General Rules Template
WasabiOne
Co-Lead NS2 CDT Join Date: 2011-06-15 Member: 104623Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Gold, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Pistachionauts
Co-Lead NS2 CDT Join Date: 2011-06-15 Member: 104623Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Gold, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Pistachionauts
<div class="IPBDescription">please read, review and comment</div>Hello all!
ScardyBob and Myself are working on refining the rules for live cast events that are sponsored by UWE and future show matches that I will be hosting. Below I have provided a link to PDF in google docs that shows what Scardy and I have come up with. Please take the time to read through all the rules and give us your feedback below. Of course I will be meeting with the team individually, but this is an opportunity for you to see where we are looking. Thanks again ALL!
<a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3acxJksRUd2SUxaVGFlbjB5UXM" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3acxJksRUd2SUxaVGFlbjB5UXM</a>
ScardyBob and Myself are working on refining the rules for live cast events that are sponsored by UWE and future show matches that I will be hosting. Below I have provided a link to PDF in google docs that shows what Scardy and I have come up with. Please take the time to read through all the rules and give us your feedback below. Of course I will be meeting with the team individually, but this is an opportunity for you to see where we are looking. Thanks again ALL!
<a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3acxJksRUd2SUxaVGFlbjB5UXM" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3acxJksRUd2SUxaVGFlbjB5UXM</a>
Comments
> 1.5c seems a bit much. Can you guys budge on that at all?
> 1.7a is too broad and vague. For something as subjective as defamation, it needs much clearer language. Additionally, it places no time limits on these prohibitions, which is a tad extreme.
> 1.8a seems unnecessary. Does linking to this document count as transmitting it? We're really not allowed to save the rules and send them to someone else? I don't see the purpose behind this clause.
> 2.2e specifies scheduled match start time, which leaves it open for abusive situations. What if a team's game runs on 30 min past their scheduled start time through no fault of their own? They now have 0 min to assemble their players. This also steps on the toes of 2.2f
> 2.4b seems off. What if both teams agree that a map is the best to play all the rounds of their finals on? If feels like this clause is forcing variety at the potential expense of balance or the teams themselves.
> 2.4d doesn't allow the winning team to pick whether they want map choice or side choice; maybe this is for the best, some people should weigh in on this.
> Section 2.6 places no stipulation on ringers playing for multiple teams in a tournament, so long as they aren't listed as members of the team's roster. This opens you up to abusive situations where you have teams swapping ringers for and against themselves and throwing the balance of skill and power into chaos. In an extreme example: if NC wins a tournament by grabbing GORGEous for the finals, fine, but he shouldn't bounce around the tournament deciding matches by joining up with random teams.
> 2.8b seems a bit extreme, but is perhaps warranted. No real critique here.
> 3.1a has the same problems that 1.7a does. Taken together, they pretty much ban any sort of negative speech about anyone who was ever associated with a tournament by anyone who played in it until the end of time. That's just too much.
> 3.1b is also vague. How do you draw the line between explaining and complaining? It seems like it would just be easier to just stop people from talking than to ban everything they could say.
> 3.1c tries to do just that, but it only applies in some situations and to most of the players. I'd like to see this section fleshed out and the others about speech violations reduced.
> 3.1d would really benefit from specific definitions of cheat and exploit. I know it's pedantic, but future cups could hang on the meaning of these words; it's best to get them out in the open before the controversy.
> 3.3a would benefit from 3.1d's clarification.
> 5.1a and 5.1b contradict. The first states that action may be taken upon any violation, while the second states that action will be taken after a warning.
> 5.3a seems very limiting. What if the players have recourse to believe the official was biased or did not properly review the evidence at hand? Is there no option without new evidence? I understand the tedium of reviewing an appeal for every punishment, but bad calls do happen.
That's most of them. I've typed this thing 2.3 times by now >.>
I'll go through your responses and post my thoughts on them in a few hours, Wasabi, but in general I think my issue with most of these clauses is not the spirit of the rule, but what the letter allows you to enforce. On another note: thanks for taking the time to discuss these rules with us as a community; it's more than a lot of organizers do, and it's definitely appreciated.
1.7a - in general this community is here to support each other and our common goal of Natural Selection 2, as players/teams there should be no slander against any promoter for any reason, we are here to play. This rule is actually very common even in other leagues etc,.,.
