Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 gorgon wrote:

Hey, I'm a silverback!

I'll add that we also played for a trophy from GW and bragging rights. Not merch, and definitely not cash prizes. That's because everyone recognized that the game simply wasn't suited to be a competitive sport, no matter how much one distorts it.

Then came the demise of the GW GTs and the rise of 'Ard Boyz, and with that some very different attitudes for that generation of players. There was always drama at GTs, but the drama now is heightened by the stakes (such as they are, LOL). And showing up with armies full of grey plastic, proxies, etc. didn't happen. Hell, competitive guys tended to show up with freshly painted, good looking NEW armies every year in order to ensure a good paint score.

I liked the old days better because I think they were more...honest...about what a Warhammer tournament can be. But that's just my opinion, and clearly there many players who prefer what the GTs have become since GW got out of that business.

Completely agree. Instead of rewarding the top "general" with an inordinate amount of money, and incentivising poor play even more, that much money could be distributed far more evenly, giving many more people a decent prize.

It's breeding a large crowd of players that only play for pride and money, imho... hobby and sportsmanship be damned. I'm all for competitive gaming, but when prizes are ridiculously large, you can pretty much bet stupidity will follow.

 Togusa wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you honestly can't see why this isn't bad, then I'm glad I don't live in your meta.

Sportsmanship is a thing which humans do because they respect each other.

"Respect your opponent" isn't in the rulebook, to be sure, but I guess it really needs to be or else, apparently, people won't do it.

This is what WAAC is.

All I'm saying is that WAAC exists because humans naturally compete and will do whatever it takes to win said competition. Arguing against it is like arguing against evolution. It's never going to change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

njtrader wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Oh believe me, it does and should happen. But that is the duality of competition. I've heard older athletes argue that sportsmanship itself is little more than a social construct which has no place in the sport, because winning is the end goal, and it shouldn't matter how you get there, only that you do.

This might be the most harsh form of SoTF, but that's nature. You are or you are not. Man's structured laws matter not.

Which is why we are not following the structured laws of Warhammer 40k for our games to decide the best Warhammer player, and instead deciding it through the lawless method of murdering eachother to take the trophy.

Oh wait.

One can always take an argument to the highest level of absurdity. There are always limits, even to what I say.

However, the strategy he used [assuming he really did slow play on purpose in order to cause his opponent to increase his chances of making a mistake, with which he could be punished for] is valid. You may not agree with it, and many have cried fowl. But the organizers haven't [to my knowledge] revoked the win, and thus it seems they agree.

It is the same reason female players can, and often do use low cut clothing and "innocent" flirting in order to cause distraction in less mentally well defended male players. Is that wrong? Should we say that behavior such as this is bad sportsmanship? What if a male does it [Did anyone who was at LVO see the guy running around in athletic shorts so tight you could literally see the outline of his whole package?] in hopes to distracting women or gay men?

Using tactics other than what is printed in the rules is a more advanced form of tactics. Why are some people upset by this?

Advanced form of tactics? this is most excusatory, ridiculous, childish form of apologism I think I've ever seen.

Monopolizing time by willingly slow playing on purpose is poor sportsmanship and is DQ worthy.

In a prior example, a guy played empire at a fantasy GT some years ago. He would spend his first turn killing a unit or two, just enough for 300 pts to minor victory, then disappear into the restroom for the remainder of the event.

Is that "advanced tactics"?

I agree Tony did nothing wrong in refusing Alex his movement phase, but assuming one player is allowed to monopolize all the time in an event is some form of "advanced tactics" is absurd and ridiculous.

I guess I have to say it. I'm arguing DA here. Many of the attendees I spoke with made this exact argument Monday morning. I neither agree or disagree with it, simply stating how others have chosen to look at it, using their descriptions.

Was it sleazy? Probably. Was it understandable, absolutely.

There is nothing understandable about monopolizing game time in a slow play action to skew the result of the game.

That is an inherent exploitation of the rules. Exploitations are usually met with a ban in online gaming, which is far more competitive.

It is not "in accordance with the rules" to do this and it certainly is not advanced tactics.

It's bs.

njtrader wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you honestly can't see why this isn't bad, then I'm glad I don't live in your meta.

Sportsmanship is a thing which humans do because they respect each other.

"Respect your opponent" isn't in the rulebook, to be sure, but I guess it really needs to be or else, apparently, people won't do it.

This is what WAAC is.

