured the second part of this post

 

[lax]

I, too, do not love the idea of giving a bye if an opponent is caught cheating. We could let the last person who lost back in instead. Very hype, efficient, concise, and worth the time consumption. Maybe we can eradicate that gross zoomer cheating culture too. Bravo.

Again, I sincerely have total interest in participating in a tour that features this proposal. And again, I know I’m not the only one who feels this way. Please keep trying to fix what is broken.

Approved

 

[pokemonisfun]

In short, the rationale of this proposal has two arguments tangled together - one with a faulty premise - that makes it difficult to address. One of the arguments needs to be isolated as the primary thrust and the proposal modified to account for it. This would look like:
1) Argue that we should presume a cheater to have cheated in all of their series, and therefore give the hypothetical Player C a second chance.
or
2) Argue that we should attempt to preserve the competitive integrity of tournaments and # of matches scheduled, etc, and expand the scope of the proposal to also include regular banned users (because the same arguments apply to them), such as someone that got banned for roleplaying as a candle in Lobby.

The flaws are much more apparent with either of these. As it stands, the current proposal is logically untenable.

edit: restructured the second part of this post

"One of the arguments needs to be isolated as the primary thrust and the proposal modified to account for it"...I don't know why I need to pick a primary reason. I can just have two very good reasons can't I?

You're right I wasn't clear when I talked about when this rule would apply. What I'm saying is if you cheat in tournament "A" for example, and you get DQd because you get caught, then your current round opponent in tournament A would have to play the person you previously beat. Yes you're right, just because you cheated in a tournament doesn't mean you necessarily cheated in that match. Two things in response to your point then:

1. We could narrow it down so this proposal only gives a second chance if you were cheated against
2. I still don't see the problem with giving an extra benefit to someone who was eliminated, even if we presume they weren't cheated against. It's either that or give someone a free bye in an even later round. I don't see why one is necessarily worse than the other.
   • And because I don't see one as worse than the other, we may as well pick the option that allows for more games to be played

I'm not sure I follow you on how my proposal would let people roleplaying as candles and win a tournament game let their previous opponent back in. Can you please elaborate on that?

I, too, do not love the idea of giving a bye if an opponent is caught cheating. We could let the last person who lost back in instead. Very hype, efficient, concise, and worth the time consumption. Maybe we can eradicate that gross zoomer cheating culture too. Bravo.

Again, I sincerely have total interest in participating in a tour that features this proposal. And again, I know I’m not the only one who feels this way. Please keep trying to fix what is broken.

Approved

"If it's not broken don't fix it" is an often sensible saying. But I'm just offering a way to improve. As I said, I don't think giving a second chance is any worse than giving a bye. And since a second chance comes with the benefit of more games played, then I'd still suggest to follow my proposal.

 

[Wigglytuff]

I still don't see the problem with giving an extra benefit to someone who was eliminated, even if we presume they weren't cheated against. It's either that or give someone a free bye in an even later round. I don't see why one is necessarily worse than the other.

• And because I don't see one as worse than the other, we may as well pick the option that allows for more games to be played

This is transparently ridiculous by itself - if someone lost and there's not even a question of if they were cheated out of a possible win, in what world do we even consider advancing them?

I was pretty alarmed to see that no TD immediately saw a problem with this proposal in its original form, but I think the quoted section above illuminates it perfectly clearly. There should not ever be a mechanism by which someone who lost, and the legitimacy of their loss isn't even disputed, can then go on to win the tournament.

You're right I wasn't clear when I talked about when this rule would apply. What I'm saying is if you cheat in tournament "A" for example, and you get DQd because you get caught, then your current round opponent in tournament A would have to play the person you previously beat. Yes you're right, just because you cheated in a tournament doesn't mean you necessarily cheated in that match. Two things in response to your point then:

1. We could narrow it down so this proposal only gives a second chance if you were cheated against

This edition of your proposal treats a couple of "yo go X mon/click X move here kekeke"'s identically to team leaking. At a certain point you have to ask whether the presence of relatively light ghosting, while still absolutely punishable, actually impeded the opposing side's ability to win to the point where we should just overturn the series (the downsides of doing so have not at all been completely and accurately laid out in your messages). It's not as black and white as you are trying to paint it; the degree of severity of cheating should absolutely be a factor.

 

[freezai]

This edition of your proposal treats a couple of "yo go X mon/click X move here kekeke"'s identically to team leaking. At a certain point you have to ask whether the presence of relatively light ghosting, while still absolutely punishable, actually impeded the opposing side's ability to win to the point where we should just overturn the series (the downsides of doing so have not at all been completely and accurately laid out in your messages). It's not as black and white as you are trying to paint it; the degree of severity of cheating should absolutely be a factor.

Just because you use the word absolutely it doesn't make what you're saying true. When you are cheated against you were not playing a fair game period, the severity doesn't matter. Even if the cheating had say a 5% impact on the game I would be pretty pissed if, through no fault of my own, I had to play an unfair game and on top of that have no recourse besides a td saying "sux 4 u"

 

[Slimmer]

There should be a clear proof that the player who lost to a cheater was actually cheated, or better, had their chances to win altered in a non legitimate way.

This situation occurs when:

• the opponent is an alt (they shouldn't be there at all in first place then it's reasonable to give a bye in every tournament they were playing);
• the opponent is caught having any unfair advantage in that very same match (be it ghosting, team leaking, whatever helped them winning). I don't think any previous opponent of the dq'ed player should have a second chance unless any kind of cheating in their matches being proved, since they may have lost legitimately. Using players from pif's example, Player C should have a second chance ONLY when there's proof that Player A cheated in their match AS WELL (it would be nice to have further investigations to make sure noone other than Player B got cheated!), otherwise I find more correct giving Player B a bye.

Forum banned players don't have anything to do with that, I mean the ban is caused by other reasons which don't justify a player having their loss treated differently, since it was fair and square, even tho the winner acted wrong elsewhere, that doesn't change the fact they lost legitimately.

 

[Adaam]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the loser advance if their opponent cheated so long as the next round didn't go up? If that's the case, what's the problem of bringing the loser back next round?

If this is not the case, then yeah it makes sense to give them another shot as long as they cheated in that game/series. The loser was not playing on equal footing and is unfair to punish them for their cheating opponent's actions. Disagree with taking this case-by-case to re: severity of the cheating. Even a 1% edge is an unfair advantage your opponent had over you. It isn't anyone's place to determine if it mattered or not.

EDIT: I've been told cheated wins are overturned if they happened in round 1. After further thought, I understand the reasoning: if the cheater is caught in round 5, overturning the round 4 matchup is unfair to the previous 3 losers. Sorry for the useless post