1.8a - ha yeah, but all the same Bob spent a lot time formatting this... wouldnt want anyone to copy it and say its theirs :P
2.2e this rule technically only applies the first matches of the day since they are the only ones set with an actual time.
2.4b is due to the fact that we are also trying to show off the game and there is more than one map to play a game on
2,4d is actually supposed to be an either/or decision, they chose which one they want and the other team then gets the other decision. worked well in the last NA event.
few mistypes also, but otherwise I find rules good enough, just need more\higher punishment for rule violation in severe way (like cheating etc.)
UWE should sponsor other tournament organizers in whatever way they can, but should not be Host, admin, organizer, referee and caster all at once. There is a conflict of interest here.
<!--quoteo(post=1999947:date=Oct 29 2012, 06:03 PM:name=Tquila)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tquila @ Oct 29 2012, 06:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1999947"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When you build a house, you tell some contractors to build it for you. If the contractor say "We'll handle everything with materials etc. so you don't have to look at prices and so on", then any sane person should go "no way". It's a conflict of interest. So the wholesaler/distributor != contractor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another example is that if the prosecuter is also the judge you have a conflict of interest.
If UWE (or, lets face it, Hugh) wants to support the growing competitive scene he should do so by supporting tournament organizers, not by being organizers themselves.
This topic is unnecessary because it's up to the tournament organizers to set the rules. And UWE shouldn't be organizing the tournaments, they should help promote existing and future tournament and tournament organizers.
Wiry, I think you miss the point here.... I am not UWE, I am not Hugh.... I however will be in charge of planning and organizing future UWE sponsored events and tournaments. Hugh is super stoked to be a caster and camera man. I will be handling all the other logistics with my Admin team.
Was it you then, or was it Hugh, who had a problem with the "rofl hitreg" ? Or the bans (that most likely were removed due to community rage).
Not only that, but you (both you and hugh) have shown time and time again that you shouldn't be running tournaments, since you don't know how to.
Sorry, I just don't buy it.
-
Imo, UWE should be helping other tournament organizers get their ###### going, instead of hosting their own. The game company supports tournament organizers, not the other way around.
I don't mean to be harsh, or put you down, but with the slightly amateur way the tournaments have been run so far you really have no right to be putting such harsh demands and expectations on the players.
You run slightly amateur fun tournaments, so you should extend the same relaxed attitude to the players, not to expect them to behave like they are live in an ESL Intel sponsored world final. It is a crazy example of double standards.
This is something that should evolve as the level of the NS2 competitive scene becomes more serious (which will be slowly, if at all).
Also, wiry's point is that you are also incredibly integrated into UWE (NAPT Co-Leader, Tournament Admin, etc.) so the conflicts of interest exists no matter what you do or think. No-one in the world is proof against conflicts of interest, which is why the accepted way to deal with it is to avoid them at all costs.
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/j2RF5.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/ZJHoD.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
1.7a - in general this community is here to support each other and our common goal of Natural Selection 2, as players/teams there should be no slander against any promoter for any reason, we are here to play. This rule is actually very common even in other leagues etc,.,.
1.8a - ha yeah, but all the same Bob spent a lot time formatting this... wouldnt want anyone to copy it and say its theirs :P
2.2e this rule technically only applies the first matches of the day since they are the only ones set with an actual time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did mean 1.5c.
1.7a - The problem with slander is not the idea, it's the enforcement. You can define almost anything as inappropriate speech under these guidelines, and with no expiration on this clause, almost anything any player says at any time about the tournament can be considered a violation. If a tournament has problems or issues in its execution, then under these rules, people who discussed the shortcomings and how to improve them on the forums afterwards would be open to anything from warnings to permanent ban. That doesn't seem right.
1.8a - If you want to stop people from claiming this document, you can add a clause for that. You can even prohibit distribution without attribution, but stopping people from saving or sending it in any way is just overkill. These are tournament rules; they should be something people can pass around and share.
2.2e - Seems fine in that case then.
<!--quoteo(post=2017318:date=Nov 9 2012, 12:52 PM:name=WasabiOne)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WasabiOne @ Nov 9 2012, 12:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2017318"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Players can only play on one team PERIOD, so even in the case of ringers they cant be on anyone elses roster.
