Jump to content

[PSL X] Ghost Host Complaints & Recommendations


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, gbwead said:

You can't punish people that do not get caught. 

i think there should be some reward for someone that snitches on someone else coaching like 200k or something, could be more idk. people would be afraid to coach because the money gives an incentive to tell. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, RLotus said:

i think there should be some reward for someone that snitches on someone else coaching like 200k or something, could be more idk. people would be afraid to coach because the money gives an incentive to tell. 

There was 1 mil reward for whoever reported couches on PSL 7 iirc and no one got reported.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Sashaolin said:

Alt is not a solution because they could still use their privileges to help their teammates, the goal is to reduce their personal will by not allowing them to take part of the PSL or by making a SGM audit their actions.

I think this is a tad extreme, especially for something that hasn't been a problem in the past "If it aint broke don't fix it". Also SGM's currently are swamped with work so forcing them to prevent cheating in an unofficial would be unfair to them.

13 minutes ago, Sashaolin said:

The reason why the Global Moderators and the Moderators can't take part of the official tournaments have been explained too :

       2. Global Moderators and Moderators choose official tournaments prizes, so there would be a conflict of interest if they win the prize they chose themselves.

The trust is not the issue, you should take this in a positive way because it could prevent people to say that you won because of cheating.

Do you get evidences that you never tried to cheat before, if not, this should not be a valid argument.

Whilst what Fred said may be a factor it's not the main reason. A staff member taking part in an official takes a spot away from another player and as staff members we're here to make the game more enjoyable for everyone so participating goes against this.

As for the trust issues, from what I'm reading if everyone trusted GM+ not to cheat this wouldn't be an issue, so technically trust is the issue. No I don't have proof I didn't cheat in past seasons unless you count the few battles I recorded last season, likewise there's no proof I did cheat so it shouldn't be used against me (which seems to be the entire premise of this discussion - only it's about all GM's)

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Kizhaz said:

I think this is a tad extreme, especially for something that hasn't been a problem in the past "If it aint broke don't fix it". Also SGM's currently are swamped with work so forcing them to prevent cheating in an unofficial would be unfair to them.

Preventing one or two players to take part of an unofficial event in order to prevent the whole event to become a shitfest because of possible cheating should be considered seriously.
A SGM already offered his time and it should not be unfair considering he was the one who raised this suggestion.

 

22 minutes ago, Kizhaz said:

Whilst what Fred said may be a factor it's not the main reason. A staff member taking part in an official takes a spot away from another player and as staff members we're here to make the game more enjoyable for everyone so participating goes against this.

 

The point 2. has nothing to do with fred, it's an official answer from a SGM.

I don't get why you repeated the same reason you already said and that I already answered.
Even if the reason is correct, it's not incompatible with the others.

 

22 minutes ago, Kizhaz said:

As for the trust issues, from what I'm reading if everyone trusted GM+ not to cheat this wouldn't be an issue, so technically trust is the issue. No I don't have proof I didn't cheat in past seasons unless you count the few battles I recorded last season, likewise there's no proof I did cheat so it shouldn't be used against me (which seems to be the entire premise of this discussion - only it's about all GM's)

But of course not everyone trust GM+ not to cheat and will always do, this scenario is utopian.

Trust should not be the issue, I trust you 100%, I was in the same PSL team as you and I've not a single suspicion towards yourself or any other staff member.

The goal is to reduce the possible cheating and the possible accusations of cheating that could muckrake during the event.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Sashaolin said:

Preventing one or two players to take part of an unofficial event in order to prevent the whole event to become a shitfest because of possible cheating should be considered seriously.
A SGM already offered his time and it should not be unfair considering he was the one who raised this suggestion.

They offered a few seasons ago when the game had a much smaller playerbase, it's not quite fair to assume they would be fine to do so again without first asking them (Unless somebody already has then I retract this statement)

 

31 minutes ago, Sashaolin said:

The point 2. has nothing to do with fred, it's an official answer from a SGM.

I don't get why you repeated the same reason you already said and that I already answered.
Even if the reason is correct, it's not incompatible with the others.

Apologies I wasn't aware this was quoted from an SGM, as far as I was aware the main reason is the point I've stated numerous times with "players can accuse staff of cheating" as a follow up. I don't believe I've ever heard of a staff member manipulating a tournament nor having the possibility to do so, which is why I find this reason to be strange. Who and when was this quoted from because I feel it's moot?

 

35 minutes ago, Sashaolin said:

But of course not everyone trust GM+ not to cheat and will always do, this scenario is utopian.

Trust should not be the issue, I trust you 100%, I was in the same PSL team as you and I've not a single suspicion towards yourself or any other staff member.