All I'm saying is that WAAC exists because humans naturally compete and will do whatever it takes to win said competition. Arguing against it is like arguing against evolution. It's never going to change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

njtrader wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Oh believe me, it does and should happen. But that is the duality of competition. I've heard older athletes argue that sportsmanship itself is little more than a social construct which has no place in the sport, because winning is the end goal, and it shouldn't matter how you get there, only that you do.

This might be the most harsh form of SoTF, but that's nature. You are or you are not. Man's structured laws matter not.

Which is why we are not following the structured laws of Warhammer 40k for our games to decide the best Warhammer player, and instead deciding it through the lawless method of murdering eachother to take the trophy.

Oh wait.

One can always take an argument to the highest level of absurdity. There are always limits, even to what I say.

However, the strategy he used [assuming he really did slow play on purpose in order to cause his opponent to increase his chances of making a mistake, with which he could be punished for] is valid. You may not agree with it, and many have cried fowl. But the organizers haven't [to my knowledge] revoked the win, and thus it seems they agree.

It is the same reason female players can, and often do use low cut clothing and "innocent" flirting in order to cause distraction in less mentally well defended male players. Is that wrong? Should we say that behavior such as this is bad sportsmanship? What if a male does it [Did anyone who was at LVO see the guy running around in athletic shorts so tight you could literally see the outline of his whole package?] in hopes to distracting women or gay men?

Using tactics other than what is printed in the rules is a more advanced form of tactics. Why are some people upset by this?

Advanced form of tactics? this is most excusatory, ridiculous, childish form of apologism I think I've ever seen.

Monopolizing time by willingly slow playing on purpose is poor sportsmanship and is DQ worthy.

In a prior example, a guy played empire at a fantasy GT some years ago. He would spend his first turn killing a unit or two, just enough for 300 pts to minor victory, then disappear into the restroom for the remainder of the event.

Is that "advanced tactics"?

I agree Tony did nothing wrong in refusing Alex his movement phase, but assuming one player is allowed to monopolize all the time in an event is some form of "advanced tactics" is absurd and ridiculous.

I guess I have to say it. I'm arguing DA here. Many of the attendees I spoke with made this exact argument Monday morning. I neither agree or disagree with it, simply stating how others have chosen to look at it, using their descriptions.

Was it sleazy? Probably. Was it understandable, absolutely.

There is nothing understandable about monopolizing game time in a slow play action to skew the result of the game.

That is an inherent exploitation of the rules. Exploitations are usually met with a ban in online gaming, which is far more competitive.

It is not "in accordance with the rules" to do this and it certainly is not advanced tactics.

It's bs.

So what does the LVO organizers have to say about this then? Since it is their event, have they made a statement?

 Togusa wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you honestly can't see why this isn't bad, then I'm glad I don't live in your meta.

Sportsmanship is a thing which humans do because they respect each other.

"Respect your opponent" isn't in the rulebook, to be sure, but I guess it really needs to be or else, apparently, people won't do it.

This is what WAAC is.

All I'm saying is that WAAC exists because humans naturally compete and will do whatever it takes to win said competition. Arguing against it is like arguing against evolution. It's never going to change.

WAAC exists in this case because its being actively promoted by the ITC sponsors in the form of a large cash prize. So if you want to blame someone for the WAAC and the crap at LVO its on the shoulders of the ITC sponsors.
I dont know why there should be a large cash price for a 40k tournament but it almost seems that they want to make it into some serious e-sports thing that will never happen.

Othere than that WAAC is an active choice you chose to do not something that is forced upon you (outside of immature people that is) and the stakes in normal 40k is not high. Nobody in the outside world will care if i/you won a 40k tournament or any miniature tournament for that matter. It gains you nothing so why do it?

perrin23860 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

Hey, I'm a silverback!

I'll add that we also played for a trophy from GW and bragging rights. Not merch, and definitely not cash prizes. That's because everyone recognized that the game simply wasn't suited to be a competitive sport, no matter how much one distorts it.

Then came the demise of the GW GTs and the rise of 'Ard Boyz, and with that some very different attitudes for that generation of players. There was always drama at GTs, but the drama now is heightened by the stakes (such as they are, LOL). And showing up with armies full of grey plastic, proxies, etc. didn't happen. Hell, competitive guys tended to show up with freshly painted, good looking NEW armies every year in order to ensure a good paint score.

I liked the old days better because I think they were more...honest...about what a Warhammer tournament can be. But that's just my opinion, and clearly there many players who prefer what the GTs have become since GW got out of that business.