2.4b is due to the fact that we are also trying to show off the game and there is more than one map to play a game on
2,4d is actually supposed to be an either/or decision, they chose which one they want and the other team then gets the other decision. worked well in the last NA event.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Section 2.6 does not tell us this, though. You define a ringer as someone not on a roster, and the only stipulation I can see is that players can not be on multiple rosters for a tournament. According to these rules, from what I can see, there's nothing illegal about Ringing for every team in the game.
2.4b may be in place for that purpose, but as I stated, it feels like this clause is forcing variety at the potential expense of balance or the teams themselves. Is showing off maps more important than maintaining a balanced environment? I'm not saying same maps should be required, but straight up outlawing same-map finals in the rules doesn't send a good message. My advice would be to leave it allowed in rule, but heavily pressure players to switch up maps in practice.
2.4d should be clarified then, because what you are telling me contradicts what the rules say.
<!--quoteo(post=2017330:date=Nov 9 2012, 01:00 PM:name=WasabiOne)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WasabiOne @ Nov 9 2012, 01:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2017330"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Section 3.1 is by far the most important. I dont believe is broad or hard to understand at all.... pretty much team captains should be the only ones chatting during the game to call NL or to request review, etc... However; during ready room or even during a round players should not under any circumstances state any opinons regarding the game it self, ie... HITREG lol, Map Sucks, Balance wtf... if you dont like the state of the game at the time of play, then dont play, but these matches are not a podium for any individuals opinions to be heard regarding any changes they want in the game. Those conversations can be had elsewhere. When even joking the stream become and chatting then amplies the post and takes a whole new direction which is not what these events are about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is why I believe you guys would be well served to just say that streamed speech from players should be limited to required communication as part of the tournament or positive sportsmanlike congratulations. It's easier to say what is allowed then what isn't, in this case.
<!--quoteo(post=2017334:date=Nov 9 2012, 01:02 PM:name=WasabiOne)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WasabiOne @ Nov 9 2012, 01:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2017334"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3.3a is ever evolving so that particular section would be clarified amongst the teams before the event to iron out any list they deem fit to use.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And yet it still suffers from the issues I mentioned in 3.1d. Getting the tournament organizers and captains to just sort of figure things out beforehand is nowhere near as useful as having it in writing before the event. Having your definitions be established in a place of record is key for situations in which they are contested, otherwise you wind up getting into a he-said-she-said with the players about what is and isn't fair, having to pull executive privilege, and leaving a bad public image. It's not unlike the recent confusion over whether Nexzil's Shift Eggs were allowed or not; if it had just been written down in the rules at the start of the tournament, there wouldn't have been a public outrage and the organizers wouldn't have come off as arbitrarily punishing teams for no fault of their own.
I'm not saying you need to write every single exploit or cheat into the rules right now, but it is important that you give a general definition for exploiting and cheating and that you leave some space to add specifically banned actions for the tournament in question.
Now, whatever your opinion of me is fine. You dont have to play if you dont think I am capable of doing my job, bummer, but its totally your choice, I am cool either way. UWE is a sponsor of MY future events in name only... I have permission to use their twitch channel and to run and organize the events as I see fit without them interfering or making any decisions to admin the matches.
My plan as it has always been is to do Scheduled show matches every other friday night featuring equally matched teams. I would also like to do quarterly tournament events that are planned, scheduled and worked out way in advance of the actual play dates... I do not stand for poor planning or relying on others to do their parts, thus the reason bob and I are putting these rules together, not so that everyone is forced to use them, but to assemble a nice cohesive set of rules that anyone can use for their events too.
Looking forward to these matches,
I'll review these rules and post again/edit shortly.
It wasn't an attack on you WasabiOne, please don't take it as such. You are part of the official games team, whether you like it or not. You cannot do anything to change this (apart from perhaps cutting all close ties with UWE and leaving the PT team, all crazy steps) and so the conflict of interests do exist. I think we have all seen enough to know that you would never intend on ever letting this impact how you behave, but conflicts of interest are almost impossible to avoid (we are all psychologically vulnerable to them).
I can't say exactly where the blame lies for some of the issues with previous events. It is quite obvious Hugh does not have the right personality for these things (which there is nothing wrong with, he is fantastically great at other things) but either way you will need to prove you can deliver at a high level before you can demand it from others.
