by Fallen » Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:57 am
alex kirk wrote:
The rules state that admins take each case separately and independently of one another. The punishment for rating, therefore, can change from one case to another.
Catch-all fallacy at it's finest.
I really don't want to support Kyle in his logicland jihad, but since you are dragging this point past him and into the general arena, I'm gonna take a stab at articulating why your stance is so weak in general terms. Prepare for an essay. ENGARDE!
Anarchy in the Rules: The rules technically give the admins the right to do whatever they want (they can change the rules at any time, even retroactively, their decisions supersede any existing rules, etc, these will be referred to as catch-all clauses). The same stance you are taking now could be used to defend an admin that decides to ban anyone he wants from the league, or an admin that decides he feels like winning a championship so gives his team ff win's every week. They could change the rules week by week or even day by day, it could become chaos. You, Alex, would be just fine with these situations. It's in the rules, right? That's your stance. I could understand why you would use 1 dimensional broad strokes versus Kyle (he's arguing the same way) but to make it your general soap box is silly. To point to a catch-all clause exclusively in a debate raises many logic, moral, and legal loopholes. If you don't add context and elaborate, then you are agreeing with everything it encompasses, which like the examples I listed above, no sane person would agree with (and yet you do). They aren't made to be quoted in that way ;/. In fact if you took catch-all clauses literally there would be no point for any other rules, because admins could just do whatever they wanted, anarchy. How do they work then? They come into play alongside social contract.
Social Contract: The rules are a form of social contract. It needs to give admins the power to manage the league effectively, but it also needs to respect the players. Part of that respect is being consistent, and being unbiased. The players need to trust that if they follow the rules they will be protected from those who don't. If an admin starts punishing people differently, or exhibits bias towards specific players, the league loses integrity. I think the TPG admins have actually done an admiral job of being unbiased, unlike many other leagues. I feel bad that Narc felt he had to take the ff loss to maintain that integrity, but it shows his dedication to doing the right thing.
Catch-all Purpose: The purpose of catch-all clauses is not to give dictatorial power but to provide an avenue for leniency and accommodation, and in rare cases to protect from backlash (in the real world that would be lawsuits). An example of how it's supposed to work is agreements between team captains. It allows admins the power to respect situations that would otherwise be against the rules, like letting a suspended player play or allowing a rematch that technically shouldn't happen. Often times this comes down to a choice from the non-disadvantaged captain to either A: Follow the rules explicitly (taking the ff win) or B: Giving the disadvantaged team leeway (allowing a rematch). The part I want to stress is that the rule bending stems from the players out of fairness, not from the admin acting on his own. The admins job is to enforce the agreement the captains come to (preventing "indian giving", like allowing a suspended player to play then disputing him afterwards), or if an agreement cannot be reached to follow the default rules as closely as possible.
Regarding Rating: Actual on-the-fly rule changing and deviation via catch-all clauses should only happen under very extenuating circumstances, or when the rules simply do not account for a given situation, or are indecisive. This is not the case for rating. The penalty for rating is explicit, and the rule has been consistent for a long time. It is absolutely clear how to break the rule and what the repercussions are. I think it is obvious to most people that rating rarely affects the outcome of a match, and is mostly accidental (the rule should probably be updated, but not until the end of the season). If you punish some people for breaking it you need to punish everyone. The only other avenue is a compromise between captains, which the admin should honor if it's reasonable.
Current Situation: The case of mvp vs mindflow is a very good example of this in action. MVP won, but had a minor rule violation that would cause the match to be overturned. Mindflow is within it's rights to take the ff win but instead agreed to a compromise, a rematch.This is a fair outcome because MVP gets a second chance to advance, and Mindflow gets a second chance to legitimately win. I would imagine the situation would have a different tone if money was on the line, but that's not the case. The admins responsibility is to look at this compromise and see if it is healthy for the league/community. In my opinion a rematch would be entertaining for the community and be healthy for the league (a team that legitimately won would move forward). Due to some negative backlash the admin decided that it was best to simply follow the rules in order to maintain integrity, which he is well within his rights to do.
So yea, I agree with how the TPG admins responded, but I disagree with Alex's interpretation of why it is ok that they responded the way they did.
TLDR: Catch-all clauses make a poor (insane) arguing base, and the explanation for why the TPG admins acted appropriately is much more complex than Alex's explanation.
