RBY RBY OU Winter Seasonal #5: Round 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
bellchime

bellchime

is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Top Community Contributoris a Top Metagame Resource Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Dedicated Tournament Host
roa_winter_seasonal_rby_ou-png.223928

Art by Blazenix!

Welcome to the fifth RBY Winter Seasonal! This tournament will reward points towards the 2023 RBY Circuit. The winner of this tournament will get rewards such as a Custom Role in the RBY Discord and a spot in the RBY Hall of Fame!​


Tournament Rules and Regulations:
  • The General Tournament Guidelines can be found here. Failure to adhere to these guidelines will result in disqualification.
  • This is a standard RBY OU Tournament. All games must be played in the "[Gen 1] OU" tier on either the main server or on smogtours. If players cannot decide which server to play on, smogtours will be the default option. All games in the Top 16 must happen on smogtours.​
  • RBY OU Resources can be found here. RBY OU Sample Teams can be found here. The RBY Forum can be found here.​
  • This is a Double-Elimination tournament. There will be deadlines of a week or less for all rounds. Losing once does not mean that you are out.​
  • Failure to properly schedule will result in me either making an activity call in favor of one player or coinflipping the game.​
  • It is the responsibility of the players to provide all scheduling evidence to the host before the deadline of the round. My preference is if players post an activity call with evidence in the respective round's thread, as I will definitely see it there.​
  • All rounds will be played as a best-of-three. You may switch teams between battles of the same set.
  • Replays are required for EVERY game played.

Ctown6  vs  Serpi
Deezcastforms  vs  MrSoup
egalvanc  vs  Prof_J
SOMALIA  vs  Ice Yazu
Quarante8  vs  TGA
King Billu  vs  nicole7735
emma  vs  Hachimaki
YBW  vs  Eledyr
Genesis7  vs  false
Frrf  vs  Laurel
16bit  vs  SaDiSTiCNarwhal
Hipmonlee  vs  Torchic
Vileman  vs  Rubyblood
PigWarrior19  vs  Gastlies
Unowndragon  vs  Elian
Mishlef  vs  London Beats
RichardMillePlain  vs  Green on fire
oakdeon  vs  Staxi
dex  vs  Athena's Myth
damien the genius  vs  Monai
Amaranth  vs  airfare
TLTK  vs  AceTeaaa
Tarvold  vs  TL The Legend
Victory Victreebel  vs  Sergi
robjr  vs  TDR
Amir  vs  OhHiMark493
royzin  vs  Samu77
Leru  vs  Your mom op.
JY Rule  vs  Tuthur
Wazza37  vs  Daruma
Koalacance  vs  TehTayTeh
giraffefromholland  vs  Melbelle

The deadline for this round is on Sunday, February 19th, at 11:59 PM GMT-5.
 
Last edited:
Act, opponent hasn't bother to contact me and I haven't heard from my opponent, whatsoever.
1676584697835.png
 
Finchinator Lumii Heroic Troller Amaranth

Since her activity call emma decided she couldn't be bothered to answer anymore, because she doesn't feel like playing apparently. Hence, as all you guys probably know way better than me, the ruling on these cases goes by;

To be eligible for favorable judgment in an activity decision: Individuals -
If Player A and Player B agreed on a time, and Player B failed to show up, Player A must have checked in via the same medium used to schedule, citing the server and PS name, if different from forum username. They must have waited for at least 15 minutes before leaving. If Player B communicated their delay, this period may be extended to up to 30 minutes.

This rule works, it's fine, it does his job but it does it poorly. It's perfect for when you are trying to keep a live tour on schedule, but that is the point. It works well on short term schedules, but it falls short when it's trying to regulate any other type of event.

Ethic is personal and sportmanship -sort of is- aswell, so I wont go on saying what I feel is good or right etc. But the fact that being able to claim an activity win for an hypothetical missed schedule on a monday is a possiblity, (in this case it happened on wednesday but it's beside the point), doesn't it defeat the purpose of the competition?

That said, I'm in the wrong here so I won't complain any longer, I have to excuse myself if anything. I'm sure when this rule was made, scenarios like these were took in consideration. But I'm just as sure that the current ruling regarding activity fails to preserve the competitiveness of the events when stuff like this happens, where my opponent hides behind a finger so that she can avoid playing for the very tournament she signed in for. Especially when she herself confirmed her availability on sunday in advance, ironic at best, really

Hopefully we will make our game happen anyway! (probably not, but in life one needs some spirit)
 
Hachimaki said:
This rule works, it's fine, it does his job but it does it poorly.
Click to expand...
I think it is safe to say the community disagrees with this given the consensus in this thread. A bunch of people came out supporting the ruling that we should reward activity wins for people on at the scheduled time -- it is only fair since otherwise we are being inconsiderate to the time of the person who was on for the agreed upon time. If you feel strongly, feel free to post in that thread/in tournament policy, but according to the current rule, her activity claim is valid.

