The Dissenting Opinion - Mets Attack Case

Locked
User avatar
Sly
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 6:54 pm
Battle.net Name: Sly
Battle.net Char Code: 320
Battle.net Server: NA

The Dissenting Opinion - Mets Attack Case

Post by Sly » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:29 pm

As you can see from the voting, this was a closely decided judgment—one which Swift and I disagreed with. Passions are still running high on this topic, so I think it’s appropriate to share with you the thought process behind why we arrived at the conclusions we did, and why I disagree with the majority position.

To begin, I will briefly recap what the situation is as we see it. Mets, a key player for the Korhal War Pigs, was unable to participate at the conclusion of the first of five games in the series, despite the fact that he had just played and helped his team win the first game. After the first game, Mets was offline, so Korhal proceeded to play the rest of the series without him. Korhal lost the series, three games to two.

Mets logged back online, and later stated that he suspected his connection was deliberately attacked by a ZH player. This claim was investigated by the Management with the assistance of a few of the more tech-savvy players in the community, and the claim was deemed to be extremely credible. The unanswerable question—though, there have been potential suspects identified—was the identity of the attacker and the motive behind the attack.

Due to this unique and delicate situation arising, the Management believed it was necessary to examine potential action in order to restore balance and legitimacy to the League—which, we believe, was clearly damaged by the situation that occurred.

As someone who has a significant amount of league management experience, I understand the difficulty of making these decisions without complete clarity of the facts and details. In general, the decisions that Management make can be categorized into “clear decisions” and “unclear decisions”.

Clear decisions are straightforward, defined as having ample supporting data with which to make a decision. Clear decisions are often based on an existing framework of current and historic rules, which establish a norm by which the community willingly follows. If the rules clearly state that any player who smurfs will be banned, and a player is inarguably caught smurfing, there is no debate whether the decision is fair, because the offense was committed after the rule had been in place.

Conversely, unclear decisions are defined by their difficulty due to a lack of definitive evidence one way or the other. These are decisions that *must* be made by a different process than clear decisions, since there is either no precedent by which to work from, or because applying an existing rule would result in a clearly illogical decision. It should be recognized that it usually isn’t possible to create a perfect solution in response to unclear decisions.

This decision was an unclear one. I personally do not know with absolute certainty whether or not Mets was attacked. As stated, if he was attacked, we do not know for certain who attacked him. Despite the lack of clear evidence, however, the Management must work with what it has, weighing the evidence and details as they see fit.

For example, I do not find it likely that Mets—after having won the first game—decided it was a good idea to fake a Denial of Service attack against himself. Therefore, though we cannot be certain that Mets was attacked or of the identity of the attacker, the Management should’ve placed a more significant weight on the potential validity of Mets’ claim.

The Management must then determine what it should do with the contested series result. I believe it is quite clear that if Mets was proved incorrect about being attacked, that the series result should stand. Likewise, our decision would be a simple matter if it was certain that Mets was attacked, particularly by a player of the opposing team.

As established, I believe (and based on the evidence and testimony presented to the Management) it is far more likely than not that Mets was indeed attacked. Therefore, the logically correct decision should’ve been to err on the side of either a balanced ruling that did not benefit one team over another significantly, or a ruling that only slightly favored Korhal, since Korhal won the first game with Mets in the lineup (presumably before any attack began).

That is why I voted to replay the five-game series, but with a caveat: Aiur would have three home games instead of the two they had in the first series. This decision would actually favor Aiur slightly.

The basis for my opinion is twofold. First, Aiur cannot be assumed to be complicit or assumed guilty in any potential attack against Mets. No evidence has been presented to my knowledge that involves any Aiur player. Second, while I believe the logically correct opinion would’ve been to favor Korhal slightly, there is an emotional value to what Aiur has to experience with replaying a series. It cannot be quantified, but the general sentiment around the fairness of a decision should be accounted for, even if imperfectly. For example, it would be counterproductive (only in these unclear cases!) to arrive at a decision that, despite the Management’s belief that it is correct, that causes either team to abandon their season.

I believe the majority opinion failed to make a correct judgment because they were overly concerned about the future precedent resulting from this decision, rather than focusing on the facts of this particular case.

The majority stated, “This change was made because we are against the precedent of remaking any games in the future.” And yet, there is no significant difference between extending a series and replaying games. Basing a decision about Mets’ claim of an attack on the fear that a future precedent may negatively impact a future league is an irrelevant baseline from which to judge his case.

I believe the majority mistakenly placed a significant weight on the argument that NoVa is also a victim, and therefore a decision that is made should be catered to his perspective. This is a logical fallacy, since everyone in this case (except the attacker) can be considered a victim. Players from both teams are victims, since it’s now probable that they will play better or worse than they did before. I will stress that the previous statement cannot be used to form the foundation of a decision, since it is Mets’ claim—and his claim alone—that is the issue.

Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
sidtkid
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 10:26 pm
Battle.net Name: SidtheKid
Battle.net Char Code: 601
Battle.net Server: NA
Location: Canada

Re: The Dissenting Opinion - Mets Attack Case

Post by sidtkid » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:53 pm

The fact that we do not know who attacked Mets is likely the deciding factor on most of the community's decision.

If you do not know who attacked him, then the game should be extended. This is actually a more lenient option as there are no rules about what happens if a player is attacked.

If the player was someone from the ZH community, I would have chosen to replay the series, giving Aiur home ice advantage.

If the player was someone from Aiur, I would have chosen to disqualify Aiur entirely.

That's my take on it.
Yoda: HEAD OF STATS
Yoda: DOES 0 STATS
Yoda: SHAKE
Yoda: MY
Yoda: GOD
Yoda: DAMN
Yoda: HEAD
User avatar
Cubs
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:59 pm
Battle.net Name: Cubs
Battle.net Char Code: 781
Battle.net Server: NA
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Dissenting Opinion - Mets Attack Case

Post by Cubs » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:58 pm

sidtkid wrote:The fact that we do not know who attacked Mets is likely the deciding factor on most of the community's decision.

If you do not know who attacked him, then the game should be extended. This is actually a more lenient option as there are no rules about what happens if a player is attacked.

If the player was someone from the ZH community, I would have chosen to replay the series, giving Aiur home ice advantage.

If the player was someone from Aiur, I would have chosen to disqualify Aiur entirely.

That's my take on it.
But who actually thinks it WASN'T a community member? Context points to it was.
Image

im the kid thatd jump a kid like you
User avatar
Cafca
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:55 pm
Battle.net Name: Rhonas
Battle.net Char Code: 0
Battle.net Server: NA
Location: Vancouver, Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

Re: The Dissenting Opinion - Mets Attack Case

Post by Cafca » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:03 pm

First hes accused of using AC, then someone tries to attack his internet connection! What will Mets have to fight off next?
User avatar
Marker
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 1:05 am
Battle.net Name: Marker
Battle.net Char Code: 164
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: The Dissenting Opinion - Mets Attack Case

Post by Marker » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:15 pm

sidtkid wrote:The fact that we do not know who attacked Mets is likely the deciding factor on most of the community's decision.

If you do not know who attacked him, then the game should be extended. This is actually a more lenient option as there are no rules about what happens if a player is attacked.

If the player was someone from the ZH community, I would have chosen to replay the series, giving Aiur home ice advantage.

If the player was someone from Aiur, I would have chosen to disqualify Aiur entirely.

That's my take on it.
This was essentially the original decision. People didn't take too kindly to it.
Image

PGP KEY

Code: Select all

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0BO0QBS9-l_SW03alNQMnF6Z0U/view?usp=sharing
User avatar
LoOgiK
Posts: 715
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:49 pm
Battle.net Name: BlackPhilou
Battle.net Char Code: 2169
Battle.net Server: EU

Re: The Dissenting Opinion - Mets Attack Case

Post by LoOgiK » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:05 am

ive ddos'd mets once and i swear to god i'll do it again
EUDL4 winner #10-0
1st best forum spammer
ZHCL 8 9 Winner
EUDL5 Manager
Redline tourney finalist

VOTE KURT FOR S10 COMMISION
User avatar
krazymen
Posts: 1171
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:10 pm
Battle.net Name: krazymen
Battle.net Char Code: 249
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: The Dissenting Opinion - Mets Attack Case

Post by krazymen » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:10 pm

LoOgiK wrote:ive ddos'd mets once and i swear to god i'll do it again
HAha
Bowling trophy (birthday trophy)
Achieved level 105 in starcraft 2
Undefeated in 5v5
self proclaimed director of ironic trophies
User avatar
DerrocK
Posts: 1273
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:46 am
Battle.net Name: Junky
Battle.net Char Code: 0
Battle.net Server: EU
Location: Top 1000 EU

Re: The Dissenting Opinion - Mets Attack Case

Post by DerrocK » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:00 am

are logik's posts getting more and more cringy over time or is it just me
COTEP W
EZHL S1 W
EU Open W
NA ZHPL S5 W
EUS2 Regular Season W, Commish, AllStar
EU Redline W
EUS6 Commish
Swedish Open 2v2 W
DaGOAT ZHCL Rings: 2
Best Support ZHPL S11
Nº1 EU Forum Poster
Immortals on ice Rings: 3
EUS8 W

Narcissism at its best
Gandalf
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 7:28 pm
Battle.net Name: Gandalf
Battle.net Char Code: 0
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: The Dissenting Opinion - Mets Attack Case

Post by Gandalf » Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:39 am

blah blah blah...let the police handle it. Quite frankly, this is out of ZH jurisdiction. Know your place.
Locked