On Refunds of Banned/Tourbanned Players

[PDC]

Both the Tyrants (John W - 16k) and Cryonicles (spies - 14.5k) lost a quintessential player post-auction. Both of these players were banned/tourbanned close to the tournament beginning. Both teams dealt with delay, and now a circuit of Tournament Director decisions which objectively decreased the value of their team, with no fault of their own (as acknowledged by all parties). The current decision of granting both teams 6.5k/6k to be applied at midseason is incorrect, as contested by both the teams involved and other SPL managers, and we request that this be overturned. Initially I was willing to put this to rest with the revised credit amounts (as per PMs with august), however this still places two teams at a stark disadvantage proportionate to the others. After further consultation with my teammates and other managers, I realize this is unacceptable not just to me but per the tournament's integrity.

I will mostly be talking about the Dragonspiral Tyrants' position, as I cannot speak for the Cryos' management. We paid 16k for John W pre-auction, and after his ban, ended up with a 3k value pick. After a sequence of reversals, we were given 6.5k credits to be applied at midseason. Currently, this means, even with the revised decision, we lack 6.5k in value. Further, since these picks will be applied at midseason in a bid format, this means we stand at an even greater disadvantaged portion going into the initial stages of the tournament with only 3k of that initial 16k compensated, and also now have to deal with that 6k being buttressed further through competition during the midseason auction. We are asking that the 16k value be fully recuperated, as this would represent a fair return in value for us.

Part of the issue at hand appears to be that of precedent. As a user who has both played, spectated, and managed SPL over a decade long period, I can say that precedent receives a reworking every year. This is a byproduct of the TD team changing in composition constantly, the yearly nature of these tournaments, and the general lack of a clear pedagogy. If we were to look towards precedent to seek to 'justify' a ban/tourban credit relief, then I would suggest looking towards the Ojama scenario from SPL 11. ABR outlined this further in his post in the Commencement Thread.

I don't quite understand the unwillingness of the TD team to revise this decision. So far, no coherent explanation has been given by any TD regarding either decision. Clearly, they acknowledge their initial mistake by revising the decision, but why do it in such a half-measured fashion? Why only allow an initial 1-1 trade? Why revise that for the Cryonicles? Why then retract both, but still rob both teams of half their credit value? The only explanation I can think of is that the TD team believes that having more players = having more value, and through the 1/2 credit cap, prevents both teams from gaining more than they initially had. This, however, does not make any sense in terms of auction prices -- if anything, this acts as a punishment to the impacted teams. It cannot be construed any other way.

The attitude some TDs have taken towards this has been embarrassing. The "rape w" line by SoulWind was particularly ridiculous. Not only did you insinuate that we were trying to cheat in the pre-season, but also that we drafted him with prior knowledge of his remarks/actions. As per The Dove I will refrain from any other combative statements, but this insinuation coming from a TD is unacceptable to the Tyrants. We would like an explanation for the TD thought-making process from those applicable, and also desire a full refund for our auction credits.

️

 

[reyscarface]

There's been some great posts outlining why a full refund should be done in the commencement thread, both dishwasher's and Finchinator's have hit the nail on the head, recommended reading for anyone who wishes to post in this thread.

I think what is most striking about these series of decisions is the reasoning behind them, or more accurately, the lack of reasoning. Over the past few days there has been ample discussion in the Smogon Tournaments Discord as well as the commencement thread regarding this situation and, despite several attempts of several people to get a reasoning behind not doing a full refund, there has been none besides one line zingers.

The most commonly hypothetical ones (since the people in charge haven't given any official reasoning) are as follows:

1) Precedent, history, and whatnot

I think its wacky to use this argument, given that so many things have had precedent and history backing them and yet we still have changed them if deemed unacceptable (such as you know, gutting two teams before the season starts is probably unacceptable in the minds of many people). But as has been mentioned before, if you want to use precedent you have the Ojama situation in SPL 11 right there.

I don't know why people forget or consciously decide to omit that one when talking "precedent". But it most definitely applies here too.

Hide

RE: Ojama

Ojama told multiple managers to not draft him, two confirmed and others have claimed the same was done to them, with the intention of lowering his price to help the teams he liked. This alone is a major offense that had a noticeable effect on the draft, and ignoring it after everyone put so much emphasis on addressing price fixing would be a slap in the face to the tour community. As player you can have your preferences, but when you are outright telling multiple teams to not bid for you, you are having a direct effect on your value during the draft; this is quite literally price fixing. The rules have always been clear: "If you are interested in playing, be aware that any team may buy you, and you are expected to play for any one of them". If you cannot commit to that, do not signup.