Completely agree. Instead of rewarding the top "general" with an inordinate amount of money, and incentivising poor play even more, that much money could be distributed far more evenly, giving many more people a decent prize.

It's breeding a large crowd of players that only play for pride and money, imho... hobby and sportsmanship be damned. I'm all for competitive gaming, but when prizes are ridiculously large, you can pretty much bet stupidity will follow.

I'm with you, but different people like different things.

Now, at times it seems as though some TOs talk out of both sides of their mouths. Bring up ways to crack down on shenanigans, and you're told that most attendees are just laidback hobbyists there to roll some dice and drink some beers. Bring up adding soft scores to emphasize the hobby side, and you're told that it's a competitive, *evaluative* event on a pro tour. *shrug*

I think there have been plenty of good points made about issues involved with some of the big events. But ultimately, if enough people are fine with the status quo and tickets are being sold, there's your final answer. And to be fair, the larger shows tend to have more hobby-focused events run alongside the more competitive ones.

The important thing is for TOs to be completely honest about their event so people know what they're getting into. Don't tell me about the great armies and hobby side if there's a real chance I could play against a grey legion. And don't tell me about the competitive focus if people are allowed to play fast and loose with the rules.

I for one don't think there should be a time limit once it gets down to the final 4 or 8. I know I'd rather watch a 4 hour game go to turn 6 than a 2.5 hour game go to turn 2. No one will slow play when there's no limit. You're only wasting your own time at that point.

I'm with you, but different people like different things.

Now, at times it seems as though some TOs talk out of both sides of their mouths. Bring up ways to crack down on shenanigans, and you're told that most attendees are just laidback hobbyists there to roll some dice and drink some beers. Bring up adding soft scores to emphasize the hobby side, and you're told that it's a competitive, *evaluative* event on a pro tour. *shrug*

I think there have been plenty of good points made about issues involved with some of the big events. But ultimately, if enough people are fine with the status quo and tickets are being sold, there's your final answer. And to be fair, the larger shows tend to have more hobby-focused events run alongside the more competitive ones.

The important thing is for TOs to be completely honest about their event so people know what they're getting into. Don't tell me about the great armies and hobby side if there's a real chance I could play against a grey legion. And don't tell me about the competitive focus if people are allowed to play fast and loose with the rules.

Well said.

 Togusa wrote:

So what does the LVO organizers have to say about this then? Since it is their event, have they made a statement?

They talked about it on Signals today.

They played it off as drama happens. Tony "lost perspective" and was "not very sportsman-like" but "was correct." In the context of a tournament, doing that was "not totally out of line." It was a "dick move" though. Reece was "furious" and acknowledges that stuff like this is what turns people off of tournaments.

Slow play was not mentioned at all. No mention of the imposed time limits. No solutions/changes were discussed. They joked about pretend punishments for Tony who apparently apologized cause he "lost perspective."

They called the Tony/Nick issue "poetic justice" and "beautiful." Nick was a "sly fox". No mention of Tony's reaction.

To Tony: "Keep your chin up."

skarsol wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

So what does the LVO organizers have to say about this then? Since it is their event, have they made a statement?

They talked about it on Signals today.

They played it off as drama happens. Tony "lost perspective" and was "not very sportsman-like" but "was correct." In the context of a tournament, doing that was "not totally out of line." It was a "dick move" though. Reece was "furious" and acknowledges that stuff like this is what turns people off of tournaments.

Slow play was not mentioned at all. No mention of the imposed time limits. No solutions/changes were discussed. They joked about pretend punishments for Tony who apparently apologized cause he "lost perspective."

They called the Tony/Nick issue "poetic justice" and "beautiful." Nick was a "sly fox". No mention of Tony's reaction.

To Tony: "Keep your chin up."

Well then, I guess we have our answer.

By the way, I don't know what Signals is, could you provide a link so I can go and listen to this?

So Reece was furious but plans to do nothing?

Seriously did any of us actually believe they would do anything?

The controversy directed more interest to the event than it previously had. I also don't think it changed anyone's mind about whether they would attend a tournament or not. Those who don't go to tournaments got to say "That's why I don't go". Those that go to tournaments shrugged their shoulders. I was at the LVO and only heard about "the event" online. It won't keep me from coming next year.

bogalubov wrote:
The controversy directed more interest to the event than it previously had. I also don't think it changed anyone's mind about whether they would attend a tournament or not. Those who don't go to tournaments got to say "That's why I don't go". Those that go to tournaments shrugged their shoulders. I was at the LVO and only heard about "the event" online. It won't keep me from coming next year.

