Job life situation

I have been away due to classes but what happened after the game?

https://x.com/magikzera/status/1831458018346856886?s=46

I am seeing some stuff like this, is this going to continue being discussed or what’s going on

https://x.com/kamykvalo/status/1831494396841484363

oops i saw something else. i guess theyre discussing it with riot

maybe its a replay of the map. i wonder if it starts 0-0, or 10-6, or 10-9

maybe it goes to a bo1 against ultimates. i think that makes sense because mouz wouldnt want to play another game after being eliminated right

Still trying to figure all this out tbh

Basically jas had internet issues and kept on disconnecting

Ballsamolee [#4]

Basically jas had internet issues and kept on disconnecting

I know but I just didn’t know what they were gonna do about it, I guess there’s no conclusion yet

kanyefan4238173 [#5]

I know but I just didn’t know what they were gonna do about it, I guess there’s no conclusion yet

yeah it's still ongoing, but i doubt they will remake.

So basically JL were looking decent when suddenly jas DC'd in 2 very important rounds. One of the rounds JL had commited 3 ults right before jas DC'd and on the other they had a 4v2 advantage on an ECO and had a good chance of winning it until jas DC'd again. It's not crazy to say that seeing how close the game was these rounds costed them the match.

If on top of that you add the fact that MOUZ was out no matter what, a lot of people got angry they "took advantage" of the DC to win the match and tear apart JL chances of making it out of groups. Most people understand that despide MOUZ being out they were still gonna do their best, but some of the JL fans got really pissed.

AlexSMTx [#7]

So basically JL were looking decent when suddenly jas DC'd in 2 very important rounds. One of the rounds JL had commited 3 ults right before jas DC'd and on the other they had a 4v2 advantage on an ECO and had a good chance of winning it until jas DC'd again. It's not crazy to say that seeing how close the game was these rounds costed them the match.

If on top of that you add the fact that MOUZ was out no matter what, a lot of people got angry they "took advantage" of the DC to win the match and tear apart JL chances of making it out of groups. Most people understand that despide MOUZ being out they were still gonna do their best, but some of the JL fans got really pissed.

yeah the hate towards the mouz players and ultimates players are unwarranted

Ballsamolee [#6]

yeah it's still ongoing, but i doubt they will remake.

Imo they should play against ultimates instead

Mouz wouldn’t be interested in playing and if they do it raises doubts of competitive integrity. I think they should let joblife play ultimates again (they won the first time)

No pretty solutions for this

Remake at 10-7 with sub in HUGELY favors JL and is just unfair to TU, because as much as being screwed over by the internet issues sucked for JL, they were also just lost second half.
Being allowed to fix it while being allowed to keep the advantage of Mouz being lost first half would just be bs.

Remaking from 0-0 would be very weird since it'd be a bo1 with Mouz currently traveling home and having no time to prac (no reason either since their season is over), so again... aint exactly fair for TU.

Giving them 2 rounds for the dc's (ignoring that it goes against the remake rules) and starting the game at 13-12 OT with the sub in would just be weird.

And a bo1 tiebreaker between JL and TU would be the best for us fans but wouldnt make ANY sense from a competitive standpoint.

Realistically Riot do just have to grow a pair and stick with their decision.
The harassment of teams and players that followed is not something that riot need to reward with special treatment... again. It wont help, people are going to be very upset regardless of the outcome anyways.

Use it as a learning opportunity and actually teach your admins how to properly deal with these kind of situations DURING the match.

All this just for either of the two to get pissed on my pcfic

Yuniee44 [#11]

All this just for either of the two to get pissed on my pcfic

Dont get me wrong TU does not deserve this at all and I am really looking forward to them getting absolutely shidded on

https://twitter.com/MAGiKzera/status/1831719057936060909

update kinda from magik

https://twitter.com/RobbieBk1/status/1831649104973234537
and robbiebk said he doesnt know what he should prepare for 4 hrs ago

kanyefan4238173 [#13]

https://twitter.com/MAGiKzera/status/1831719057936060909

update kinda from magik

https://twitter.com/RobbieBk1/status/1831649104973234537
and robbiebk said he doesnt know what he should prepare for 4 hrs ago

Lol. They're clearly stalling so they can give a "oh, no, we don't have time anymore to remake, otherwise the schedule will be a mess" kind of answer.

Alveio [#14]

Lol. They're clearly stalling so they can give a "oh, no, we don't have time anymore to remake, otherwise the schedule will be a mess" kind of answer.