I understand it can be frustrating to be on the other side of things like this earlier in the week. Last year I got an activity loss for a scheduled time on a Monday because I showed up :25 minutes late due to having to drop a family member off on a hospital. My opponent claimed to be on vacation the rest of the week. I do not know if this was true and it was ridiculously unfortunate, but it is true that he was on at the time and I was not without any warning, thus wasting his time (1, 2). At the end of the day, this is the only way to have a rule that is fair and firm -- my opponent's time is just as important as my own, just like your opponent here, and so on. There is no way to account for things that are intent based like the ethical issues you discuss, especially not in an online community. This would greatly increase the burden of hosting as well, which we do not intend on doing. In the end, no system is perfect, but this is the closest and the most firm/implementable.

I find it respectable that you want to play your series and I hope you do, but there is no reason for anyone to go after emma. She did what she found best and it was entirely within the rules. She did nothing wrong and she has every right to continue. You are allowed to try to get the series done still and she can if she wants, but there is no obligation on her end. The fact of the matter is that Emma's time was wasted at the initial time and giving you another chance just because it was early in the week is not particularly fair to her, hence the phrasing and spirit of the rule.

I appreciate your inquiry and concern, but if I am the host and emma continues, I do honor her activity claim. Sorry this is not what you wish to hear.
 
Finchinator said:
I think it is safe to say the community disagrees with this given the consensus in this thread. A bunch of people came out supporting the ruling that we should reward activity wins for people on at the scheduled time -- it is only fair since otherwise we are being inconsiderate to the time of the person who was on for the agreed upon time. If you feel strongly, feel free to post in that thread/in tournament policy, but according to the current rule, her activity claim is valid.

I understand it can be frustrating to be on the other side of things like this earlier in the week. Last year I got an activity loss for a scheduled time on a Monday because I showed up :25 minutes late due to having to drop a family member off on a hospital. My opponent claimed to be on vacation the rest of the week. I do not know if this was true and it was ridiculously unfortunate, but it is true that he was on at the time and I was not without any warning, thus wasting his time (1, 2). At the end of the day, this is the only way to have a rule that is fair and firm -- my opponent's time is just as important as my own, just like your opponent here, and so on. There is no way to account for things that are intent based like the ethical issues you discuss, especially not in an online community. This would greatly increase the burden of hosting as well, which we do not intend on doing. In the end, no system is perfect, but this is the closest and the most firm/implementable.

I find it respectable that you want to play your series and I hope you do, but there is no reason for anyone to go after emma. She did what she found best and it was entirely within the rules. She did nothing wrong and she has every right to continue. You are allowed to try to get the series done still and she can if she wants, but there is no obligation on her end. The fact of the matter is that Emma's time was wasted at the initial time and giving you another chance just because it was early in the week is not particularly fair to her, hence the phrasing and spirit of the rule.

I appreciate your inquiry and concern, but if I am the host and emma continues, I do honor her activity claim. Sorry this is not what you wish to hear.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up! As you said, creating a system that satisfies everyone is a rather irrealistic prospect.

Respecting your opponent's time is important, I do agree on that much. Although I also believe that if a competitor would rather fish for an activity win than play his set, they are not treasuring their time anyway.

Personal and probably overly convoluted point of views aside, it is only fair that my opponent decided to pursue winning through the rules. If anything, I just wanted to expose my feelings towards the rules and the outcome, since I see playing as something desiderable and fun.

In the end, it's the last thing I wanted to hear indeed (alas!), but it's realistically the only one I expected
 
Finchinator said:
I think it is safe to say the community disagrees with this given the consensus in this thread. A bunch of people came out supporting the ruling that we should reward activity wins for people on at the scheduled time -- it is only fair since otherwise we are being inconsiderate to the time of the person who was on for the agreed upon time. If you feel strongly, feel free to post in that thread/in tournament policy, but according to the current rule, her activity claim is valid.