And there lies the problem, you reward Reece and company for their shameful complicity by giving them your money and selling out their event.

Question:

These are championships right?

Why aren't they by invite only, similar to Magic? Feast of Blades was like that until the cheating incident killed that event.

Would that change outcomes such as this?

 Primark G wrote:
Seriously did any of us actually believe they would do anything?

LVO is run by Frontline Gamine, which owns/started ITC. We all know this. What people often forget is that Frontline Gaming is also a RETAILER. They are a business that sells models and gaming supplies. So, they benefit from an ever-changing list-based meta, and they especially benefit from celebrity 40K players advertising those lists. Exalting people who win big tournaments makes those tournaments more attractive to competitively-minded players, and when the price of victory is advertised as the cost of a few boxes of Eldar then Frontline doubly benefits. The culture of "Celebrity 40k" has to continue, because without it eventually the cost of our plastic, hotels, and airline tickets isn't worth it anymore cause winning a GT means nothing. The "A-list" of celebrities is pretty much set at this point, and it will stay.

I disagree with you. This year is different and a lot of people know about it and will remember. Something will come of it for sure.

 quickfuze wrote:

bogalubov wrote:
The controversy directed more interest to the event than it previously had. I also don't think it changed anyone's mind about whether they would attend a tournament or not. Those who don't go to tournaments got to say "That's why I don't go". Those that go to tournaments shrugged their shoulders. I was at the LVO and only heard about "the event" online. It won't keep me from coming next year.

And there lies the problem, you reward Reece and company for their shameful complicity by giving them your money and selling out their event.

The problem is internet pundits not understanding why people attend these events. He went and enjoyed himself so he will return. The events on the top table don't impact him or his enjoyment. The only people effected are those actually involved. 400+ people played and maybe 10 were impacted by this or related events. It is people that don't attend that want all the changes because their experience was watching the stream.

 greyknight12 wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Seriously did any of us actually believe they would do anything?

LVO is run by Frontline Gamine, which owns/started ITC. We all know this. What people often forget is that Frontline Gaming is also a RETAILER. They are a business that sells models and gaming supplies. So, they benefit from an ever-changing list-based meta, and they especially benefit from celebrity 40K players advertising those lists. Exalting people who win big tournaments makes those tournaments more attractive to competitively-minded players, and when the price of victory is advertised as the cost of a few boxes of Eldar then Frontline doubly benefits. The culture of "Celebrity 40k" has to continue, because without it eventually the cost of our plastic, hotels, and airline tickets isn't worth it anymore cause winning a GT means nothing. The "A-list" of celebrities is pretty much set at this point, and it will stay.

This is just ....

Lol.

No.

 Togusa wrote:

Well then, I guess we have our answer.

By the way, I don't know what Signals is, could you provide a link so I can go and listen to this?

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/01/31/signals-from-the-frontline-579-lvo-2018-discussion/

The show is done on Twitch TV Wednesdays and available as a podcast on Fridays.

Breng77 wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:

bogalubov wrote:
The controversy directed more interest to the event than it previously had. I also don't think it changed anyone's mind about whether they would attend a tournament or not. Those who don't go to tournaments got to say "That's why I don't go". Those that go to tournaments shrugged their shoulders. I was at the LVO and only heard about "the event" online. It won't keep me from coming next year.

And there lies the problem, you reward Reece and company for their shameful complicity by giving them your money and selling out their event.

The problem is internet pundits not understanding why people attend these events. He went and enjoyed himself so he will return. The events on the top table don't impact him or his enjoyment. The only people effected are those actually involved. 400+ people played and maybe 10 were impacted by this or related events. It is people that don't attend that want all the changes because their experience was watching the stream.

wrong. The fact is that if they donkey cave at the top 8 they probably donkey caved everyone on the way there. Which means that they potentially ruined the experience for each and every one of them along the way. That damages the hobby, people watching who may have thought of attending their first big event could be dissuaded from so. Given enough "Tony's" and hobby dies. Then no fun for anyone. My point stands, you reward Reece and company by not holding them accountable. This is a bigger issue than one event...

Honestly, the biggest factor in all this is going to be that GW is getting back into the tournament scene. They're slow to get going, but eventually it's entirely possible that they will not want to officially associate themselves with this kind of behavior if more of it happens and is not addressed.

