Memory loss

First, I want to say big ups to DRX for the win. I'm rooting for Optic, but DRX is a close 2nd.

Now, wtf is wrong with you guys sending hate to fpx? Did you all forget that xset was the team that always started shit? How just the day before they tried to spread rumors that Optic was intentionally making technical pauses? And the whole "Riot initiated decision," whatever your opinions are in the details, you must agree it was very controversial and that decision was especially favorable for XSET if you have at least 2 functioning brain cells. So, sure, it might have been wrong for FPX to have jumped to conclusions despite XSET's crappy history of starting shit, but the fact of the matter is that XSET still got the replay and the decision to replay was unfair (at least from FPX's perspective and many others). Just like almost everyone is going to take the rematch for an opportunity at $1mil even if the decision to replay is unfair, almost everyone is going to be salty toward both the organizers and opponents if they won and have to replay their round 1-2 hours after celebrating. All in all, FPX being salty is wholly justified and there is absolutely no justification for why XSET should be taking the moral high ground here.

I think it's because FPX plays a lot more than that, but it doesn't justify it, you have to applaud them for getting that far

val players soft tbh, cant stand a lil heat

neither team should be having a moral high ground
the point is both teams were good sportsman after the match but the unneeded comments from fpx after they won again was unneeded

surprised they did that when this was clearly a riot called issue and not anything to do with xset and idk why ur still dogging on xset for making "rumours" when they clarified the comment and both optic and xset are cool with eachother now
not sure the point of this post

people pick and choose whose allowed to talk shit

fourlvalorant [#4]

neither team should be having a moral high ground
the point is both teams were good sportsman after the match but the unneeded comments from fpx after they won again was unneeded

surprised they did that when this was clearly a riot called issue and not anything to do with xset and idk why ur still dogging on xset for making "rumours" when they clarified the comment and both optic and xset are cool with eachother now
not sure the point of this post

neither team should be having a moral high ground

agreed, but that's clearly not the case rn in the forums here or in any social media. people are trying to turn xset into the victim, which is just nuts.

surprised they did that when this was clearly a riot called issue

i've already addressed this. just like how almost everyone is going to jump at a 2nd chance despite the rulings being unfair/questionable, almost everyone is going to be pissed that their opponents are replaying it even if the organizers wanted it. it's as if a bully was paid $500 to punch you in your face and he does; you're most likely going to be upset at both parties. you can't just expect to only get upset at the guy who hired the bully.

idk why ur still dogging on xset for making "rumours"

the point is that xset's reputation was utter shit, so the fact that fpx jumped to conclusions, as wrong as it might have been, wasn't just blind aggression. it's probably because they knew that xset often started crap and assumed they did so again.

wait how did Xset "tried to spread rumors"? didn't they just accuse of cheating, because to the 20 minutes technical timeout.

Also making fun of Xset and call them loser is uncalled for, when they are not the one that called the replayed, even after hearing that Xset didn't called the replayed they still have the tweet still up.

No hate on d00mbr0s and sho tho their Chad.

user too logical for vlr, you won't last here

ptrlol [#6]

neither team should be having a moral high ground

agreed, but that's clearly not the case rn in the forums here or in any social media. people are trying to turn xset into the victim, which is just nuts.

surprised they did that when this was clearly a riot called issue

i've already addressed this. just like how almost everyone is going to jump at a 2nd chance despite the rulings being unfair/questionable, almost everyone is going to be pissed that their opponents are replaying it even if the organizers wanted it. it's as if a bully was paid $500 to punch you in your face and he does; you're most likely going to be upset at both parties. you can't just expect to only get upset at the guy who hired the bully.

idk why ur still dogging on xset for making "rumours"

the point is that xset's reputation was utter shit, so the fact that fpx jumped to conclusions, as wrong as it might have been, wasn't just blind aggression. it's probably because they knew that xset often started crap and assumed they did so again.

"the point is that xset's reputation was utter shit, so the fact that fpx jumped to conclusions, as wrong as it might have been, wasn't just blind aggression. it's probably because they knew that xset often started crap and assumed they did so again."

this would be a good argument except its been 2 days since it came out that XSET didn't call the replay and FPX players haven't said anything about it. If they truly jumped to conclusions, I'd expect a apology or at least recognition that XSET doesnt deserve the hate that they got.

