To re, or not re: that is the question!

[deleted_user]

ty ty, hold applause for title later.

Explanation

So in today's quarterfinal series between @goongoon and @lordraphael a situation occurred in game 6 (the series being led at that time by goongoon 3-2 in the BO7) in which, at 1:41 game time, Raphael (Aztec) chose a team, water deck on Tibet vs goongoon (Sioux).

Raphael paused, explained the situation, and asked for a restart. Goongoon initially and continued to oppose the restart (which was eventually granted by the caster and confirmed by a tournament admin (noel)).

Here are the relevant rules:

1.6 - Every player may restart a game BEFORE the 2 minute mark when necessary. This is allowed ONCE per map when the game is NOT casted by an official caster. Restarts for CASTED games will be determined by the caster him/herself.

1.7 - The caster is allowed to restart a game as many times as necessary for optimal play.

At 1:41 into the game the treasures and livestock distribution was thus:
-Raphael: 80c, 4 yaks
-goongoon: 80f, 40w, 1 yak

The crate start was extra coin.

Discussion

Now, what do the rules mean? When Raphael asked for a rehost, it was up to the caster to determine if the request should be granted in the spirit of "optimal play." Naturally this is open to some interpretation. Could both the decision to re and the decision not to re have been made with supporting arguments? I believe so. Here I will go over the many arguments to allow the re.

I cannot see any significant advantage based upon the above which may have been gained or lost by either player in age 1 with the exception of Lord Raphael's chosen wrong deck.

The rule states the caster may restart to allow for "optimal play." Certainly if Raphael's choosing of the wrong deck was deliberate with the intent to restart that is not in the spirit of optimal play. There is currently no evidence which would suggest this was the case. Neither player had gained a significant advantage. Raphael did not try to switch civilizations after the restart. He has historically been a mild mannered and respectful opponent throughout tournaments. It can easily be inferred the misclick was genuine, in which case, to restart uphold's the individual game's competitiveness and fair play.

What I believe many users are overlooking is the power of the caster. The asked restart is at his discretion. By all contextual evidence given this was an innocent mistake on Raphael's part. Always affording the restart to any player which asks is not what this rule allows for. In Radix's scenario I would have made it very clear the restart will be made but any further inquiries for restarts will likely be judged to be deliberate and denied regardless of the player. Similarly Radix's discretion may also have determined no restart should be granted which also would have been fair.

At which point may you ask, "why not restart?" When a game is under 2:00 minutes and no player has gained an advantage, when it is the quarterfinals and only a BO7, when there are viewers and (ideally, players) who prefer to see fair play, in a small community, in tournaments run by and funded by volunteers, does it not make sense? For remember the restart is only to be considered in this scenario and this scenario alone. You may not infer whether a restart should be granted by saying other players may try to abuse it -- it has no relevance to the current situation.

Handling

Whether decided to restart or not, with both decisions being defensible, the importance is rationale in the interpretation of tournament rule, decisiveness, and assertive enforcement of the decision.

Note the rule does not strictly refer to a tournament admin. In another rule stated:

2.2 - Players and caster(s) may request during a match that measures be taken to reduce lag. At the discretion of the tournament admins or casters if no admins are available, a streamed match may have its casters switched out, have its number of casters reduced, or be casted from replays.

it may be assumed that if no tournament admin is available the caster is the next most powerful individual.

Should at least one tournament admin be required to be online always during quarterfinal and later games? Arguably yes. Is this more difficult to achieve during a weekday because of professional obligations? Yes. Note that a tournament admin, noel, did give a response. It's timeliness may be questioned.

Should casters (and players) be more aware of the ruleset? Arguably yes. Was the rule-set consulted? Yes -- the timeliness may be questioned.

Are players' opinions to be taken into consideration when the caster decides to re? No. Is the opponent often asked to re in good sport? Yes. Should the opponent be specifically asked to re? No -- it adds a lot of pressure to them to say yes or look like a poor sport. They may offer their support voluntarily if they wish.

Is a player who is very against a caster's decision to restart a game to be reasoned with? No. The caster should explain themselves in text as well as in voice to the stream. If the player disagrees and refuses to cooperate an ultimatum should be made: join the game in __ minutes or the map with be awarded via admin win to the other player and the series will continue.