Fantasy Flight does a very good job of managing their brand, they do official events and even do permabans for cheaters. And slow play is against their tournament rules. GW could stand to learn from them about how to handle events if they're going to keep dipping further and further back in.

 quickfuze wrote:
And there lies the problem, you reward Reece and company for their shameful complicity by giving them your money and selling out their event.

Oh my god the drama in this thread is somehow still attaining higher and higher levels of ridiculous overwrought sanctimonious BS.

Angry internet drama queen: "I did not attend the event and think this situation was terrible and will impact attendance in the future"

Person who actually attended the event: "I was there, had a great time, was not affected in any way and will go again next year"

Angry internet drama queen: "STOP HAVING FUN AND BE ANGRY OR YOU'RE THE CAUSE OF ALL PROBLEMS!"

Jesus Christ dakka how is this thread not locked yet

"Then you had some amusing drama in a first round match-up of between Aaron Aleong vs. Geoff “InControl” Robinson digging a salt mine of epic proportions."

What happened?

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2018/01/31/rollercoaster-las-vegas-open-2018/

DJ3 wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
And there lies the problem, you reward Reece and company for their shameful complicity by giving them your money and selling out their event.

Oh my god the drama in this thread is somehow still attaining higher and higher levels of ridiculous overwrought sanctimonious BS.

Angry internet drama queen: "I did not attend the event and think this situation was terrible and will impact attendance in the future"

Person who actually attended the event: "I was there, had a great time, was not affected in any way and will go again next year"

Angry internet drama queen: "STOP HAVING FUN AND BE ANGRY OR YOU'RE THE CAUSE OF ALL PROBLEMS!"

Jesus Christ dakka how is this thread not locked yet

Someone needs a safe space....

karandrasss wrote:
"Then you had some amusing drama in a first round match-up of between Aaron Aleong vs. Geoff “InControl” Robinson digging a salt mine of epic proportions."

What happened?

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2018/01/31/rollercoaster-las-vegas-open-2018/

Tasty is a professional drama queen, by comparison to the amateurs on here, as his site relies on clicks.

Geoff and Aleong's game was a complete non-event. A judge was posted at the table from the start and nothing notable happened. If it wasn't Round 1 with nothing better to do they wouldn't have bothered unless a problem occurred.

What complete idiocy.

@DJ3

I know you have written about the onus of knowing the rules to be on each competitor, to know the rules for themselves in regard to keeping an opponent in check. I agree this provides better results than constantly calling over a judge to delay and interfere with a game.

What is your opinion of challenging your opponent when they are taking longer than they should? It seems to be the bigger more legitimate concern on this thread. Does onus of rules extend to enforcing the time constraints of a round?

 tjnorwoo wrote:
@DJ3

I know you have written about the onus of knowing the rules to be on each competitor, to know the rules for themselves in regard to keeping an opponent in check. I agree this provides better results than constantly calling over a judge to delay and interfere with a game.

What is your opinion of challenging your opponent when they are taking longer than they should? It seems to be the bigger more legitimate concern on this thread. Does onus of rules extend to enforcing the time constraints of a round?

Firstly: With the exception of ETC (where it's taken very seriously and primarily enforced by your own team/captain), I'm not aware of anyone ever being penalized for slow play at any of the major tournaments.

The biggest issue is that judges are incapable of responding to a slow play allegation after the fact. You can't come up and say "his turn took an hour, so I win" or we'd end up with chaos. It's impossible to verify--and even if it wasn't--setting up any kind of hard, written rules regarding penalties/disqualifications is far more likely to be gamed against in a detrimental fashion, rather than protection from anything.

What judges should do when a slow play allegation is brought to their attention, is ensure the rest of the game is played smoothly and fair time allocated to both players from that point on. You can't redo the earlier turns, or give Player A more time based on his word that Player B took longer, only observe the remaining turns and intervene as necessary.

At NOVA, questionable games (or important top table games) are put on a split clock as soon as it becomes noticeable that the game might not each Turn 5. Top table games from the round of 16 on are also usually clocked in secret by judges for verification of any retroactive slow play arguments. From this, I can tell you with 100% certainty that false slow play accusations drastically outweigh the legitimate ones.

I was playing at the time and only hearing of Alex/Tony's game second hand, but from what I've heard it was a single-turn issue. If one turn takes far too long and isn't brought to the judges until after it has completed, there's unfortunately no reasonable recourse available to them to correct that--only to ensure the remaining turns go smoothly.

