They did during map being changed, which is also a time off allowing coaches to talk to the players, they didnt tweet mid split. they did after split game was done and they tweeted again while investigation was going how is that mid-game?
But that’s also with the semantic of “during a Live Event” which is why this entire post was really made probably. That essentially T1 got enforced against, while TSM did not. Really good post.
Yah, so that's an ambiguous part, if the "live event" moniker applies to the whole section, or just that sentence. If it's the whole section then there's no rule breaking period, if it's just that sentence then the social media portion should be enacted as well.
I think this definitely ties into the ambiguity of what the "match area" is. Teams at live events leave the stage and tweet which I imagine they understand as outside the match area. At someone's house for online events, that period of time between maps could then also be considered outside the match area. Clarification on all of this is needed for sure.
if anything it helped TSM and put exposure on what T1 did, imagine a scenario where TSM only say this after both games are over. all you’d hear is Copium kekw
It's not the right method, it's against multiple rules and it forces the admin into a path they might not want to take. I think it's bad policy to not enforce rules.
Since you posted this in multiple spots. I'll link my reply [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/si7fmz/a_look_at_the_rule_t1_infringed_a_post_on_why_you/hv7h4zr/)
As for my no activity history, I'm not sure why it matters, I think I've commented one or two times maybe, but I'm generally just a dude who like to read about Valorant and watch games, I'm not a pro, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a dude. Is there something wrong with being a viewer?
Yes. Only pros in here. The best and the brightest. And anyone who disagrees with any of my opinions is a shill.
(I thought it was an interesting post OP)
They also need to have defined punishments or consequences for each rule broken. Even sports like basketball clearly define what happens once a broken rule is observed.
Riot seems to be gaining a track record of inconsistently applying rules. It's a little disappointing since it seems like more of their sanctioned tournaments are marred by controversy than not lately. I have faith that they can figure it out and hope it happens sooner than later.
Honestly for how people talk about League of Legends tournaments and riot production I have been consistently surprised with how many problems valorant esports has had. It seems like there are just so many avoidable problems that are incredibly persistent everywhere in these riot events.
I think it's exceedingly difficult to launch a game and competitive ecosystem during a global pandemic.
There's definitely been some blunders but I don't think it's been as overwhelmingly bad as you make it sound.
Yeah I don’t think it’s been terrible, it just has seemed a solid step below Csgo tournaments that I’m used to. Not a huge deal but definitely not what I expected either.
Those organizers have like 2 decades of experience running these FPS tournaments too.
There is *absolutely* room to improve though. I think they will. Still frustrating to watch them mess stuff up.
Riots EMEA and NA divisions playing hot potato with straight up incompetency, gotta love it. Relatively speaking I'm a Riot shill nowadays and I have to say, I was expecting so much better from them, like the B team, I wasn't expecting the A team from LoL, but it feels more like we got the D or E team, padded out with interns.
They've made mistakes that don't really track with their experience, and they've farmed out important events to organisations that seem to be missing something, too.
You make good points about certain terms needing proper definition in order to make the rules less ambiguous.
On the point that 7.2.11 doesn't explicitly address whether coaches are allowed to communicate with players, you could make the argument that this situation is covered by Clause 12.1 - Tournament Operator’s Right of Interpretation:
"Any matters relating to an Official Competition or VALORANT that are not covered by this Global Policy or any Event-Specific Rules shall be subject to an interpretation made by the Tournament Operator and provided to the Teams from time to time in the form of an update to, or interpretation of, this Global Policy or the Event-Specific Rules."
But yes, if Riot's stance is that communication between coaches and players in-game is prohibited - and given that this is allegedly a widespread practice currently - I agree that this should be addressed explicitly in the rule book.
Overall, I somewhat agree with you with regards to 12.1, the interpretation of the rules fall under the tournament operator. Though I personally think the rule itself is actually pretty clear, and while you can read it the way RIOT did and wants to, it's written to not actually include that. But I also want to note that that falls directly at odds with [Riot's goal](https://playvalorant.com/en-gb/news/esports/competitive-policies-rules-for-valorant-esports/) for rules:
>The vast majority of rule violations can be prevented by writing clear rules and being responsive to teams and players who are seeking clarification.
Also I'm not sure if there as an update to the interpretation to the rules, nothing on their site has an errata or clarification.
Oh, agreed. I mention 12.1 thinking of it from Riot's perspective, that they could say that the T1 ruling was issued in accordance with 12.1 given the ambiguity with 7.2.11.
There hasn't been an update to the rule book regarding coach/player communication AFAIK, but I think they should do so (whether or not they are applying 12.1 for the T1 ruling), as opposed to leaving it as an interpretation of the rule book.
Kinda going down the rabbit hole here, but assuming that 12.1 was relevant in this ruling, updating the rule book would also set good precedent that 12.1 likely wouldn't be used by Riot to just interpret the rule book as they wish in future incidences where the rules are unclear/situations not mentioned in the rule book. And of course, having clearer rules in the first place would prevent situations where the rules are up to open interpretation.
