Rejected Make Act Losses and Refusal to Play Tourbannable

[Vulpix03]

Pretty simple. If you sign up for spl or scl you are signing up for a 9 week tournament. Whether your team is eliminated or not, giving an act win to your opponent or refusing to play should be considered cancering and unsportsmanlike conduct.

Also punish managers who fail to get games done.

Edit: when I talk about activity losses Im talking about blatant "my team is out I don't want to play"
Also talking about official team tours like spl and scl, where you are signing up to play a full season.

Also managers should be held accountable as well. This should give managers incentive to actually report a cancer slot and not just allow it to happen

 

[Tea Guzzler]

I can get behind the "refusal to play the game bit" - I don't think there's any way you can really spin this to not be unsportsmanlike, so threatening tourban/infraction probably suits here fine. The main issue comes with the act losses, since there's a decent bit of gray area and so you can't just do a blanket "act win = punishment", and so ultimately it'd be down to the host's discretion for stuff like this which is a can of worms I can't be asked to open. For example, if someone doesn't respond to scheduling at all then you could group this as refusal to play and infract, but what if they schedule but miss the deadline and can't rearrange? The simplest solution, to me at least, would be to only punish refusal to play + class "no scheduling attempts" as refusal rather than activity. Punishing managers whose players don't get games is another problem in itself and I think it would be a hassle and a half to sort out, since you're having to dig through logs and speak to people individually and possibly look in the discords and etc etc etc, but this is obviously a case-by-case basis and (hopefully) in large tours like SPL it shouldn't be a common issue.

Tour size and timing is also something to consider. In massive tours (esp with people who are making accounts just to join the tour) you're bound to have a bunch of people who sign up and then either don't know how the system works or just forget / can't be bothered, and it doesn't sound reasonable to infract 30+ people round 1 when you can just give act and have the problem be done with. Having it as a rule in the tour details also doesn't really change too much IMO as people are still inevitably missing the small print, and for individual tours in general the chances of people simply neglecting play drops off pretty heavily and doesn't come back (since by definition you can't be eliminated and still have games in almost all tours). It might be worth it then to just enforce this in team tours and late in individuals where it holds any weight and is also realistically likely to be of use.

tl;dr - support but only for refusal to play (+ no scheduling attempts), should only be enforced in team tours / mid-late in individuals

 

[Merritt]

To be clear, refusing to play games in official teamtours is something already covered by the rules and results in not only a tourban but also an extended team tour ban. I'd hope that the managers of players who are refusing to play for the tournament they signed up for would be willing to report these actions to the TD team.

Sabotaging the Team: If a player signs up and is picked for a team tournament they are expected to have the team's best interests in mind. If the managers of a team believe their player is acting improperly they may get in contact with the TD team about it, and if they can prove their player is behaving in a way that we define to be sabotaging the team, such as refusing to play any games, sandbagging, attacking teammates etc, the player in question will be Tournament banned for 3 months and banned from joining team tournaments for 1 year.

If you want to discuss making activity losses something that can result in a tourban, that's something we don't currently address in tournament rules, but players refusing to play is already covered.

 

[Dave]

Going ahead and closing this. Activity losses are far between and it's hard to really separate an acceptable versus unacceptable activity loss. There's various layers to this - did the manager fail the sub? was it a game that didn't matter? Was there an actual emergency?

This has not been a huge issue, closing for now.