The goal is to reduce the possible cheating and the possible accusations of cheating that could muckrake during the event.

I just feel that enforcing a rule for a minority that was never an issue in the first place isn't the action to take. I'm also selfish because I don't want to have to get onto an alt just to play or even spectate a battle. Often times I'll still be doing staff duties whilst spectating so this would prevent me from doing so.

We already can't participate in Officials making Unofficial the only place we can and personally I'd rather not have that taken away and if anyone truly doesn't trust us then perhaps we're not doing our job correctly.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Torinnnnn said:

Just do 1-8 , no byes , no extra shit. If you want the better matchup win and get a worse opponent ... Last few weeks of the season are always trash af and it’s not like we have anything else in this game to do after this is over so wynaut. Plus who doesn’t love a Cinderella story? 

so ditch the whole season and just go straigth to the playoffs?

because there'd be no point to the play 7/8 weeks prior to it with this plan of action...

Link to comment
Just now, Linken said:

so ditch the whole season and just go straigth to the playoffs?

because there'd be no point to the play 7/8 weeks prior to it with this plan of action...

We’d still need an order. So no, play the season and get the seedings then go to playoffs. Regular season is still relevant because getting the #1 seed theoretically gives you the easiest route to the championship

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Torinnnnn said:

We’d still need an order. So no, play the season and get the seedings then go to playoffs. Regular season is still relevant because getting the #1 seed theoretically gives you the easiest route to the championship

Not really.

 

You can strategically put yourself in whatever seed you want if playoffs were 100% guaranteed. And if multiple teams do that, then what purpose does seeding serve? 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kizhaz said:

They offered a few seasons ago when the game had a much smaller playerbase, it's not quite fair to assume they would be fine to do so again without first asking them (Unless somebody already has then I retract this statement)

I haven't assumed anything, the suggestion has been made today.

 

1 hour ago, Kizhaz said:

Apologies I wasn't aware this was quoted from an SGM, as far as I was aware the main reason is the point I've stated numerous times with "players can accuse staff of cheating" as a follow up. I don't believe I've ever heard of a staff member manipulating a tournament nor having the possibility to do so, which is why I find this reason to be strange. Who and when was this quoted from because I feel it's moot?

Incredible how I have to provide an identity or a screenshot to be considered trustworthy.

Even if I lied, which is not the case, that would not change the main issue.

Staying stuck to this reason and question the veracity of the statement may look like an attempt to deviate the main issue to a way less important question.

 

1 hour ago, Kizhaz said:

I just feel that enforcing a rule for a minority that was never an issue in the first place isn't the action to take. I'm also selfish because I don't want to have to get onto an alt just to play or even spectate a battle. Often times I'll still be doing staff duties whilst spectating so this would prevent me from doing so.

We already can't participate in Officials making Unofficial the only place we can and personally I'd rather not have that taken away and if anyone truly doesn't trust us then perhaps we're not doing our job correctly.

That was never a revealed issue, this is the heart of the raised problem, how could we know that if we can't audit it ourself ?

I already explained why the alt possibility is not a solution at all.

I don't understand why you are so defensive while the issue is clear and the solutions are provided.

It should be positive for you, you don't have to renounce to the PSL and nobody could accuse you of cheating after that, what's the problem ?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, KaynineXL said:

Not really.

 

You can strategically put yourself in whatever seed you want if playoffs were 100% guaranteed. And if multiple teams do that, then what purpose does seeding serve? 

There is an advantage/disadvantage for every seed, so I don't see why anyone would throw on purpose.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Havsha said:

The solution to being unable to stop coaching is not to legalise coaching, you dont legalise murder because youre unable to stop all murders

Getting caught and punished for coaching vs getting caught and punished for murder. One is significantly more likely than the other, don't you think? 

 

If weed is easily accessible by anyone and the consumption is dangerous for young children, the legalization is the best thing to ensure it doesn't hand up in the wrong hands. Sometimes the best way to tackle an issue is to deal with the issue. When you do not allow players to coach or get coached, it doesn't change anything since it will happen regardless and you won't even be able to shame them for doing it since it will be behind your back.

Edited by gbwead
Link to comment
1 minute ago, gbwead said:

Getting caught and punished for coaching vs getting caught and punished for murder. One significantly more likely than the other, don't you think? 

 

If weed is easily accessible by anyone and the consumption is dangerous for young children, the legalization is the best thing to ensure it doesn't hand up in the wrong hands. Sometimes the best way to tackle an issue is to deal with the issue. When you do not allow players to coach or get coached, it doesn't change anything since it will happen regardless and you won't even be able to shame them for doing it since it will be behind your back.