What we can all do is learn from these situations, ideally, and try to act with sense and class.

[zoom]

Isn't the true question this: Is choosing the wrong deck within the reasons for a do-over?

[deleted_user]

Isn't the true question this: Is choosing the wrong deck within the reasons for a do-over?

Well, it's contextual as it's stated.

ESOC admins might consider specifying in a future rule-set but with what was given at the time is how I wrote the post.

Probably if you had to black-or-white write the rule you would say, no, it is not grounds for a restart as it could be easily abused. But as I said, whether or not the rule can be easily abused does not necessarily apply to the goongoon vs Raphael situation. It's a caster's discretion.

[Garja]

Of course not and this was addressed earlier since someone already tried to re for some desperate reason.
Restart should be exclusively for map flow or blatant bug.
Obviously conditions should be so that everything is competitive to start with.

[princeofcarthage]

Choosing a wrong deck however innocent it maybe is a mistake on player's part and the player should pay for his negligence. Rehost should only be granted for situation where mapscrew or any bug occurs. I remember a game couple tourney's ago Princeofkabul vs (not sure who opponent was it was quarter or semi though so semi pretty top level player) on a map with 2 small ponds. It was prince india vs aztec. He took a water deck which had no 4 sowars. Imagine not having 4 sowars in deck vs aztec, but prince still played accepting his mistake, he won that, that's a different story though. If hazza was not granted RE for a bug no one in that game knew, then why should raph for choosing a wrong deck?

[j_t_kirk]

If re I want to re my game vs @_LeGiT then

[zoom]

Isn't the true question this: Is choosing the wrong deck within the reasons for a do-over?

Well, it's contextual as it's stated.

ESOC admins might consider specifying in a future rule-set but with what was given at the time is how I wrote the post.

Probably if you had to black-or-white write the rule you would say, no, it is not grounds for a restart as it could be easily abused. But as I said, whether or not the rule can be easily abused does not necessarily apply to the goongoon vs Raphael situation. It's a caster's discretion.

I wasn't being clear enough, it seems. my bad!

"Is a player choosing the wrong deck ever possibly within the acceptable reasons for a do-over, according to the rules?"

[WickedCossack]

If it's genuinely a mistake and nothing of substance has occurred in age 1 I don't see why you wouldn't rehost?

Now if an important part of a strat had been revealed or someone crushed age 1 then you'd need both players consent really, and it'd be totally fair for the other guy to say no.

But when nothing has happened in age 1 and still before 2 mins I don't see a convincing argument against not rehosting.

[deleted_user]

Isn't the true question this: Is choosing the wrong deck within the reasons for a do-over?

Well, it's contextual as it's stated.

ESOC admins might consider specifying in a future rule-set but with what was given at the time is how I wrote the post.

Probably if you had to black-or-white write the rule you would say, no, it is not grounds for a restart as it could be easily abused. But as I said, whether or not the rule can be easily abused does not necessarily apply to the goongoon vs Raphael situation. It's a caster's discretion.

I wasn't being clear enough, it seems. my bad!

"Is a player choosing the wrong deck ever possibly within the acceptable reasons for a do-over, according to the rules?"

I do not think there is any way to say with certainty whether it is or isn't. If anything, the rule as it stands with no caster is the more abusable version. With a caster we are at least granted a third party's look.

It really boils down to the interpretation of "optimal play" which is a quite hefty interpretation to make. The rules could very well do with some refinement in the area of rehosts.

[Garja]

Of course chosing wrong deck is nooby mistake and that's why you may want to leave only one deck (it also saves time when choosing).
Then again all detauls are only relevant if everything elae is super competitive. Right now.I could even undestand this sort of rehost.

[n0el]

Isn't the true question this: Is choosing the wrong deck within the reasons for a do-over?

Well, it's contextual as it's stated.

ESOC admins might consider specifying in a future rule-set but with what was given at the time is how I wrote the post.

Probably if you had to black-or-white write the rule you would say, no, it is not grounds for a restart as it could be easily abused. But as I said, whether or not the rule can be easily abused does not necessarily apply to the goongoon vs Raphael situation. It's a caster's discretion.

I wasn't being clear enough, it seems. my bad!