IF IT WAS XSET THEY WOULD HAVE REPLAYED 15 MINUTE AFTER IT HAPPENED

If I'm understanding it correctly the main issue here is that Joblife wasn't allowed to continue the game with a sub when the rules state they they should have? Or something like that

If that is the case it kinda sucks but I understand you can't just qualify Joblife and replaying it makes no sense either. Looks to me like they're fucked and that's it

Targu1n [#10]

No pretty solutions for this

Remake at 10-7 with sub in HUGELY favors JL and is just unfair to TU, because as much as being screwed over by the internet issues sucked for JL, they were also just lost second half.
Being allowed to fix it while being allowed to keep the advantage of Mouz being lost first half would just be bs.

Remaking from 0-0 would be very weird since it'd be a bo1 with Mouz currently traveling home and having no time to prac (no reason either since their season is over), so again... aint exactly fair for TU.

Giving them 2 rounds for the dc's (ignoring that it goes against the remake rules) and starting the game at 13-12 OT with the sub in would just be weird.

And a bo1 tiebreaker between JL and TU would be the best for us fans but wouldnt make ANY sense from a competitive standpoint.

Realistically Riot do just have to grow a pair and stick with their decision.
The harassment of teams and players that followed is not something that riot need to reward with special treatment... again. It wont help, people are going to be very upset regardless of the outcome anyways.

Use it as a learning opportunity and actually teach your admins how to properly deal with these kind of situations DURING the match.

Stick to an illegal decision because they refused something that was allowed in the rulebook :/ It's doable but they "shouldnt grow a pair", but apologies frankly for a that huge mistake. One BO3 or one BO1 or either going to 6 team double elim sounds possible doable things x)

its 100% a Saudi DDOS attack and MBS bribed Riot to cover it up

anyr [#18]

its 100% a Saudi DDOS attack and MBS bribed Riot to cover it up

Frfr macron was sleeping on his counter ddos attack 😂

IonlywatchvcjXD [#19]

Frfr macron was sleeping on his counter ddos attack 😂

he's finished fr

Anguibok [#17]

Stick to an illegal decision because they refused something that was allowed in the rulebook :/ It's doable but they "shouldnt grow a pair", but apologies frankly for a that huge mistake. One BO3 or one BO1 or either going to 6 team double elim sounds possible doable things x)

its not illegal lmao
the rule quite clearly states "In the event that a Player disconnects during a map and is unable to return within the allocated pause time.... [sub replacement part here]"
He returned in the allocated pause time each time hence its up to the interpretation of the Admin to decided if they have to put their sub player in. We also have no idea what they actually said. Youre going off a sumary of one of the parties.

Idk if you ever were admin for a tourney but one of the most important aspects for things to work is that you trust your admins. Riot has a bad history of not trusting their admins' calls as soon as theres public backlash to a result. Hence grow a pair.

Bo1/Bo3 vs TU would def be fine for us viewers and by far my preferred choice but it makes no sense from a competitive standpoint.
If riot are willing to undermine the integrity of their event to this point this would by far be the least of the suggested evils (well except maybe starting at like 11-10 and just removing the 2 dc rounds) AND the best for viewers.

The 6 team double elim is a catastrophe. Changing formats mid event just undermines any competitive integrity an event has. Youre screwing GN and changing the result to fit the result they as a TO want. You cant ever do that.

kanyefan4238173 [#13]

https://twitter.com/MAGiKzera/status/1831719057936060909

update kinda from magik

https://twitter.com/RobbieBk1/status/1831649104973234537
and robbiebk said he doesnt know what he should prepare for 4 hrs ago

What was the first tweet, it isn't loading or got deleted

Aayan [#22]

What was the first tweet, it isn't loading or got deleted

Got our first update since last night:

Hi everyone, XXXX here. First of all, thanks for standing by around the situation. We are having internal conversations and aim to get back to you as soon as possible. Thank you!

Targu1n [#21]

its not illegal lmao
the rule quite clearly states "In the event that a Player disconnects during a map and is unable to return within the allocated pause time.... [sub replacement part here]"
He returned in the allocated pause time each time hence its up to the interpretation of the Admin to decided if they have to put their sub player in. We also have no idea what they actually said. Youre going off a sumary of one of the parties.

Idk if you ever were admin for a tourney but one of the most important aspects for things to work is that you trust your admins. Riot has a bad history of not trusting their admins' calls as soon as theres public backlash to a result. Hence grow a pair.

Bo1/Bo3 vs TU would def be fine for us viewers and by far my preferred choice but it makes no sense from a competitive standpoint.
If riot are willing to undermine the integrity of their event to this point this would by far be the least of the suggested evils (well except maybe starting at like 11-10 and just removing the 2 dc rounds) AND the best for viewers.

The 6 team double elim is a catastrophe. Changing formats mid event just undermines any competitive integrity an event has. Youre screwing GN and changing the result to fit the result they as a TO want. You cant ever do that.

"He returned in the allocated pause time each time hence its up to the interpretation of the Admin to decided if they have to put their sub player in."
They are no mention the fact the same player could deco twice. I see no reason why they wouldn't be allowed to make the sub play.