Yeah, the replay was super controversial. The point is that RIOT called it, NOT XSET. Sure, XSET got a advantage in having the replay happen, but in riots POV there was a good chance the game would've gone into overtime if the turret bug didn't happen

cobalt21312 [#9]

"the point is that xset's reputation was utter shit, so the fact that fpx jumped to conclusions, as wrong as it might have been, wasn't just blind aggression. it's probably because they knew that xset often started crap and assumed they did so again."

this would be a good argument except its been 2 days since it came out that XSET didn't call the replay and FPX players haven't said anything about it. If they truly jumped to conclusions, I'd expect a apology or at least recognition that XSET doesnt deserve the hate that they got.

Yeah, the replay was super controversial. The point is that RIOT called it, NOT XSET. Sure, XSET got a advantage in having the replay happen, but in riots POV there was a good chance the game would've gone into overtime if the turret bug didn't happen

yes. this is why i don't like about them. I still didn't see them saying sorry for calling names

ptrlol [#6]

neither team should be having a moral high ground

agreed, but that's clearly not the case rn in the forums here or in any social media. people are trying to turn xset into the victim, which is just nuts.

surprised they did that when this was clearly a riot called issue

i've already addressed this. just like how almost everyone is going to jump at a 2nd chance despite the rulings being unfair/questionable, almost everyone is going to be pissed that their opponents are replaying it even if the organizers wanted it. it's as if a bully was paid $500 to punch you in your face and he does; you're most likely going to be upset at both parties. you can't just expect to only get upset at the guy who hired the bully.

idk why ur still dogging on xset for making "rumours"

the point is that xset's reputation was utter shit, so the fact that fpx jumped to conclusions, as wrong as it might have been, wasn't just blind aggression. it's probably because they knew that xset often started crap and assumed they did so again.

Like you said, both teams are going to jump at a 2nd chance, it's hypocritical to give someone shit for it.. Also, rumours aren't exactly comparable to outright insults, no?

It's crazy to me how you're trying to justify FPX jumping to conclusions and throwing shit at XSET, while at the same time saying it was bad for XSET to jump to conclusions about OPTIC. It is perfectly fine for FPX to be upset at Rito for their decision, but they were unnecessarily hostile towards XSET.

cobalt21312 [#9]

"the point is that xset's reputation was utter shit, so the fact that fpx jumped to conclusions, as wrong as it might have been, wasn't just blind aggression. it's probably because they knew that xset often started crap and assumed they did so again."

this would be a good argument except its been 2 days since it came out that XSET didn't call the replay and FPX players haven't said anything about it. If they truly jumped to conclusions, I'd expect a apology or at least recognition that XSET doesnt deserve the hate that they got.

Yeah, the replay was super controversial. The point is that RIOT called it, NOT XSET. Sure, XSET got a advantage in having the replay happen, but in riots POV there was a good chance the game would've gone into overtime if the turret bug didn't happen

If they truly jumped to conclusions, I'd expect a apology or at least recognition that XSET doesnt deserve the hate that they got.

I'm just repeating myself at this point. Yes, this may have been the morally right thing to do and FPX would have most likely done this if XSET also did the morally just thing to do, which is to reject/boycott the replay. Except neither side did the morally right/just thing to do, and made the most human decisions, so why are you elevating the standard for 1 team and not the other? I've given my analogy, please apply it - do you think it would make sense to apologize to the guy who punched you for $500, and you claim, "oh man, sorry I insulted you because I assumed you punched me based on your decision. it changes everything since there was another person behind your decision who also enticed you." Like no... this is not how we normally react. Not only is FPX upset by the unfairness but the actual event occurring, i.e., the replay/the punch. You may not understand because you're not the one getting punched/in the tournament, but please try to put yourself in their shoes.

ptrlol [#13]

If they truly jumped to conclusions, I'd expect a apology or at least recognition that XSET doesnt deserve the hate that they got.

I'm just repeating myself at this point. Yes, this may have been the morally right thing to do and FPX would have most likely done this if XSET also did the morally just thing to do, which is to reject/boycott the replay. Except neither side did the morally right/just thing to do, and made the most human decisions, so why are you elevating the standard for 1 team and not the other? I've given my analogy, please apply it - do you think it would make sense to apologize to the guy who punched you for $500, and you claim, "oh man, sorry I insulted you because I assumed you punched me based on your decision. it changes everything since there was another person behind your decision who also enticed you." Like no... this is not how we normally react. Not only is FPX upset by the unfairness but the actual event occurring, i.e., the replay/the punch. You may not understand because you're not the one getting punched/in the tournament, but please try to put yourself in their shoes.

bruh a simple sorry is enough to stop hate on fpx (at least for me)

ptrlol [#13]

If they truly jumped to conclusions, I'd expect a apology or at least recognition that XSET doesnt deserve the hate that they got.