Either way, I (and I am sure most others) have been really impressed with your willingness to accept criticism and I thoroughly enjoy your streams/casts and events. I just feel you are getting ahead of yourself with these rules and should be a bit more relaxed to begin with.
I'm not opposed to removing it. I was modeling the rules off of the CAL CS1.6 rule sets so I included more than probably needed too.
<!--quoteo(post=2017752:date=Nov 9 2012, 05:21 PM:name=Argathor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Argathor @ Nov 9 2012, 05:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2017752"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is something that should evolve as the level of the NS2 competitive scene becomes more serious (which will be slowly, if at all).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as I know, competitive communities are made by the hardwork of people like Wasabi and Hugh. They've not been perfect, but the competitive community would be a shell of itself without their efforts.
Also, I don't see how a UWE sponsered or related tournaments detracts from community members running tournaments/leagues. So far, they've mostly been the only game in town (with ENSL being the only major exception).
If there ever was a time for +1, it's now.
I'm also a bit confused how UWE hosting a tournament would be a conflict of interest unless they had either entered or publicly favored a team. Lots of gaming companies host tournaments (see <a href="http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/esports/" target="_blank">Blizzard</a>), so its not an unheard of thing to do.
This..
Heroes of Newerth (S2 Games) also host their own tournaments to great success...
nfi why you guys somehow think UWE is out to get you. They want a successful competitive scene just as much as you do...
What people are attempting to explain is that not only do you have the potential for having a positive impact on competitive NS2, you can do harm too. The previous events showed this clearly with the animosity generated towards UWE. WasabiOne is intimately and publicly connected to UWE through his past work, job as a NA PT Lead and playtester. His actions will be linked to and associated with UWE. There is no choice in this, it will happen.
Community animosity is a much bigger threat to UWE than other companies. Were Blizzard reliant on the community for official artwork, website features, ingame functions, optimisations, servers, etc. On the other hand, UWE gained an incredible amount and have thus been capable of doing a lot more than otherwise, through their communities passion/love. People are not attacking WasabiOne by being weary, they are simply trying to protect the current (successful) climate.
I don't personally believe WasabiOne should not do events, but not understanding the threats/vulnerabilities out there is really not a good start. Understanding the potential pitfalls is the best way to avoid them, which is why I have taken time to explain it.
I appreciate Bo5 model for semifinals\finals, not for division ties.
I haven't read the entirety, but I'll be sure to and comment accordingly later this evening. I think this is definitely a great move and if utilized right will provide a great deal of legitimacy to the endeavor of competitive, legitimized matches and casting.
It looks professional, is presented well, and I for one thank you for taking the time and effort (you too scardy) to put it together.
Bravo.
-Colt
EDIT:
I read the entirety. Looks fairly good. I would urge you reconsider the lines of 3.1b "Discussions regarding game performance, balance, Unknown Worlds Entertainment, or the
tournament rules for any reason other than clarification is strictly prohibited during the duration of the tournament." as it is redundant with 3.1c "Once a game is live, only the team captain may use the in-game chat." unless this is intended for ready-room time, out-of-match/un-streamed time, or otherwise.
If it's otherwise, maybe clarify that. Or eliminate the first part and let it be a ghosted implication of 31c, because 31b seems and 'feels' defensive and hostile as a rule towards people with an opinion about the game (which every single competitive player is going to have, and probably voice whether allowed or not depending on what channels are 'allowed' and 'not allowed').
Then do BO5 for division ties and BO7 for semi\finals
Heroes of Newerth (S2 Games) also host their own tournaments to great success...
nfi why you guys somehow think UWE is out to get you. They want a successful competitive scene just as much as you do...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
S2 had a hand in dampening HoN's competitive scene, and basically murdered it's casting by endorsing breakyCPK. That is a pretty awful example to pick. It's too easy to be bad at what you do but leave players no choice but to still sign on if you monopolize the field.
Also, Flayra has a bad track record with competitive games.
Dude's got a point; I can't remember the last time I heard about Zen of Sudoku's comp scene.
2.9c Add: In case of game altering events coursed by players see 5.0
6.0 GISP shall receive cookies at the expence of the organiser.