SPL XII - Commencement Thread

[JabbaTheGriffin]

I’m with BK here, when a rule results in this sort of implementation, it’s time to go back and revisit that rule.

My issue with the rule is that it differentiates what kenix did with several similar actions that would have effectively the same result but would receive no punishment. For instance, if kenix had shared the team with Luthier prior to the match and said “look out for this team, he likes to use it,” it would have been acceptable. If kenix had posted the team anywhere on Smogon and subsequently shared the post instead of the paste, it would have been acceptable. Drawing these arbitrary lines in the sand is typically not ideal from a rulemaking standpoint. This does not even address that at the point kenix shared the team it was already used publicly, which results in another arbitrarily drawn line where the rule now has to define what “public team” actually means.

I really think we need to go back to the drawing board on this rule and recraft it in a way that makes sense and really gets to the heart of the reasoning for the rule being on the books in the first place: to prevent malicious team sharing.

 

[Heroic Troller]

I think the rule should go as such: If the player asks a calc or a team import (and he knows where to get the import, be it rmt or maybe because it was posted somewhere in team chat) it's fine. The mates should be able to work as effective shortcuts for what the player knows and wants to do on his own will. Giving anything unrequested, even teams should not be allowed, simply because if the player was not thinking about that on his own it's "ghosting".

 

[peng]

Not really got skin in the game on this one but just making the rule "do not attempt to give your teammate unsolicited assistance mid-game" covers a lot of bases.

Current definitions of ghosting etc are pretty weak and open to interpretation / abuse. Can we just say that, unless a player actively requests a calc, you probably shouldn't be messaging them full-stop until after the game is over? Cuts out a lot of bs this way

 

[egalvanc]

Why wouldn't you let your teammate play alone?, I think this ban is acceptable, it is unfair for the opponent to not have the team with everything it has on it and you have your opponents entire team, that is a huge advantage for the person who has access to the opponent's team and I believe this action should have some sort of punishment, It doesn't matter if the team has the same evs/moves/abilities.

I think sending a similar team when the game is being played is ghosting and it shouldn't be acceptable. You have to play your games alone. You ought to help your teammate BEFORE the game starts, not DURING the actual game.

My point is that you have to figure out all by yourself when you accept the challenge that's the point of being in this tournament

 

[Wigglytuff]

There seems to be genuine ambiguity in what is or isn't allowed for teamsharing etc., and genuinely no hard rules set with regards to punishment.

Linking the player a RMT of the team they are facing: Allowed.
Linking the player a public replay where their opponent uses the same team they are facing: Allowed.

Speculation of any kind, such as (this Landorus has to be scarf): Not Allowed.
Linking the player a private replay where their opponent uses the same team they are facing: Not Allowed.
Linking the player a private importable where their opponent uses the same team they are facing: Not Allowed.

The only ambiguity about what is and isn't allowed for sharing teams during a game is in what's considered "public," otherwise the rule is clear: if it's public you can share it, if it's private you can't. In Luthier vs Bloody alfa, the team Bloody used can be seen in a replay of the 2020 OU Championships, but otherwise it and the importable is not public; you cannot find an importable for the team posted in the public venues specified in the rule, so the importable should not have been shared. It would be a different story if Kenix had shared only the replay to Luthier, but what happened was that a private importable was linked. This is in clear violation of the rule.

With regards to punishment, this offense is rare because of the number of factors that need to happen (primarily the fact that someone needs to report this, which was done inadvertently through the video) so there is no precedent that I could find while looking over this case. I would hope that the original 1 year is certainly not the precedent set, and that the revised 6 months can be reviewed and adjusted as necessary.

I’m with BK here, when a rule results in this sort of implementation, it’s time to go back and revisit that rule.

My issue with the rule is that it differentiates what kenix did with several similar actions that would have effectively the same result but would receive no punishment. For instance, if kenix had shared the team with Luthier prior to the match and said “look out for this team, he likes to use it,” it would have been acceptable. If kenix had posted the team anywhere on Smogon and subsequently shared the post instead of the paste, it would have been acceptable. Drawing these arbitrary lines in the sand is typically not ideal from a rulemaking standpoint. This does not even address that at the point kenix shared the team it was already used publicly, which results in another arbitrarily drawn line where the rule now has to define what “public team” actually means.