I understand it can be frustrating to be on the other side of things like this earlier in the week. Last year I got an activity loss for a scheduled time on a Monday because I showed up :25 minutes late due to having to drop a family member off on a hospital. My opponent claimed to be on vacation the rest of the week. I do not know if this was true and it was ridiculously unfortunate, but it is true that he was on at the time and I was not without any warning, thus wasting his time (1, 2). At the end of the day, this is the only way to have a rule that is fair and firm -- my opponent's time is just as important as my own, just like your opponent here, and so on. There is no way to account for things that are intent based like the ethical issues you discuss, especially not in an online community. This would greatly increase the burden of hosting as well, which we do not intend on doing. In the end, no system is perfect, but this is the closest and the most firm/implementable.

I find it respectable that you want to play your series and I hope you do, but there is no reason for anyone to go after emma. She did what she found best and it was entirely within the rules. She did nothing wrong and she has every right to continue. You are allowed to try to get the series done still and she can if she wants, but there is no obligation on her end. The fact of the matter is that Emma's time was wasted at the initial time and giving you another chance just because it was early in the week is not particularly fair to her, hence the phrasing and spirit of the rule.

I appreciate your inquiry and concern, but if I am the host and emma continues, I do honor her activity claim. Sorry this is not what you wish to hear.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be nosy, and this is probably not the right place to bring this discussion, but Hachimaki has a point. Finch, I'll tell you two stories:
1) Some years ago, I had an scheduled game with a player (I'm abstaining from mentioning their name, though). I was on vacation from college so I had plenty of time, contacted them on Monday, I offered lots of availability to my opponent, but they claimed the only time he could do was 11:30 pm their time on deadline day. I didn't meant to be pesky, I mean, life sometimes is hard, been stuck in a week with lots of things to do and finding it hard to save some time to playing this, I know exactly how it is. However, the day came up, I had a last minute connection issue, were not able to be on time and wasn't able to put my opponent on advice at time, then I arrived 21 minutes after the scheduled time. Replied on the profile post, no answer. PM'd on Showdown, no answer. When their clock marked 12:00:00 am, posted (as if it was programmed or something) that they were claiming act on me for not showing on time for the schedule.

2) Once a time I was at the hospital with my mom. Nothing too serious, fortunately. I was consious I had this scheduled game and since I was waiting outside, I was ready to play from mobile (why not? I need to waste some time while she's being discharged). My opponent was aware of me being there because I told them on time, and they knew I would have some connection issues due to the situation. Two days left for the deadline, rescheduling was hard but possible, and extension didn't worked to the both of us. While waiting outside it started to rain, I ran for shelter, slipped on wet floor and felt. Broke my wrist. It was a funny situation, becausei went from "nothing too serious" into "I have to go inside for medical aid". However, while it all happened, schedule missed. 33 minutes after the scheduled time I told my opponent "I'm here, something came up, sorry for making you wait" and that bastard (there's no nice way to call someone who knew where I was and what my current situation was) said that they were claiming activity and it wasn'ttheir trouble.
Man, I'm agree with the premise that other people's time is worth as much as mine, but that's just ridiculous. A system that satisfies everyone is just unrealistic, ok, but a system that's at least a bit more fair doesn't take that much effort. The current system has created some sort of floodgate for unsportsmanship, and we forget that in the end, this is just a game and we come here to play, not to scratch victories from taking advantage of current regulations.

Not my intention to charge on Emma for this particular situation, I think that might be a valid activity call, reply from the opponent came up three hours later, although she had the availability for Sunday, it's ok, she had to wait and opponent didn't shown up, rescheduling again was up to her but she didn't wanted to and it's respectable. But I've seen lots, and I mean, really lots of cases when this occurs within a margin of barely 5-10 minutes as much. Bro, players are people, not machines. People get delayed. People get distracted and forget things. People has something to do at the last minute. People get asleep. People get stucked in traffic jams. People fall in front of the hospital and break their wrists. People have their phones discharged atm and can't reply on time. People have connection issues (specially in a worldwide community, that kind of things happen suddenly and so often in some countries), and some people doesn't even have an smartphone from where they're able to login and say "hey I'm delayed". People lives a life, and transforming these kind of ordinary life situations into an exploit for farming activity wins is far from being fair.

Revisiting some policies isn't never a bad idea.
 
TLTK said:
Revisiting some policies isn't never a bad idea.
Click to expand...
I am happy to revisit the policy if there is support and even offered to Hachimaki to post in the thread in the topic. In fact, I think everyone should voice their opinions if they think something is better than the rules.

But this place for that is in tournament policy, not the RBY seasonal thread. I really understand your gripes and would love for everyone to discuss any issues we have in tournaments. It’s important to strive to be better and have rulesets that fit our community!!! I am very sorry about those situations and understand your grievances; we can only do what the community supports though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top