I'm just repeating myself at this point. Yes, this may have been the morally right thing to do and FPX would have most likely done this if XSET also did the morally just thing to do, which is to reject/boycott the replay. Except neither side did the morally right/just thing to do, and made the most human decisions, so why are you elevating the standard for 1 team and not the other? I've given my analogy, please apply it - do you think it would make sense to apologize to the guy who punched you for $500, and you claim, "oh man, sorry I insulted you because I assumed you punched me based on your decision. it changes everything since there was another person behind your decision who also enticed you." Like no... this is not how we normally react. Not only is FPX upset by the unfairness but the actual event occurring, i.e., the replay/the punch. You may not understand because you're not the one getting punched/in the tournament, but please try to put yourself in their shoes.

Your analogy is a non sequitur bro. Also, why are you talking about morality like XSET did some huge moral wrong by accepting the replay.

RomanKatapult [#12]

It's crazy to me how you're trying to justify FPX jumping to conclusions and throwing shit at XSET, while at the same time saying it was bad for XSET to jump to conclusions about OPTIC. It is perfectly fine for FPX to be upset at Rito for their decision, but they were unnecessarily hostile towards XSET.

Except one of these wasn't an isolated event. FPX had in mind, like we all did, that XSET made an accusation without any evidence (I'll stand to be corrected if there is anything that Optic has done to even remotely push this theory forward). While FPX made an accusation with weak evidence - that XSET has a history of acting entitled. It would be like if someone has a history of stealing so you jump to the conclusion that he stole from you when your item disappears - is this justifiable? no. Is this understandable? yes. If a serial killer has a mother who prostitutes herself and a dad who is an alcoholic, drug addict, is his killing justifiable? no. Is it understandable, yes.

Nowhere did I say FPX is in the right and XSET is in the wrong. They are both in the same shoes and neither side took the high road. If there is 1 entity to blame, it's Riot. What I am arguing, however, is that this narrative of turning XSET into the victims is extremely bizarre.

ptrlol [#16]

Except one of these wasn't an isolated event. FPX had in mind, like we all did, that XSET made an accusation without any evidence (I'll stand to be corrected if there is anything that Optic has done to even remotely push this theory forward). While FPX made an accusation with weak evidence - that XSET has a history of acting entitled. It would be like if someone has a history of stealing so you jump to the conclusion that he stole from you when your item disappears - is this justifiable? no. Is this understandable? yes. If a serial killer has a mother who prostitutes herself and a dad who is an alcoholic, drug addict, is his killing justifiable? no. Is it understandable, yes.

Nowhere did I say FPX is in the right and XSET is in the wrong. They are both in the same shoes and neither side took the high road. If there is 1 entity to blame, it's Riot. What I am arguing, however, is that this narrative of turning XSET into the victims is extremely bizarre.

simple a word called "Sorry"

Val is just a softer community in terms of pros ig.

We have cs pros sending death threats to eachother (cough.. cough. FalleN)

ptrlol [#16]

Except one of these wasn't an isolated event. FPX had in mind, like we all did, that XSET made an accusation without any evidence (I'll stand to be corrected if there is anything that Optic has done to even remotely push this theory forward). While FPX made an accusation with weak evidence - that XSET has a history of acting entitled. It would be like if someone has a history of stealing so you jump to the conclusion that he stole from you when your item disappears - is this justifiable? no. Is this understandable? yes. If a serial killer has a mother who prostitutes herself and a dad who is an alcoholic, drug addict, is his killing justifiable? no. Is it understandable, yes.

Nowhere did I say FPX is in the right and XSET is in the wrong. They are both in the same shoes and neither side took the high road. If there is 1 entity to blame, it's Riot. What I am arguing, however, is that this narrative of turning XSET into the victims is extremely bizarre.

I also want to add about the age difference on Fpx compare on Xset

RomanKatapult [#15]

Your analogy is a non sequitur bro. Also, why are you talking about morality like XSET did some huge moral wrong by accepting the replay.

How is it a non sequitar? The premise for both examples is: There is a situation where unfairness occurs because someone issued it. Conclusion: The casualty will get upset at both the direct cause and the issuer, not just at the issuer.