"Is a player choosing the wrong deck ever possibly within the acceptable reasons for a do-over, according to the rules?"

Yes, according to the current rules. Without a caster this isn't even a question.

[Snuden]

Just as Stephen Hendry is about to pot the last black ball for a 147 he slips and accidentally touches the cue-ball with his hands. The referee decides to put it back, where it was and allow Hendry to try again, it was after all only an honest mistake.

Should the referee have consulted with the audience first?

[deleted_user]

If it's genuinely a mistake and nothing of substance has occurred in age 1 I don't see why you wouldn't rehost?

Now if an important part of a strat had been revealed or someone crushed age 1 then you'd need both players consent really, and it'd be totally fair for the other guy to say no.

But when nothing has happened in age 1 and still before 2 mins I don't see a convincing argument against not rehosting.

I quite agree the better question is (in this scenario) "why not rehost?" rather than "why rehost?"

[deleted_user]

Just as Stephen Hendry is about to pot the last black ball for a 147 he slips and accidentally touches the cue-ball with his hands. The referee decides to put it back, where it was and allow Hendry to try again, it was after all only an honest mistake.

Should the referee have consulted with the audience first?

Strange you decide to bring your fallacious arguments into a thread about an ESOC tournament too.

You're creating an analogy which just isn't there.

[Snuden]

Just as Stephen Hendry is about to pot the last black ball for a 147 he slips and accidentally touches the cue-ball with his hands. The referee decides to put it back, where it was and allow Hendry to try again, it was after all only an honest mistake.

Should the referee have consulted with the audience first?

Strange you decide to bring your fallacious arguments into a thread about an ESOC tournament too.

You're creating an analogy which just isn't there.

It's pretty damn close. A player makes a mistake and is of course not entitled to a re host/start.

[princeofcarthage]

If it's genuinely a mistake and nothing of substance has occurred in age 1 I don't see why you wouldn't rehost?

Now if an important part of a strat had been revealed or someone crushed age 1 then you'd need both players consent really, and it'd be totally fair for the other guy to say no.

But when nothing has happened in age 1 and still before 2 mins I don't see a convincing argument against not rehosting.

I quite agree the better question is (in this scenario) "why not rehost?" rather than "why rehost?"

so a player makes a mistake, rather a game changing mistake probably and he easily let go with a rehost? so if at 15 min instead of upgrading skirms I upgrade musk or harlbs by missclick or in hurry ( again an honest mistake) which may or may not prove to be game changing but I simply dont have res to upgrade skirm, would I be granted a rehost? cuz I made a mistake in an competitive game and I should not have to pay for it

[gibson]

Of course not and this was addressed earlier since someone already tried to re for some desperate reason.
Restart should be exclusively for map flow or blatant bug.
Obviously conditions should be so that everything is competitive to start with.

This is exactly correct. You can't restart the game cause a player makes a mistake. That's clearly not in the spirit of competitive play. What other game or sport can you restart a game or round because a player messes up? Oh yea kennyS, we'll restart the round cause you bought a negav instead of an AK. Of course restarting the game was better for the viewers in that it gave them a better game, but clearly that shouldn't supersede the game itself. Goongoon had a clear advantage due to a mistake that Raphel made and the game was re'ed because of raphel making a mistake? That's just dumb and not in the nature of a competitive game.

[deleted_user]

Just as Stephen Hendry is about to pot the last black ball for a 147 he slips and accidentally touches the cue-ball with his hands. The referee decides to put it back, where it was and allow Hendry to try again, it was after all only an honest mistake.

Should the referee have consulted with the audience first?

Strange you decide to bring your fallacious arguments into a thread about an ESOC tournament too.

You're creating an analogy which just isn't there.

It's pretty damn close. A player makes a mistake and is of course not entitled to a re host/start.

True. Although the referee won't consult the audience, by the way, if billiards shared ESOC's tournament rules. As well as, in regard to goon and raph, the error occurred early in the game before any advantage was gained or lost by either player. It's more akin to, say, Hendry slipping on the break and barely touching the triangle of balls -- uneventful and noncompetitive, clearly a mistake, able to be quickly rectified and no reason not to be: these are my gripes.

But you still have a point and I said as much in the OP. What I have stressed is that it makes more sense to rehost rather than not. Consider my amended analogy.