"Idk if you ever were admin for a tourney" 2 years of admin a tournay almost every Monday and Tuesday, ruling it alone (I was even streaming, all of that game are on my eponym channel), we have our peak at 30 team one night. If you do mistake the least you can do is apologies, and this is not "growing a pair" I'm not talking about firing the admin, everyone can make mistake, but at least give public apologies T.T

I agree I prefer the BO1/BO3 against TU

Anguibok [#24]

"He returned in the allocated pause time each time hence its up to the interpretation of the Admin to decided if they have to put their sub player in."
They are no mention the fact the same player could deco twice. I see no reason why they wouldn't be allowed to make the sub play.

"Idk if you ever were admin for a tourney" 2 years of admin a tournay almost every Monday and Tuesday, ruling it alone (I was even streaming, all of that game are on my eponym channel), we have our peak at 30 team one night. If you do mistake the least you can do is apologies, and this is not "growing a pair" I'm not talking about firing the admin, everyone can make mistake, but at least give public apologies T.T

I agree I prefer the BO1/BO3 against TU

You dont have to see a reason, youre not the admin in this case. Youd have to find a way he broke the rule stated here if you want to take such drastic action.

We've had players dc more than once during regular season and it wasnt a problem to just give them time then.

And no he doesnt have to apologize. Nothing you have said, or any players tweet that Ive seen, suggest that he broke any rule.

Look if you do admin then youll be aware of how players react after rough losses and how youll be presented with the grosses misinterpretations of the rules you can imagine, that conveniently fit their desired outcome. Thats why the admins decision stands above all.

Yes you can review a ruling and if the admin team decides that it was severe misinterpretation of the rules, or the admin even just disregarded them altogether, overrule their decision. But again there's nothing to suggest it is.

Targu1n [#25]

You dont have to see a reason, youre not the admin in this case. Youd have to find a way he broke the rule stated here if you want to take such drastic action.

We've had players dc more than once during regular season and it wasnt a problem to just give them time then.

And no he doesnt have to apologize. Nothing you have said, or any players tweet that Ive seen, suggest that he broke any rule.

Look if you do admin then youll be aware of how players react after rough losses and how youll be presented with the grosses misinterpretations of the rules you can imagine, that conveniently fit their desired outcome. Thats why the admins decision stands above all.

Yes you can review a ruling and if the admin team decides that it was severe misinterpretation of the rules, or the admin even just disregarded them altogether, overrule their decision. But again there's nothing to suggest it is.

Here it's the admin that misinterpreted rule, I don't see in the rulebook anything not allowing JL to make a change, worst, the rulebook explicitly says its ok to make a change in JL condition.

If it's a misunderstanding of our part, best thing is to explain us how, they didnt do that, we at least need explanation

Anguibok [#26]

Here it's the admin that misinterpreted rule, I don't see in the rulebook anything not allowing JL to make a change, worst, the rulebook explicitly says its ok to make a change in JL condition.

If it's a misunderstanding of our part, best thing is to explain us how, they didnt do that, we at least need explanation

It doesnt. Per logic (as in the maths term) it explicitly says its NOT ok. Both arguments need to be fulfilled in a conjunction. It ofc doesnt have to get treated as a conjunction; language and maths done always line up perfectly, but the admin is 100% on the right from a "as written" standpoint. We dont know if he was from a "as intended" one.

But ye id 100% love it if they went for more transparency with admin rulings as a whole. As someone whos rather interested in that side of a TO id love to find out more about how they operate and read rules.
Problem is that rulings would get a looooot of scrutiny then and that just makes the admins work SO much harder. Back when I was doing Admin we didnt publicize our decision making for rulings either unless its a very severe case/public person where we know it'd reflect badly on everyone if we didnt (sorta like this case xD)

Targu1n [#27]

It doesnt. Per logic (as in the maths term) it explicitly says its NOT ok. Both arguments need to be fulfilled in a conjunction. It ofc doesnt have to get treated as a conjunction; language and maths done always line up perfectly, but the admin is 100% on the right from a "as written" standpoint. We dont know if he was from a "as intended" one.

