Miniature 2 - 5 OldBone

T4ds everyone

I feel like i have to bring something up from the final. After the duel i felt like the golem was way stronger than it usually is (rule is capped at one point, no exception) so haven't duelled against any other than that. Reached out to frank to double check the rule and found out peka was aware of this rule after asking frank personally about it. After the duel peka admited to using a +3 golem wand when being called out on it, even tho he was aware of this rule. Massive difference from a level 1 golem to a level 3 one, especially in a duel like this.

Peka offered me a rematch when being called out on it. I don't understand why conscious cheating should ever end in a rematch tho, can't think of any competetive situation where this would be the case, in sports or whatever. Feels like that only plays in favor for the cheating player since u get literally no punishment whatsoever.

I wouldn't have cared if it was one life rep or whatever, but when it makes this big of a difference and he so clearly knew about it i feel like i have to, bm behaviour should be called out imo.

With that said stuff like this just kills my d2 mood for good tbh, this should never occur in the first place. Can't believe how you can go this far to win tbh in d2 2020, it's beyond my understanding.

Also i feel like all the other players that have faced you on chars where this would make a difference deserve to know. For example lee in the semi final where the duels were that close.

I'll leave the final decision to frank. I won't be interested in a rematch so in that case peka gets the win. I don't give a fuck about the outcome anyway tbh, it just really saddens me that this is the stuff we have to deal with at this point in the game.

Thank you Seb! I am happy you posted that

Hmm this is a difficult one. I believe clarity is important.

Firstly, yes the rule is only one point in clay golem and that includes skills from items and that rule was made clear. And I do believe it makes a difference in the matchup vs a paladin due to the increased life and slow at level 3 (100life vs 170 and 11% slow vs 27% slow).

How to address this is the question.

I have looked back at the group stages and as clay golem can only be cast vs paladins and bowas, and peka only faced one paladin, even with an autoloss there he would have qualified first.

As for the semi final and final, as there is not a precedent for this at level 18, I need to take time to assess the impact of this on Chum and Skullflower. I will be reaching out to Peka, Chum and Skullflower to hear what they have to say and I will discuss this with someone unconnected to any of the competitors to decide what course of action is best.

So basically the question is, can you wear an equivalent of cleglaw gloves in a tournament duel and get away with it. I think 99% of low lvl duel players know the answer.

You should be. What would your reaction have been if a paladin maxed might and told everyone he had 1 in it? Or if amazons ignored the rule and used bugged cthons? It's the exact same thing. Never heard of anyone doing this before so you're first in something at least.

Think it's important to remember that this will be used as a precedent if it would occur again. No point in having rule discussions if we have people who doesn't even follow the rules in tournaments and get away with it.

So I have had a long think about this and will provide clarity on my thought process.

Firstly- was a rule broken and what are the consequences?
Yes, undoubtedly and as per the rules "Admin losses can be handed out if people ...are found to be breaking any of the tournament rules".

Next- are there any mitigating factors which could be taken into account to reduce this from an admin loss to potentially a rematch, possibly one with a point advantage to the opponent?
Things I thought of for example are was the rule broken because of lack of clarity or inability to conform to the rules within the given time frame and what was the size of the impact of the broken rule. For the first one, I cannot say that there was no clarity. Peka confirmed with me early in the tournament that the rule in question meant only 1 point into clay golem included both hard and soft points. For the second one, I was not informed of any inability to conform to the rules. If I had been, likely I would have either allowed more time for the duels to take place in order to obtain a replacement wand and/or allowed the use of a token to respec to accommodate the rule. Finally, was the impact of the breach small enough so as to not impact the outcome of any duels? The difference between a level 1 and level 3 clay golem is 100 life vs 170 life and 11% slow vs 27% slow. The life can mean that the clay golem can survive a throw much more frequently (and both paladins in the semi final and final used throw quite a bit to deal with golem) and secondly, when hit the difference between 11% slow and 27% slow is significant. The rounds themselves, in particular the semi final, were incredibly close so I cannot say without any doubt that clay golem would not have had an impact.

Finally- my ruling. I have decided to award an admin loss for any matchup where clay golem was used. Within the group stages it was used vs Squadexxx and IAmAsylum*. Having awarded Squadexxx the 5-0 for that matchup, and IAmAsylum 5-0, the semi-final pairings would have been reversed - Spark_Peka vs Skullflower and IAmAsylum vs Chum. The group brackets in Challonge have been updated to reflect this.

In the interest of time, and because it was a semi-final vs two of the qualified competitiors, I will allow the result of Skullflower vs IAmAsylum to stand.

I have awarded Chum the 5-0 admin win in his semi-final vs Spark_Peka and as such the final result between Spark_Peka and Skullflower is now null and void.

As compensation for not getting to replay the new semi-final, I have decided to award IAmAsylum third place in the competition and update the prize pool split to 70% for the winner, 20% for the runner up and 10% for third place (previously, 75% for the winner and 25% for second place).

My ruling is final. Please let us move on from this, finish the tournament, and refrain from any further drama on this issue.

Chum will now face off vs. Skullflower in the final of this competition.

*Although this matchup was not completed, it was reported and 5 rounds were played which is sufficient in my mind to award a 0-5 admin loss.

This post was edited by LaochraGael on Mar 3 2020 09:24am

All parties impacted by this decision have been notified via pm.

2 chum - 5 skull

T4ds sir. Wp

T4ds mate, could have gone either way in this match up.

Big thanks to frank for hosting the tour, very well executed!

This post was edited by Skullflower on Mar 3 2020 12:01pm