[deleted_user]

If it's genuinely a mistake and nothing of substance has occurred in age 1 I don't see why you wouldn't rehost?

Now if an important part of a strat had been revealed or someone crushed age 1 then you'd need both players consent really, and it'd be totally fair for the other guy to say no.

But when nothing has happened in age 1 and still before 2 mins I don't see a convincing argument against not rehosting.

I quite agree the better question is (in this scenario) "why not rehost?" rather than "why rehost?"

so a player makes a mistake, rather a game changing mistake probably and he easily let go with a rehost? so if at 15 min instead of upgrading skirms I upgrade musk or harlbs by missclick or in hurry ( again an honest mistake) which may or may not prove to be game changing but I simply dont have res to upgrade skirm, would I be granted a rehost? cuz I made a mistake in an competitive game and I should not have to pay for it

zzz must I contextualize every. single. sentence?

Of course I am specifically referring to the scenario from this morning, between goongoon and Raphael, which occurred less than 2 minutes into the game and in which neither player gained an age 1 lead over the other.

[WickedCossack]

It's different for each sport based on the consequences of re-starting.

Only until fairly recently athletics events would allow false starts to be re-run since you can easily go back to your original starting position. I don't know if it was down to the hassle it caused live tv or to effects on other athletes that they changed it. Horseracing still allows false starts. Sailing has a whole set of rules for false starts.

Snooker is a bit harder because it's not really that easy to go back to your original position, even with the current technology though you can get get pretty close. Perhaps a better analogy would be if a player touched the white just before he was going to make the very first shot of the game I guess. They're also worried about if it's allowed in Hendrys siutation you describe that it could be used at other points in the game where theres still 15 balls on the table and they have to re-position each one.

[dave_12]

If it's genuinely a mistake and nothing of substance has occurred in age 1 I don't see why you wouldn't rehost?

Now if an important part of a strat had been revealed or someone crushed age 1 then you'd need both players consent really, and it'd be totally fair for the other guy to say no.

But when nothing has happened in age 1 and still before 2 mins I don't see a convincing argument against not rehosting.

I quite agree the better question is (in this scenario) "why not rehost?" rather than "why rehost?"

I would argue it's a missplay to select the wrong deck (cuz of missclick etc.). If I age with the wrong politician or build the wrong building age 1 I guess there wouldn't be a rehost even tho it's a similar situation. You misclick you loose, like it is in microing a fight etc. .

[deleted_user]

@dave_12 clicking a politician occurs after 2 minutes and is not open to rehosts anyways.

[dave_12]

@dave_12 clicking a politician occurs after 2 minutes and is not open to rehosts anyways.

Right. So as long as you fuck up before 2 min you will get a rehost?

[gibson]

It's different for each sport based on the consequences of re-starting.

Only until fairly recently athletics events would allow false starts to be re-run since you can easily go back to your original starting position. I don't know if it was down to the hassle it caused live tv or to effects on other athletes that they changed it. Horseracing still allows false starts. Sailing has a whole set of rules for false starts.

Snooker is a bit harder because it's not really that easy to go back to your original position, even with the current technology though you can get get pretty close. Perhaps a better analogy would be if a player touched the white just before he was going to make the very first shot of the game I guess. They're also worried about if it's allowed in Hendrys siutation you describe that it could be used at other points in the game where theres still 15 balls on the table and they have to re-position each one.

false starting is not comparable because its restarting for the exact opposite reason. You restart a race cause someone has an unfair advantage. This game was restarted because someone was at a fair disadvantage.

[deleted_user]

@dave_12 clicking a politician occurs after 2 minutes and is not open to rehosts anyways.

Right. So as long as you fuck up before 2 min you will get a rehost?

Well, again, it's not so simple. Although in un-casted games it is that simple. That should really be the discussion.

As long as a caster determines the mistake to be unintentional and grounds for rehost for optimal play, then yes. For example, losing a treasure, losing a scout, misclicking a unit: these are smaller matters which do not affect the overall play of a match. Meanwhile the accidental selection of a very bad and wrong deck, which will surely affect the game in a very large way, when no otherwise perceived advantage has been won by either player, and just 1:41 into the game, that might be considered grounds for rehost!