[quote="alex kirk"]
The rules state that admins take each case separately and independently of one another. The punishment for rating, therefore, can change from one case to another.[/quote]
Catch-all fallacy at it's finest.
I really don't want to support Kyle in his logicland jihad, but since you are dragging this point past him and into the general arena, I'm gonna take a stab at articulating why your stance is so weak in general terms. Prepare for an essay. ENGARDE!
Anarchy in the Rules: The rules technically give the admins the right to do whatever they want (they can change the rules at any time, even retroactively, their decisions supersede any existing rules, etc, these will be referred to as catch-all clauses). The same stance you are taking now could be used to defend an admin that decides to ban anyone he wants from the league, or an admin that decides he feels like winning a championship so gives his team ff win's every week. They could change the rules week by week or even day by day, it could become chaos. You, Alex, would be just fine with these situations. It's in the rules, right? That's your stance. I could understand why you would use 1 dimensional broad strokes versus Kyle (he's arguing the same way) but to make it your general soap box is silly. To point to a catch-all clause exclusively in a debate raises many logic, moral, and legal loopholes. If you don't add context and elaborate, then you are agreeing with everything it encompasses, which like the examples I listed above, no sane person would agree with (and yet you do). They aren't made to be quoted in that way ;/. In fact if you took catch-all clauses literally there would be no point for any other rules, because admins could just do whatever they wanted, anarchy. How do they work then? They come into play alongside social contract.
Social Contract: The rules are a form of social contract. It needs to give admins the power to manage the league effectively, but it also needs to respect the players. Part of that respect is being consistent, and being unbiased. The players need to trust that if they follow the rules they will be protected from those who don't. If an admin starts punishing people differently, or exhibits bias towards specific players, the league loses integrity. I think the TPG admins have actually done an admiral job of being unbiased, unlike many other leagues. I feel bad that Narc felt he had to take the ff loss to maintain that integrity, but it shows his dedication to doing the right thing.
Catch-all Purpose: The purpose of catch-all clauses is not to give dictatorial power but to provide an avenue for leniency and accommodation, and in rare cases to protect from backlash (in the real world that would be lawsuits). An example of how it's supposed to work is agreements between team captains. It allows admins the power to respect situations that would otherwise be against the rules, like letting a suspended player play or allowing a rematch that technically shouldn't happen. Often times this comes down to a choice from the non-disadvantaged captain to either A: Follow the rules explicitly (taking the ff win) or B: Giving the disadvantaged team leeway (allowing a rematch). The part I want to stress is that the rule bending stems from the players out of fairness, not from the admin acting on his own. The admins job is to enforce the agreement the captains come to (preventing "indian giving", like allowing a suspended player to play then disputing him afterwards), or if an agreement cannot be reached to follow the default rules as closely as possible.
Regarding Rating: Actual on-the-fly rule changing and deviation via catch-all clauses should only happen under very extenuating circumstances, or when the rules simply do not account for a given situation, or are indecisive. This is not the case for rating. The penalty for rating is explicit, and the rule has been consistent for a long time. It is absolutely clear how to break the rule and what the repercussions are. I think it is obvious to most people that rating rarely affects the outcome of a match, and is mostly accidental (the rule should probably be updated, but not until the end of the season). If you punish some people for breaking it you need to punish everyone. The only other avenue is a compromise between captains, which the admin should honor if it's reasonable.
Current Situation: The case of mvp vs mindflow is a very good example of this in action. MVP won, but had a minor rule violation that would cause the match to be overturned. Mindflow is within it's rights to take the ff win but instead agreed to a compromise, a rematch.This is a fair outcome because MVP gets a second chance to advance, and Mindflow gets a second chance to legitimately win. I would imagine the situation would have a different tone if money was on the line, but that's not the case. The admins responsibility is to look at this compromise and see if it is healthy for the league/community. In my opinion a rematch would be entertaining for the community and be healthy for the league (a team that legitimately won would move forward). Due to some negative backlash the admin decided that it was best to simply follow the rules in order to maintain integrity, which he is well within his rights to do.
So yea, I agree with how the TPG admins responded, but I disagree with Alex's interpretation of why it is ok that they responded the way they did.
TLDR: Catch-all clauses make a poor (insane) arguing base, and the explanation for why the TPG admins acted appropriately is much more complex than Alex's explanation.