The price fixing is a significant part of the problem, but this doesn't end there. Ojama was picked up by a team that he explicitly told to not bid on him. Minutes after picking him up BIGs drafters were reporting to hosts that Ojama was refusing to work with them. Putting the whole auction on hold for 40+ minutes to let us investigate team sabotaging reports, evaluate any evidence we can get and decide whether we ban someone or not was simply not an option, so they were told to wait until the auction ended. BIGs could have risked it all and forced Ojama to stick to them, but for that to work they would need Ojama to care enough to perform or they would have a 23k wasted slot. They were put in a rough spot and their way out was making a deal with Tyrants.

The deal and subsequent trade were legal, and the "uneven trade" argument is so subjective that is almost never worth touching. At the time there was no evidence against Ojama, other than complaints from BIGs members, and there was nothing hosts could do. It was clear something sketchy had happened, but if there's no evidence and you can't force the involved teams to help you, there's nothing to do. Everyone can see the "elephant in the room", but you cannot expect hosts or TDs to ban without evidence. Luckily for everyone, the involved parties decided to post evidence that could be used to backup the complaints and that's why we are here.

Ojama refused to join BIGs discord, he showed no willingness to work with them and stopped a trade that wasn't of his liking. When told "we can build around you" he replied with "ur team is awful", "i'd rather player for pdc than for void and stone, anyday". The trade he refused was with Scooters, who he had told to not draft him. Some people want to paint this as a good thing, when all it shows is that he was telling two teams to fuck off (again). Ojama made it impossible for BIGs to do anything but get rid of him, and due to his price tag this was a major problem. This is blatant sabotage of a team and sadly he succeed.

Ojama will be tourbanned for three months and banned from team tournaments for a year for price fixing and sabotage. His price tag and value as a player has turned this into a major headache for TDs, hosts and both teams involved, as there's no perfect solution to the problems he has caused, but he's a player just like everyone else and he'll be punished the same way a 3k pickup would.

The trade will be reversed. Tyrants will keep their four players, BIGs will be given a full refund and they can use their money as they please before Week 1 starts. Keeping a banned a player around, postponing the punishment, and redoing the draft are all impossible. This is not a good outcome for these two teams, but at this moment there's no other option.

First thing is that the awful rule about how to treat different types of bans regarding compensation from them in the context of SPL has been changed (good work TDs). Due to this, there is absolutely no difference in how the John W, spies, and Ojama situations should be handled, as they all fall under the same compensation spectrum.

Now I would like to know whats the reasoning behind the difference in compensations with the Ojama situation two years ago and the situations we have in our hands now. I think I have read something about it involving two teams which is why they got a full refund but... how in the world does that apply? That there was a previous trade involved including Ojama had absolutely no bearing in the final decision, as the Tyrants got completely screwed and had to keep the players they bought for the BIGs thinking that the trade was going to happen. Since the BIGs got money after the auction, now we have a team that has to spend all that money in 8 3k players (and like 3 of those 3k players that they wanted were now on the Tyrants) and a team that has to keep 5 players that they weren't even planning to get and now their draft is completely fucked over.

So how does it differ from this situation? The only reason why this didn't completely ruin the Tyrants from preseason is because the BIGs accepted to trade their most expensive player in order to get the players they had agreed to trade for. So what leveled things for Tyrants was this trade, otherwise we would have had two utterly fucked teams from before week 1 even started. And this was with a FULL REFUND!!! These kind of things can completely wreck a team before the tournament starts, so we should be striving to give as much compensation as possible without reaching overcompensation... which leads to:


2) Overcompensation

I actually don't think anyone that can focus their brain for more than 3 minutes would ever agree a full refund is overcompensation, buuut just in case. As outlined in ABR's post, a full refund is NOWHERE near close to covering the loss of a starter slot. And if you're having trouble envisioning it, just think if you'd rather have 15k in credits to use right now or your 15k starter, whatever team you might be.

Hell, despite Eternal Spirit's post in commencement thread trying to convey why a full refund shouldn't happen, this line from it:

Either way, haters gonna hate: I dont get why you are all arguing for full refunds so bad, you got only bellow average subs available to take for slots that you shouldnt even spend much with LOL (specially rby). Taking just one is more than enough for any of you.

Actually perfectly shows what we are talking about. "You got only below average subs available". You might agree or not with the bluntness of what he said, but thats the reality, whatever amount of players you get for 3k after the draft isn't close to replacing your lost player. So why is the argument "dude they're not even gonna play, who cares, it won't help you at all" instead of "yeah, let them get the extra players, its such a minuscule difference in their compensation that it might not matter, but it will still help them a little bit in this absolute clusterfuck of a situation".


3) IRL sports comparisons, "no more players on your roster than your roster than originally intended is a fair thing to follow", etc.

The irl sports comparisons are straight up disingenious, there is absolutely no way to compare SPL to them. There is no team revenue or personal spending giving more liberties for succesful teams, in irl sports there are insurances in contracts for losing players for extended periods of time, and whatnot. Regarding the second part, teams are equal in spending, not in player in count already, so I fail to see how this could be used as reasoning against a full refund, considering the one thing that teams are equal in (spending) is what is being broken by not giving a full refund.