Dont get me wrong, Im not trying to say coaching is as bad as murder, and unfortunately in South Africa, eish they both unlikely to get caught and punished.

 

But to compare weed to coaching is also equally problematic. While weed doesnt discredit the individual standings or integrity (At least in most liberal societies) Coaching does discredit the intergrity of PSL. From what I understand Weed is often legalised in order to help provide systems of support for those who need it, while I can see why this may seem attractive for coaching, it totally discredits psl. In theory you can buy one good player, and 9 trash tier players, and just get the good player to coach everyone, hell if youre a good enough competitive player you could buy 10 trash players and coach everyone yourself. To legalise such tactics is to condone the method, and this is unacceptable. PSL is a team based competition, if you want it to be about the work of a single individual go play a normal tour. Even if we cant totally eradicate coaching it does not mean we should not try. It may be an uphill battle, but to condone such a system that is a cancer to psl is just plain wrong

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Havsha said:

Dont get me wrong, Im not trying to say coaching is as bad as murder, and unfortunately in South Africa, eish they both unlikely to get caught and punished.

 

But to compare weed to coaching is also equally problematic. While weed doesnt discredit the individual standings or integrity (At least in most liberal societies) Coaching does discredit the intergrity of PSL. From what I understand Weed is often legalised in order to help provide systems of support for those who need it, while I can see why this may seem attractive for coaching, it totally discredits psl. 

I'm not trying to compare coaching to murder or children weed consumption. All I am saying is prohibition is not always the best way to prevent people from doing something they shouldn't. There is much more to it.

 

1 hour ago, Havsha said:

In theory you can buy one good player, and 9 trash tier players, and just get the good player to coach everyone, hell if youre a good enough competitive player you could buy 10 trash players and coach everyone yourself. To legalise such tactics is to condone the method, and this is unacceptable. PSL is a team based competition, if you want it to be about the work of a single individual go play a normal tour. 

That's the problem. In theory, no coaching. In reality, plenty of fuckign coaching. In theory, 1 person can coach 10 trash players. In reality, 1 person can't coach 10 trash players because of allowing coaching would make coaching less effective for all the reasons I already mentionned. 

 

1 hour ago, Havsha said:

Even if we cant totally eradicate coaching it does not mean we should not try. It may be an uphill battle, but to condone such a system that is a cancer to psl is just plain wrong

Idc if it's wrong. In the long run, allowing coaching will make coaching less effective, so it's the best way imo to deal with the issue.

 

We can't eradicate coaching. Please tell me what has been done in 9 seasons to try to prevent coaching. The new dnd rule? Cmon lol. It's good, but it won't accomplish much. I wonder how the dnd rule will be enforced anyways. 

 

If we were really trying to reduce coaching, we would pressure devs to put duel delays for spectators, we would ask for a more agressive timer, we would have a psl with 6 tiers instead of 8 (fuck showdown), we would do more than blinding ourselves to the issue by thinking the rule and punishment against coaching are enough.

 

I personally believe that at high level the skills of a player do not matter much. The outcome of a duel comes down more to teambuilding and luck. A good teambuilder will help his/her teamates way more than any god coach you could possibly find.

Edited by gbwead
Link to comment
1 hour ago, gbwead said:

I personally believe that at high level the skills of a player do not matter much. The outcome of a duel comes down more to teambuilding and luck. A good teambuilder will help his/her teamates way more than any god coach you could possibly find.

at those levels you won't see coaching making your argument invalid

Link to comment
1 hour ago, gbwead said:

Idc if it's wrong.

i very much do and this would make the psl not worth playing imo

1 hour ago, gbwead said:

so it's the best way imo to deal with the issue.

i think you have come to the wrong conclusion. you have been involved in coaching in the past so you project your guilt onto others. "it's not just me everyone does it". i do not believe this and while i agree that it does happen and the current system does not punish it nearly enough to prevent it. your solution is a overreaction and just wrong. 

 

comparing weed to coaching is a strawman. our "society" is one by choice revolves around competition. hurting the spirit of competition is not ok. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Linken said:

at those levels you won't see coaching making your argument invalid

That's my point lmao. If you people are better, we won't see coaching!

 

10 minutes ago, fredrichnietze said:

i think you have come to the wrong conclusion. you have been involved in coaching in the past so you project your guilt onto others. "it's not just me everyone does it". i do not believe this and while i agree that it does happen and the current system does not punish it nearly enough to prevent it. your solution is a overreaction and just wrong. 

Wtf are you even talking about? I might be overacting, but at least I want something to be done rather than pretending everything is ok when it's not.

Edited by gbwead
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.