Smogon Premier League 3 - Week 3

Not open for further replies.


aka pimpdaddyfranky, aka frankydelaghetto, aka F, aka ef
is a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Neither player had a reasonable win condition, essentially requiring multiple crits in a row or flinches, or one side going completely full retard, we don't award wins based on ridiculous circumstances of luck and we don't award wins on timeout unless one side is obviously stalling, so I'm calling this a draw. If it had gone to its conclusion, 999/1000 times it ends a draw due to the ability to infinitely switch.

If anyone wants to contest this, I welcome you to recreate the battle and prove me wrong.
Can I contest this based on the rules laid out here? Since SPL lacks a comprehensive rules list to justify situations like these, its only reasonable to look at the available rules list and fleshing out the rule that best correlates to Floppy and Conflict's situation.

"The timer must be on." This rule was probably made to prevent players from stalling each other. Having Floppy's win being robbed like this is complete hogwash considering the length of the game. Additionally, Floppy offered a rematch plenty times to avert from a longer game, in which Conflict rejected. His reasoning was probably rational but he probably knew the risk that went along with continuing the game.

Since Conflict timed out, its Floppy's decision whether to take the win or not and this is based on past events. You may rule this as a disconnect since Conflict was 'unable to move' - unlike badabing and McMeghan's case. There really is no proof to that considering the lack of server complaints about NB. Additionally, their game connection had been fine for 5 hours so there is no way Conflict was consistently lagging the entire game.

Since SPL lacks a stronger ruling for cases like these, a decision can't be made from thin air. So consider the rules you put up on site and why it was put there in the first place. Conflict didn't disconnect completely as he came back in the towards a meager time frame in which he was given a chance to make a move. I reckon that this would be considered a time-out instead of ruling it as a disconnection. And assuming the rule on site was created to prevent long matches like these from occurring, I'd like to believe that Floppy deserves the win, especially after playing 700+ turns in 5 hours.


World's Strongest Fairy
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion
Draw's the right call for Conflict-Gorgie; claims of who might be sufficiently at "fault" for the shameful length of the match or how it ended are dubious and independent of the actual result of the match (stalemate).

However, since I'm seeing so many stalls without teeth in SPL, would it be possible to have external moderation of GSC games? It sucks that people aren't playing with more than a modicum of offense, but if they're not going to, I'd think it'd be worthwhile to have a third party watch the matches and call obvious stalemates (where the game is dominated by both players pointlessly switching around for over 100 turns or so) to prevent this ridiculousness from playing out in the future.

EDIT: While I'm stumping for moderation, I might as well go out on a limb and say that the decision to use NBS exclusively for GSC was probably not a good one. Reflect actually does get factored in in-cart crits if the attacker's Attack stage is higher than the defender's Defense stage, and that's what happens on PO. Meanwhile, PO ignores Reflect if the attacker's Attack stage is equal to or lower than the opponent's Defense stage, whereas NBS doesn't ignore Reflect in crits... ever. Not to mention that NBS is riddled with game-crashing Pursuit bugs. PO's the better GSC sim at this point, so if anything, matches should exclusively be played there.


Makin' PK Love
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
This is all I'm going to say about the time out clause.

<Floppy> despite all this theorymoning i should take the win off of timeout
<LonelyNess> Floppy I don't care about time out it is only there to prevent people from stalling out infinitely
<LonelyNess> you are never meant to win via time out
<LonelyNess> period
<LonelyNess> if I can make a call instead of awarding a win via time out
<LonelyNess> I will do so
<LonelyNess> EVERY time
<LonelyNess> there is almost never a legitimate reason to apply the time out rule and this sure as hell isn't an exception. The match was a draw by every reasonable metric, so that's where it's standing.

I'm getting pretty sick of all of this "then I guess I'm taking the win" talk. Stop trying to find ways to win your matches without actually winning your matches because as you can see in literally every single circumstance this season it has NEVER gone in favor of the person "just taking the win".
Since when did we back off of the hard-line "you timeout, you lose" rule

Seems like the current application of the rule just encourages timing out in tight matches (not to mention the current application of dcing rules encourage dcing)
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)