I really think we need to go back to the drawing board on this rule and recraft it in a way that makes sense and really gets to the heart of the reasoning for the rule being on the books in the first place: to prevent malicious team sharing.

The purpose of that rule is to allow for objective timesavers, such as requested calcs, questions on mechanics. RMTs and sample teams are included under objective timesavers because they could be found by the player themselves and it's a matter of time, not whether it can actually be found. It is not meant to allow collaboration from teammates to what essentially amounts to, at best, set speculation and, responding to BK's post, I would be very concerned if you and your teammates were passing importables midgame even if they were "wrong".

The actions are differentiated because they are different.
- Kenix shared the team prior to the match: key word is prior, this is standard prep and allowed so long as Kenix didn't know it was Bloody's intended team.
- Kenix had posted the team on Smogon and shared the post: this would be an objective timesaver - Kenix is sharing a pre-existing post which could be found by Luthier, and not offering his opinion on the team and its sets beyond the contents of the post itself.
- The team was already used publicly: addressed above, but the team was already used a in a replay, not posted as an importable. This would be a different story had the replay been shared, not the importable.

The rule appreciates the nuances in each of these actions, which as far as I'm concerned, is the mark of a good rule, not a bad one.

===

My mistake in this as a member of the hosting team was in not thinking more of the now removed paragraph that hinted towards an equivalency to team leaking. I saw that paragraph as an explanation for why Luthier was not punished rather than an additional charge beyond breaking the objective timesavers rule (and reading the revised admin decision, I feel like that component is missing), and did not expect them to be connected as they were in the initial public backlash. By extension, I also should've spoken up about the length of the punishment once the hosts were made aware of the TDs intended punishment. I apologize to Kenix and hope to do better moving forward.

 

[Leo]

The purpose of that rule is to allow for objective timesavers, such as requested calcs, questions on mechanics. RMTs and sample teams are included under objective timesavers because they could be found by the player themselves and it's a matter of time, not whether it can actually be found. It is not meant to allow collaboration from teammates to what essentially amounts to, at best, set speculation and, responding to BK's post, I would be very concerned if you and your teammates were passing importables midgame even if they were "wrong".

The actions are differentiated because they are different.
- Kenix shared the team prior to the match: key word is prior, this is standard prep and allowed so long as Kenix didn't know it was Bloody's intended team.
- Kenix had posted the team on Smogon and shared the post: this would be an objective timesaver - Kenix is sharing a pre-existing post which could be found by Luthier, and not offering his opinion on the team and its sets beyond the contents of the post itself.

Why is providing calcs on request being put on the same bag as linking an rmt or a public replay of a team being used? One is a time saver and sometimes more convenient for people playing on phone, the other allows people to PM their teammates unsolicited forum posts or replays during a game. Why do u have to ask for a calc for it to be considered a time saver but getting a team you might not even know was public on a silver platter is ok?

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

The purpose of that rule is to allow for objective timesavers, such as requested calcs, questions on mechanics. RMTs and sample teams are included under objective timesavers because they could be found by the player themselves and it's a matter of time, not whether it can actually be found. It is not meant to allow collaboration from teammates to what essentially amounts to, at best, set speculation and, responding to BK's post, I would be very concerned if you and your teammates were passing importables midgame even if they were "wrong".

The actions are differentiated because they are different.
- Kenix shared the team prior to the match: key word is prior, this is standard prep and allowed so long as Kenix didn't know it was Bloody's intended team.
- Kenix had posted the team on Smogon and shared the post: this would be an objective timesaver - Kenix is sharing a pre-existing post which could be found by Luthier, and not offering his opinion on the team and its sets beyond the contents of the post itself.
- The team was already used publicly: addressed above, but the team was already used a in a replay, not posted as an importable. This would be a different story had the replay been shared, not the importable.

The rule appreciates the nuances in each of these actions, which as far as I'm concerned, is the mark of a good rule, not a bad one.

In my opinion, if we are really shifting this into an “objective timesaver” rule, then the rule and its implementation is even worse than I had anticipated. Luthier could have went through every single public replay of alfa’s until he found the same team being used, went through every turn, took down the moves used, and ran calcs to determine the spreads. Are we going to draw a different arbitrary line in the sand this time? Does it need to be something that Luthier could have done within the time constraints of the battle? Ultimately, alfa used a team (or minor deviation of a team) he had used previously. In that circumstance, it will always be possible to obtain a paste of the team and therefore punishing someone under the current rule because they already had it does not make sense.