The primary argument against this issue is that, in such a high stakes game, a judge should have been there enforcing strict time limits from the beginning, which as a judge I'd absolutely agree with (and is what occurred in following games), but it's worth noting that the judging staff was relatively short handed at LVO and they may have determined this wasn't feasible due to multiple other ongoing events that required support--that's up to them to respond to, not me, but all interactions I personally had with their judging staff were great.

Dear lord, this thread makes me terrified to bring my old as dirt army of metal Marines on 25mm bases to a tournament now. I can only imagine the outcry of "modelling for advantage" or claiming I am TFG since it allows me to fit more guys into melee range.

If anything, Tony is a dork for seemingly trying to bait somebody into a "gotcha" moment, and intentional slow-playing is a jerk move. But besides that is seemed an overwhelmingly large percent of the people there had a great time. I really don't think that a few events like that represent or should represent the LVO tournament as a whole. It was unfortunate that it seems Tony's character is lacking, and even worse it was so visible for the public to see. If anything, Alex should have called a judge sooner and had them address how slow Tony was playing earlier so he wasnt forced into having to play so fast and make an error.

njtrader wrote:


Big difference. Tony's play was underhanded given the circumstances, yes. Measuring for Alex, the banter about intent (agreement or not) and his complaining when the same stunt was pulled on him - however, the rules are very clear in that regard.

Arguing assault weapons can't be shot after an advance is blatant loop holeism and angle shooting.

This sort of BS only exists in this community. I swear. I never saw it in Warmahordes, or in Bolt Action, or in Infinity.

Moreover, the perception of competitive play is totally different in those metas.

Slowplaying to force opponent to mistakes is also obviously angle shooting.

And besides the rules are clear. Tony wants to play rules by RAW. Let's play so then. No assault weapons firing after shooting. Fair is fair. You want to enforce rules to RAW after deliberate slow playing? Fine. It goes both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too just like that. No cherry picking whatever suits your boat.

 quickfuze wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:

bogalubov wrote:
The controversy directed more interest to the event than it previously had. I also don't think it changed anyone's mind about whether they would attend a tournament or not. Those who don't go to tournaments got to say "That's why I don't go". Those that go to tournaments shrugged their shoulders. I was at the LVO and only heard about "the event" online. It won't keep me from coming next year.

And there lies the problem, you reward Reece and company for their shameful complicity by giving them your money and selling out their event.

The problem is internet pundits not understanding why people attend these events. He went and enjoyed himself so he will return. The events on the top table don't impact him or his enjoyment. The only people effected are those actually involved. 400+ people played and maybe 10 were impacted by this or related events. It is people that don't attend that want all the changes because their experience was watching the stream.

wrong. The fact is that if they donkey cave at the top 8 they probably donkey caved everyone on the way there. Which means that they potentially ruined the experience for each and every one of them along the way. That damages the hobby, people watching who may have thought of attending their first big event could be dissuaded from so. Given enough "Tony's" and hobby dies. Then no fun for anyone. My point stands, you reward Reece and company by not holding them accountable. This is a bigger issue than one event...

Hence why I said 10 people, he only played 9 other players in total. So nope you are still wrong to think it is a problem that someone who had a good time should not return because of some event that had no impact on them whatsoever (majority of people at LVO). Which is the issue with viewers vs attendees. Your experience of the event was "some donkey cave got to the top 8 this event is terrible" (even though that was maybe 2 out of 9 streamed games where that seemed to be an issue) and you dwell on that instead of thinking about say maybe if you go to this event you could play against Alex, he seems like a cool dude (I know for a fact he is a cool dude but from the vision of the stream alone seems felt right), or Nick, or Phil the Glacial Geek who was round 1 on saturday.OR the people that played on the GW stream who seemed like cool guys the times I switched over. But sure we should ignore all the other people that seemed cool, all the reports of "it was a great time I'm going back" and boycott because they did not throw Tony out the door or aren't discussing putting chess clocks on games. Do people like that exist and might they ruin the day for someone, yeah (though day is a big stretch honestly, let alone event), but they are a huge minority and I'm not sure how doing a ton of things that may make the game less enjoyable for the 99% of people not like that helps.I stand by my assertion that you don't understand why people attend these events on the first place and that these events effected a minuscule (less then 5%) amount of attendees.

Now should FLG/ITC put out a poll to attendees about games finishing on time - absolutely, and if it seems that a large number of games were not completed on time should steps be taken to address this: sure.

Your argument however is "jerks exist so no one should attend these events unless jerks don't attend."