These past few days have set some very clear things:

- That in situations like the ones that happened this year, teams are in no way at fault for what happened.
- There should be no distinction with regards to why a player got removed from the tournament if the teams arent at fault.
- Since there is no fault, there should be compensation.
- No amount of compensation could ever make up for the loss of one of the originally drafted players, it just alleviates the massive hit to the teams that lost said player.

And going off the last one, I would like to know the reasoning behind striving to give these teams, that are already at a disadvantage prior to the season even starting, less than a full refund or even shafting by having to delay having your full credits until midseason comes. It appears to me its only so that you can "punish" these teams for the sake of punishing, for something that they are not at fault of. If I am wrong PLEASE post your arguments. It has been tiresome to try to get a non one line zinger so far, especially with the season starting tomorrow.


(Also echoing the point in PDC's post regarding users grossly unfit to be Tournament Director, but that is probably better suited to another thread, not this one. Supporting z0mOG btw.)

 

[Oglemi]

If we're looking for more precedent you have to go way back to SPLs 4 and 5, but even then the situations are bit tangential rather than what's happened here in this case. Most pertinently is this post from symph, and the Warhammer/make case is the one that I used to follow for Sinclair's case in SPL5. (I'm actually surprised that this hasn't occurred more to set precedent lol)

Now, one could argue that the decision back then in SPL4 should have been full refund or autopick, rather than 3k or autopick, but that combined with the Ojama case should add relevancy to the arguments for the teams getting a refund.

That said, I do agree with the aspect of gama's post about there's a certain level of risk you're taking on purchasing every player. How much that applies to cancering cases is a little hard to qualify. In these cases the cancering had nothing to do with the managers/teams themselves, which I think helps add credence to the call for a full refund.

 

[Jirachee]

I'd like to bring an important point to light. The original decision regarding the half-price refund was made in a completely different environment: here's the post containing the original decision.

Back in SPL 7, midseason worked differently. Signups were not limited to players who went undrafted in the original auction; you can see how much more power midseason credits had back then. Great players such as august, Kevin Garrett, and Philip7086 were picked up for peanuts at midseason. In such an environment, it makes sense to award less midseason credits to compensate for the loss of a player because you could pretty much make the argument that 1 midseason credit was worth 2+ auction credits.

With the way the tournament is set up now, there's very little reason to put off credits for after week 1. As a (mostly) neutral observer, I support the Tyrants and Cryonicles getting a full refund (how are you ever going to replace a player like spies anyway?)

 

[Gingy]

I've argued most of the points already stated in dm's with Merritt for over a week so to move the thread along I'll post the logs of these dm's that are directly relevant to the arguing of a full refund (For full disclosure, I removed only one part, a false accusation I made towards a specific user and as such will omit those names to not have their name attached to it.) . I'll post two separate pastebins, one containing the first set of dm's directly with Merritt after we confirmed spies was indeed impossible to contact, the second from a group dm between Cryos management and Merritt. There is a reason these are discord messages and not smogon forum posts, the conversations are largely organic and shouldn't be twisted limb from limb but they do also contain some official responses so it can offer insight in that regard in spite of spelling mistakes and imperfect formatting.

Direct DM's
https://ghostbin.com/ZbLDr

Group DM's
https://ghostbin.com/TLtFk

I did ask in smogtours server was I allowed post these and noone told me I couldn't so here we are. Personally I've grown tired of the situation and no longer care to argue but I appreciate the endeavors being made for better tiering policy and will obviously throw support behind a change in the decision as I have done since day 1.

 

[Merritt]

The host team ultimately had to make the decision to patch the tour rules to cover their inadequate coverage of losing players prior to SPL's start. This is not something we want to set as a usual circumstance. Allowing the host team to modify existing rules of a tournament during the tournament is a slippery slope and as such we attempted to keep the changes as in line as possible with prior, directly related precedents. The Ojama decision, while similar at the surface-level, is different both in timing (as the actions were reported during the auction itself) and impact (since it hurt not only the BIGs but also the Tyrants, who had drafted according to a promise of a trade). Tournament decisions are consulted with precedent first and are only to be overturned in extreme cases. We initially ruled on the lower side, and the teams directly involved now want full refunds. The decision made will stand and the rules on this matter going forward will be evaluated by the TD team after the tournament. We believe that due to the circumstances, it was fair for us to be more conservative and meet in the middle.

On the attitude of other TDs - I want to make it clear that the host team does not consult with TDs who are either playing for or managing in SPL in any decision in order to avoid bias and conflicts of interest. The comments made by other TDs who are part of the tour were made by them alone, not as somebody who has been or is currently involved with any decisions the host team has made.

This thread will be closed for discussion for the remainder of SPL. Given that the decision made here is final, discussion will not serve any additional purpose for this edition. Once the tournament concludes, it will be re-opened by the TD team for further discussion.