No matter how you cut it, this rule is bad. It’s purpose is unclear (if public reception to this ban is a good judge of that) and its implementation is nonsensical. I agree with Troller and his suggestion of rule change makes the most logical sense and should result in the most balanced and fair implementation.

 

[EB0LA]

Yeah... people should not be getting pinged ANY information during a battle. You should have your own resources ready prior to the match, and be allowed to use 0 new information during battle. End this arbitrary rule of what is allowed to be sent & what is not... Just make it that nothing should be allowed to be sent during battle.

edit: (Only using your own resources which you have ready, and in the time limit set by the in-game timer)... Else it's a slippery slope.

 

[Niko]

So the fact is: do we really think that this will be helpful to avoid team sharing to happen again, maybe in another form?
Do we just have to create a huge pokepaste with every importable each player has on his builder, to have the same result without being punished? Is this "skill-based"?
I think the only way where this has to be punished is when someone passes the team to a mate that then links it to the player for this exact purpose. You don't want your teams to be shared? Don't give people this option. Always play them in ionext while using an alt and your teams will be safe. And if the team you chose was used before in a public game or it's known for other reasons, it was on you to take the risk. When I use a team used before, i always assume that if some of the mates of my oppo have the team then he will have it too. This is kinda impossible to report, so what's the reason in keeping a rule that can't be subject to punishment in the big majority of cases?

 

[ABR]

Echoing many of the sentiments above that this rule is unnecessary. If you want stuff to be truly hidden you build for yourself or edit sets for yourself. If you use a pre-existing team with its known sets then you should expect the opponent to know it as well.

The obvious “exception” to this is if someone actually knows what someone is using (say, a teammate) because it is direct knowledge of what a player is using, not a simple match to previous iterations. I don’t think anyone is disputing this rule but I don’t see why we need anything beyond it.

 

[Posho]

 

[Lyster]

#FREEKENIX

 

[thelinearcurve]

The only ambiguity about what is and isn't allowed for sharing teams during a game is in what's considered "public," otherwise the rule is clear: if it's public you can share it, if it's private you can't. In Luthier vs Bloody alfa, the team Bloody used can be seen in a replay of the 2020 OU Championships, but otherwise it and the importable is not public; you cannot find an importable for the team posted in the public venues specified in the rule, so the importable should not have been shared. It would be a different story if Kenix had shared only the replay to Luthier, but what happened was that a private importable was linked. This is in clear violation of the rule.

With regards to punishment, this offense is rare because of the number of factors that need to happen (primarily the fact that someone needs to report this, which was done inadvertently through the video) so there is no precedent that I could find while looking over this case. I would hope that the original 1 year is certainly not the precedent set, and that the revised 6 months can be reviewed and adjusted as necessary.



The purpose of that rule is to allow for objective timesavers, such as requested calcs, questions on mechanics. RMTs and sample teams are included under objective timesavers because they could be found by the player themselves and it's a matter of time, not whether it can actually be found. It is not meant to allow collaboration from teammates to what essentially amounts to, at best, set speculation and, responding to BK's post, I would be very concerned if you and your teammates were passing importables midgame even if they were "wrong".

The actions are differentiated because they are different.
- Kenix shared the team prior to the match: key word is prior, this is standard prep and allowed so long as Kenix didn't know it was Bloody's intended team.
- Kenix had posted the team on Smogon and shared the post: this would be an objective timesaver - Kenix is sharing a pre-existing post which could be found by Luthier, and not offering his opinion on the team and its sets beyond the contents of the post itself.
- The team was already used publicly: addressed above, but the team was already used a in a replay, not posted as an importable. This would be a different story had the replay been shared, not the importable.

The rule appreciates the nuances in each of these actions, which as far as I'm concerned, is the mark of a good rule, not a bad one.