If the replay was unfair, then them accepting it is not morally right (as opposed to immoral or morally wrong). In other words, it's not the best decision they could make in terms of right and wrong. And there are strong suggestions that XSET players don't think the ruling was fair given their game knowledge and Tweets.

ptrlol [#13]

If they truly jumped to conclusions, I'd expect a apology or at least recognition that XSET doesnt deserve the hate that they got.

I'm just repeating myself at this point. Yes, this may have been the morally right thing to do and FPX would have most likely done this if XSET also did the morally just thing to do, which is to reject/boycott the replay. Except neither side did the morally right/just thing to do, and made the most human decisions, so why are you elevating the standard for 1 team and not the other? I've given my analogy, please apply it - do you think it would make sense to apologize to the guy who punched you for $500, and you claim, "oh man, sorry I insulted you because I assumed you punched me based on your decision. it changes everything since there was another person behind your decision who also enticed you." Like no... this is not how we normally react. Not only is FPX upset by the unfairness but the actual event occurring, i.e., the replay/the punch. You may not understand because you're not the one getting punched/in the tournament, but please try to put yourself in their shoes.

"it's as if a bully was paid $500 to punch you in your face and he does; you're most likely going to be upset at both parties. you can't just expect to only get upset at the guy who hired the bully."

this analogy is super mid imo but ill respond to it the best I can. the person paying 500 dollars doesnt have any position of power between the person getting punched and the person punching. riot absolutely has power over both teams. XSET wouldn't refuse because both getting on riots bad side by refusing to play would lessen their chances of franchising (imo anyway), and its honestly a lose lose lose situation. if the observer didn't get a perfect view of the turret doing what it did, then the replay never would've happened. riot had to choose between calling the bug not a bug (which they clearly dont agree with), saying it didn't affect the round enough (which it arguably did), ignoring what happened (bad idea), or replaying the round (which they did). its a unfortunate situation all around. FPX have a right to be angry at what happened and how riot handled the situation; they dont have a right to be rude to XSET

ptrlol [#20]

How is it a non sequitar? The premise for both examples is: There is a situation where unfairness occurs because someone issued it. Conclusion: The casualty will get upset at both the direct cause and the issuer, not just at the issuer.

If the replay was unfair, then them accepting it is not morally right (as opposed to immoral or morally wrong). In other words, it's not the best decision they could make in terms of right and wrong. And there are strong suggestions that XSET players don't think the ruling was fair given their game knowledge and Tweets.

the replay was fair in riots pov and they was following the rules they had set in place - they clearly thought the bug had a large potential in the round to swing it into FPX's favor, so they redid it

ptrlol [#16]

Except one of these wasn't an isolated event. FPX had in mind, like we all did, that XSET made an accusation without any evidence (I'll stand to be corrected if there is anything that Optic has done to even remotely push this theory forward). While FPX made an accusation with weak evidence - that XSET has a history of acting entitled. It would be like if someone has a history of stealing so you jump to the conclusion that he stole from you when your item disappears - is this justifiable? no. Is this understandable? yes. If a serial killer has a mother who prostitutes herself and a dad who is an alcoholic, drug addict, is his killing justifiable? no. Is it understandable, yes.

Nowhere did I say FPX is in the right and XSET is in the wrong. They are both in the same shoes and neither side took the high road. If there is 1 entity to blame, it's Riot. What I am arguing, however, is that this narrative of turning XSET into the victims is extremely bizarre.

Firstly, you said yourself that FPX is completely justified in being salty. What else is that supposed to mean? Unless you meant towards Riot specifically in which case you should have specified in the original post.

The issue of the matter, and the reason why everyone is shitting on FPX, is that they made unnecessary and slanderous comments towards XSET without having any evidence besides circumstantial. That is why (in this specific situation mind you) XSET is the victim and FPX in the wrong. Would it have been a surprise if XSET had asked for the replay? Not really. Does that mean that FPX is allowed to make slanderous comments against XSET? No, and it is wrong to do so which is why XSET is allowed to take the moral high ground.

hihi hiha😈😈😈😈😈

fuck fpx I'm biased, sore winners and losers lmfaoooooooooooo

cobalt21312 [#21]

"it's as if a bully was paid $500 to punch you in your face and he does; you're most likely going to be upset at both parties. you can't just expect to only get upset at the guy who hired the bully."