But ye id 100% love it if they went for more transparency with admin rulings as a whole. As someone whos rather interested in that side of a TO id love to find out more about how they operate and read rules.
Problem is that rulings would get a looooot of scrutiny then and that just makes the admins work SO much harder. Back when I was doing Admin we didnt publicize our decision making for rulings either unless its a very severe case/public person where we know it'd reflect badly on everyone if we didnt (sorta like this case xD)

My english is bad but you really understand it's not allowde ?
https://x.com/kamykvalo/status/1831455294477758919

I admit if we had the rulebook prior the last day, maybe everything would have been more smoothly, poor Liquipedia team where so mad. (Heart on you guys)

Anguibok [#28]

My english is bad but you really understand it's not allowde ?
https://x.com/kamykvalo/status/1831455294477758919

I admit if we had the rulebook prior the last day, maybe everything would have been more smoothly, poor Liquipedia team where so mad. (Heart on you guys)

ye the "A and B" in a mathematical context is proven false by proving that either A or B to be false
In this case the B could be interpreted as false ("is unable to return within the allocated pause time") since the time the admin gave was enough

This would then make "A and B" false meaning the entire of the rule wouldnt apply to this situation

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction#Definition_2 for visuals, you can also scroll a bit up for the table if you werent tortured with math proofs in uni/school)

And yea GodOfPog hunt for the rulebook was amazing xD screwed all the scenarios up (and ruined our dsy hype :( ) but makes this nightmare of a situation a whole lot easier at least

update: https://x.com/samuelbenitah/status/1831770438709502198?s=46

they better get a remake

Targu1n [#29]

ye the "A and B" in a mathematical context is proven false by proving that either A or B to be false
In this case the B could be interpreted as false ("is unable to return within the allocated pause time") since the time the admin gave was enough

This would then make "A and B" false meaning the entire of the rule wouldnt apply to this situation

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction#Definition_2 for visuals, you can also scroll a bit up for the table if you werent tortured with math proofs in uni/school)

And yea GodOfPog hunt for the rulebook was amazing xD screwed all the scenarios up (and ruined our dsy hype :( ) but makes this nightmare of a situation a whole lot easier at least

A∩B => C
A = A player disconnect
B = Unable to return within the allocated pause time
C = Allow the player to get replaced

First time,
A = A player disconnect : True
B = Unable to return within the allocated pause time : False (he came back)
the guy as return, no need a sub.

Second time he disconnected :
A = A player disconnect : true
B = Unable to return within the allocated pause time : true (he wasnt able to reco)
A and B are validated, so I the "Allow the player to get replaced" should be replaced

Funny enough I have the good scenarios thanks to the rumored rulebook (That nobody managed to calculate XD)
Now I picture GoP as a hunter

catNmouse [#30]

update: https://x.com/samuelbenitah/status/1831770438709502198?s=46

they better get a remake

this sound really bad, tomorrow it will be too late to add a game.

am i banned?

cioccolat [#33]

am i banned?

Nope

Anguibok [#32]

this sound really bad, tomorrow it will be too late to add a game.

I guess maybe they could delay other games but then it’s even more issues.

This is taking way too long

kanyefan4238173 [#35]

I guess maybe they could delay other games but then it’s even more issues.

This is taking way too long

No way they delay other games...
If I was a manipulative woman I think my plan in that situation would have been "Oh ! really sorry ! the right thing would have been to replay but now it's too late tee-hee, GL for next year"

Anguibok [#36]

No way they delay other games...
If I was a manipulative woman I think my plan in that situation would have been "Oh ! really sorry ! the right thing would have been to replay but now it's too late tee-hee, GL for next year"

They were slow with everything, even telling joblife about the subs and their win condition. Really shitty for joblife

kanyefan4238173 [#9]

Imo they should play against ultimates instead

Mouz wouldn’t be interested in playing and if they do it raises doubts of competitive integrity. I think they should let joblife play ultimates again (they won the first time)

Yeah that’s a good idea, but either way i still doubt that would happen

Anguibok [#31]

A∩B => C
A = A player disconnect
B = Unable to return within the allocated pause time
C = Allow the player to get replaced

First time,
A = A player disconnect : True
B = Unable to return within the allocated pause time : False (he came back)
the guy as return, no need a sub.

Second time he disconnected :
A = A player disconnect : true
B = Unable to return within the allocated pause time : true (he wasnt able to reco)
A and B are validated, so I the "Allow the player to get replaced" should be replaced

Funny enough I have the good scenarios thanks to the rumored rulebook (That nobody managed to calculate XD)
Now I picture GoP as a hunter

A bit late woops
Was the second time the pause at round 20/21 or did I miss a round where they actually started 4v5?
Only remember tech pauses into then 5v5

As long as everyone on the server at round start (or before the first person takes damage ig) it'd count as in within the pause time

Also I havent loked at GoPs steams in a while but isnt he still a Reinhardt one trick? Bros equipped to take down Mammoths

Targu1n [#39]

A bit late woops
Was the second time the pause at round 20/21 or did I miss a round where they actually started 4v5?
Only remember tech pauses into then 5v5

As long as everyone on the server at round start (or before the first person takes damage ig) it'd count as in within the pause time

Also I havent loked at GoPs steams in a while but isnt he still a Reinhardt one trick? Bros equipped to take down Mammoths

Damn you are right she reco round 21, I thougt then ended played on 4v5.

Fak my huge mistake here, that kinda change everything