===

My mistake in this as a member of the hosting team was in not thinking more of the now removed paragraph that hinted towards an equivalency to team leaking. I saw that paragraph as an explanation for why Luthier was not punished rather than an additional charge beyond breaking the objective timesavers rule (and reading the revised admin decision, I feel like that component is missing), and did not expect them to be connected as they were in the initial public backlash. By extension, I also should've spoken up about the length of the punishment once the hosts were made aware of the TDs intended punishment. I apologize to Kenix and hope to do better moving forward.

It seems like the decision does follow the rules then. I appreciate the breakdown Wigglytuff, thank you.

Please do not interpret my questioning as an attack on anybody, I love Smogon and want to help make it a better place.
Going forwards, as others have stated, perhaps we should revise the specific rule of allowing or not allowing communicating teams with the player playing the game.

I believe that once the game begins, no one should assist the players, and any act of assistance, e.g. "watch your timer" , or doing calcs, is a slippery slope into ghosting. For example, if I were to help my teammate do calcs I can help him speculate on the opposing mon spread/set etc. Once the game begins individual players need to be handle the entire decision making process (including info-gathering, team-deducing, time management, calculating damage rolls, analysing possible move trees) independently. This depends if the games are more individual matchups or entire team efforts after the pre-game preparation stage has ended. This is up for debate of course ...

 

[DragonWhale]

Allowing people to message teams to players mid-game is like allowing chess players to ask their friends what kind of opening their opponent is using during the game. Why is this even allowed in the first place lol

 

[bbeeaa]

cant we just remove this rule or at least fix it.
the rule is kind of stupid, why would sharing a team in any situation result in a tourban, whats the point of it? "higher level games" i guess would be the answer, like if a good player isnt able to guess opponents set (and if u talk about "hidden techs" then might as well just hide ur team till u play ur game). someone passing u the team u are facing might even be worse sometimes, if u are playing against the same six mons doesnt mean u are playing against the same team, even a single set/move/item might change the whole idea of the six mons and could completely change a players gameplan.
only way i see this rule having sense and being worth a punishment is when a teammate shares the team to the opponent that would then be "team cancering".

cojjonazzo la prima volta che dici qualcosa di vero

 

[teal6]

regardless of the punishments or whatever you gotta admit the series of events leading to this is comedy gold

 

[parivard]

Didn't want to speak on this but felt really bad for Kenix. See.. what happens happens for good.. match result didn't change despite team leak, at least you got to know there's something missing in the rules. Spare him.
No hate to current TDs but the time when teal6 was the TD was the best time. EVERY sentence EVERY word was so charming about him, man can't we get him back? He was way too convincing with his words. Petition to bring Emma Stone back :(((

Ps: I wrote this last night but was so tired already to post this

 

[Mr.E]

SPL has a proud history of trash administrative decisions, I can't believe everyone is so against such a long-standing precedent.

 

[Olliert]

Sending teams to players during a game is bad.
Helping players during a game in any (meaningful) way is bad.
What Kenix did was against the rules.
Kenix didn't act with malicious intent to cheat.
Kenix wasn't aware of the exact rules surrounding this.
The rules are a bit vague.
Kenix is pretty new to tournament scene.
Kenix didn't deserve such a severe punishment.
Kenix should have been tournament banned but only for a short(er) period.
Perhaps there should be an extra failsafe/process in place to ensure rulings/bans are fair in the future.

Just trying to sum up what seems to be the consensus here.

 

[juan123juan]

cojjonazzo la prima volta che dici qualcosa di vero

he doesnt know what any of those words mean

 

[pdt]

Allowing people to message teams to players mid-game is like allowing chess players to ask their friends what kind of opening their opponent is using during the game. Why is this even allowed in the first place lol

i agree with this, either go get the paste/calc/rmt/replay yourself or just play the game, part of the point of the timer is so that you can't just spend forever looking for resources to give you an advantage, so why should your teammates be able to get it for you? regardless of whether its private or not, if they are using a known team and you didn't see it beforehand just do better prep next time or play with what's in front of you

 

[Adaam]

 

[Diophantine]

It's a day late, but i caught Zokuru vs Conflict live if anyone wants to see it. I didn't upload it yesterday coz i was too tired. Hope you enjoy :)

 

[AM]

Day 2 waiting for Finch vs Soulwind.

 

[Finchinator]

Day 2 waiting for Finch vs Soulwind.

View attachment 312933

Saturday 11am GMT-5