this analogy is super mid imo but ill respond to it the best I can. the person paying 500 dollars doesnt have any position of power between the person getting punched and the person punching. riot absolutely has power over both teams. XSET wouldn't refuse because both getting on riots bad side by refusing to play would lessen their chances of franchising (imo anyway), and its honestly a lose lose lose situation. if the observer didn't get a perfect view of the turret doing what it did, then the replay never would've happened. riot had to choose between calling the bug not a bug (which they clearly dont agree with), saying it didn't affect the round enough (which it arguably did), ignoring what happened (bad idea), or replaying the round (which they did). its a unfortunate situation all around. FPX have a right to be angry at what happened and how riot handled the situation; they dont have a right to be rude to XSET

Okay, fair enough.
Let's suppose the issuer compelled the puncher, instead of $500, he threatened to leak out his nudes or spread rumors. Either way, you, who got punched, still have the right to get upset and bitter at the guy who punched you. The morally just thing to do would STILL be for the puncher to tackle on the person with authority, although it's definitely difficult to. The only argument that I see plausible is that it's probably less pressuring for FPX to take the high road, but that doesn't mean XSET is all of a sudden the victim lol. FPX has every right to be upset just as XSET had every right to do the replay. It's strange that you are removing any responsibility because there is an authority figure behind that person. Yes, compulsion removes SOME responsibility, but not ALL (just consider a regular soldier during Nazi Germany).

ptrlol [#20]

How is it a non sequitar? The premise for both examples is: There is a situation where unfairness occurs because someone issued it. Conclusion: The casualty will get upset at both the direct cause and the issuer, not just at the issuer.

If the replay was unfair, then them accepting it is not morally right (as opposed to immoral or morally wrong). In other words, it's not the best decision they could make in terms of right and wrong. And there are strong suggestions that XSET players don't think the ruling was fair given their game knowledge and Tweets.

In your analogy you know exactly who hired the person to punch you in the face, and it is perfectly justifiable to be upset with them. In FPX's case, they did not know if it was XSET or Rito who requested the replay, therefore slanderous comments towards XSET are unjustified until further evidence comes out.

IF the replay was unfair, then yes, they would be in the wrong for accepting it. As well, IF they knew that it was it would be wrong for them to replay it. The issue is you stating that what XSET did was morally unjust while not having the perfect knowledge to judge the situation.

ptrlol [#26]

Okay, fair enough.
Let's suppose the issuer compelled the puncher, instead of $500, he threatened to leak out his nudes or spread rumors. Either way, you, who got punched, still have the right to get upset and bitter at the guy who punched you. The morally just thing to do would STILL be for the puncher to tackle on the person with authority, although it's definitely difficult to. The only argument that I see plausible is that it's probably less pressuring for FPX to take the high road, but that doesn't mean XSET is all of a sudden the victim lol. FPX has every right to be upset just as XSET had every right to do the replay. It's strange that you are removing any responsibility because there is an authority figure behind that person. Yes, compulsion removes SOME responsibility, but not ALL (just consider a regular soldier during Nazi Germany).

I see what ur saying but this is a video game tournament, not nazi germany. and I agree with you in the fact that XSET isnt the victim inside the situation; XSET winning the overtime replay would cause a LOT more problems then it would solve. none of this allows FPX players to be rude to XSET players, especially after they were told that it was riots decision, not XSETs. that's like continuing to hate the person who punched you even after you know they only did that because they were blackmailed. doesnt make much sense imo

RomanKatapult [#23]

Firstly, you said yourself that FPX is completely justified in being salty. What else is that supposed to mean? Unless you meant towards Riot specifically in which case you should have specified in the original post.

The issue of the matter, and the reason why everyone is shitting on FPX, is that they made unnecessary and slanderous comments towards XSET without having any evidence besides circumstantial. That is why (in this specific situation mind you) XSET is the victim and FPX in the wrong. Would it have been a surprise if XSET had asked for the replay? Not really. Does that mean that FPX is allowed to make slanderous comments against XSET? No, and it is wrong to do so which is why XSET is allowed to take the moral high ground.

you said yourself that FPX is completely justified in being salty.

You'd have quote me directly, with context, since I don't know what you're referring to. Either I made an error with my language or you're probably ignoring the context from which I'm saying it. I've constantly maintained FPX is justified or has a right to being salty in the same manner XSET has a right and is being justified to replay that round. In other words, both parties didn't make the best decision, but they both made the easier decisions based on their emotions. So, that's what I meant by it.

I urge you to look up slander since you are not using this term properly. I've also addressed this in my comments and I would prefer not repeating myself unless I'm missing the novel point you wish to discuss.

cobalt21312 [#28]

I see what ur saying but this is a video game tournament, not nazi germany. and I agree with you in the fact that XSET isnt the victim inside the situation; XSET winning the overtime replay would cause a LOT more problems then it would solve. none of this allows FPX players to be rude to XSET players, especially after they were told that it was riots decision, not XSETs. that's like continuing to hate the person who punched you even after you know they only did that because they were blackmailed. doesnt make much sense imo

Ofc I'm not saying the severity of Nazi Germany is the same as this lmao. I'm just saying the concepts are the same. Great, we're on the same page now. Glad we could find common ground. I don't think FPX is in the right either. They are in the right as so far as XSET is in the right or maybe slightly more, but not enough to make a large difference.

ptrlol [#30]

Ofc I'm not saying the severity of Nazi Germany is the same as this lmao. I'm just saying the concepts are the same. Great, we're on the same page now. Glad we could find common ground. I don't think FPX is in the right either. They are in the right as so far as XSET is in the right or maybe slightly more, but not enough to make a large difference.

my bad I misinterpreted what u were saying about nazi germany. just a unlucky situation for all involved imo. glad to see common ground aswell

ptrlol [#29]

you said yourself that FPX is completely justified in being salty.

You'd have quote me directly, with context, since I don't know what you're referring to. Either I made an error with my language or you're probably ignoring the context from which I'm saying it. I've constantly maintained FPX is justified or has a right to being salty in the same manner XSET has a right and is being justified to replay that round. In other words, both parties didn't make the best decision, but they both made the easier decisions based on their emotions. So, that's what I meant by it.

I urge you to look up slander since you are not using this term properly. I've also addressed this in my comments and I would prefer not repeating myself unless I'm missing the novel point you wish to discuss.

"...almost everyone is going to be salty toward both the organizers and opponents if they won and have to replay their round 1-2 hours after celebrating. All in all, FPX being salty is wholly justified and there is absolutely no justification for why XSET should be taking the moral high ground here."

You say that FPX is justified in their actions towards XSET and Riot but at the same time say things along the lines of "Nowhere did I say FPX is in the right." Now, this could be an error in my understanding as colloquially, justified and right are used interchangeably. If you meant that FPX is in the wrong, but their reasoning for being upset is somewhat understandable then I would agree.

FPX Zyppan's tweet regarding the match was slanderous by implying that XSET had something to do with the replay. Legally it would technically constitute libel but you understand what I mean.

RomanKatapult [#32]

"...almost everyone is going to be salty toward both the organizers and opponents if they won and have to replay their round 1-2 hours after celebrating. All in all, FPX being salty is wholly justified and there is absolutely no justification for why XSET should be taking the moral high ground here."

You say that FPX is justified in their actions towards XSET and Riot but at the same time say things along the lines of "Nowhere did I say FPX is in the right." Now, this could be an error in my understanding as colloquially, justified and right are used interchangeably. If you meant that FPX is in the wrong, but their reasoning for being upset is somewhat understandable then I would agree.

FPX Zyppan's tweet regarding the match was slanderous by implying that XSET had something to do with the replay. Legally it would technically constitute libel but you understand what I mean.

You say that FPX is justified in their actions

First, I didn't mention any actions; I was talking about their attitude. Saltiness/being salty is a state of being. Not an action. An important distinction. Second, you didn't read what I said in full context. Here is the full context:

Just like almost everyone is going to take the rematch for an opportunity at $1mil even if the decision to replay is unfair, almost everyone is going to be salty toward both the organizers and opponents if they won and have to replay their round 1-2 hours after celebrating. All in all, FPX being salty is wholly justified and there is absolutely no justification for why XSET should be taking the moral high ground here.

Admittedly, the usage of "justifiable" is a little awkward with hindsight, but the point still gets across. If it doesn't, you can just omit what I said for what I said in my prior response.

If you meant that FPX is in the wrong

Do you think XSET taking the rematch is considered wrong? I don't think either is wrong and that they're just in the same category. You may think otherwise, but all I'm saying is that FPX's action was not right in the same likeness that XSET's action was not right.

Legally it would technically constitute libel but you understand what I mean.

That wasn't the point I was making, although there is also that distinction; the point I was making is that legally you'd need to implicate wrongful intention for either slanderous or libelous remarks. Of which, what Zyppan tweeted can be considered an honest mistake regarding the information available of a public figure/entity, and would not be ruled in the American court of law as either libelous or slanderous, especially since he did not double down on his statements after it was corrected.

Finally, a voice of reason