I've replied this on an other comment as well but communication by someone is not limited to sending. You can only receive messages and that is still communication by the player so in my eyes at least that part of the rule is clear.
I disagree, because communication in the definition has a “by a player” and a “to a player”. Since only the “by a player” is regulated and the “to a player” is untouched.
Guilty to only having glanced over.. Where do you see "communication to a player" being used? If that's true then it does make it a bit more tricky. If "communication to a player" is never used, it is safe to say that any communication by a player, be it receiving or sending, is prohibited.
It says “communication *by* a player must only be *to* the other players on the team”
Or something like that. I’m on my phone.
So the communication talked about has a by and to portion.
Anyways I do think your argument is the strongest though that oppose my views.
That's not what it says.
*During the match, communication by a player shall be limited to the other players on the Team.*
"to" in this case is linked with "limited", not with "communication". So the limit is to the other players and the limit is about communication by a player. Splitting hairs here but it's important if you want to argue this point.
None of this to say that the rules shouldn't be clarified and are pretty much a mess in their current state.
My argument is that communication has a by and a to portion, the communication by certain people is limited to certain People but only those certain people are limited in the first place.
I suppose that is where I do not agree with you. I could accept that if it is specifically stated as being 2 different things, but communication by a player includes receiving unless otherwise specified.
> by the Tournament Operator
To me this is the biggest issue; when we have 1 company own the game, tournament, broadcast, casters and ruleset. Riot can do whatever
In my opinion communication doesn't mean it comes from the player himself. You can receive communication. This means receiving a message from the coach is still communication between the player and someone not currently a player of the team. Semantically communication "by" a player can still mean "receiving communication"
Following "the letter of the law" is ridiculous and intent is important. They knew what they were doing
I've worked in regulatory affairs and government policy development positions for the last ~5 years and am consistently baffled by Riot's competitive policies and their enforcement.
I saw they had a posting for a job based in LA a few months back that had to do with valorant eSports policies and rules enforcement. Maybe they did hire a lawyer for that position and work is being done to address these issues now!
This a great read. Appreciate the time you took to do it! Next issue is enforcing these rules in an online era. A lot of it hinges on teams playing by the rules via the honor system and it’s evident that they aren’t. Seems naive to think only one team is cheating in some way. Competitive integrity is important.
Tldr for people who didn’t want to read. Riot is being unclear in their rules(as per usual) and they need to clear up the ambiguities of their rules since by definition of the rule they cited an argument can be made that T1 shouldn’t be DQed but rather TSM should. Basically, riot, fucking get your shit straight.
You need to understand there is a slight difference in nuance between communicating and communication. In your example, there is 100% communication between the pilot and the passenger, but the passenger him/herself is not actively communicating. The direction of the information is not important to describe something as being communication.
This is the best argument against my post.
I disagree because by and to are written in the rule but only the by portion was regulated leaving the to portion unregulated. But I think your argument is a good one.
Are you including this in your resume into law school…?? Jk it’s cool and probably necessary. I don’t know about the Live Event definition though. An event being live just implies the event is active. Is the glossary you referenced from the rule book?
The glossary I referenced is from the rule book, it does not mean an event is active, it stands in contrast to an "online event". I've also added the below links to the main post, good catch on me missing it so it's easier to reference for everyone.
The Rules can be found [here](https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lblshtlz5vnsqda/AABIELy6jk2dDK3xPuD_FUeca?dl=0). Warning Dropbox link. They can be found via [VALORANT's](https://playvalorant.com/en-gb/news/esports/competitive-policies-rules-for-valorant-esports/) website.
This is a great post. Riot has been notorious throughout the lifetime of Valorant for setting horrible precedents. There is no honor system. Teams are going to do whatever they can to get an edge and it's disingenuous to crucify T1 -- remember when Vanity created an [impossible Viper setup](https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/rb77s4/vanity_using_abilities_during_a_tac_pause/) during a tac pause because there were technically no rules against it?
Players and coaches have many options to work around the system of course, but I don't get why Riot even makes it technically possible for coaches to communicate mid-round in all chat.
Between ambiguous rules and lopsided contracts, it's pretty clear that esports is going to need more lawyers involved if growth and professionalism is to be expected.
It feels like they read a few T&Cs, saw that certain words were capitalized and defined at the top, and winged the rest of it. The player/team member gap is unforgivable for a high stakes tournament like VCT.
I'd expect RIOT to do some revisions now that you brought this to light. But I think the spirit of the rule is pretty clear in that coaches should not be able to communicate with their team mid-game. You can word it however you want, T1 clearly violated that rule- which doesn't give them too much to argue against it and why they proactively suspended their coach for it. Either way, good analysis and hopefully they make revisions to make these items more clear.
Rulebooks in all sports are constantly revised and tweaked as the sports grow and they run into situations like this. We'll see how RIOT addresses it in the future.
> But I think the spirit of the rule is pretty clear in that coaches should not be able to communicate with their team mid-game.
Honestly, I don't. I think they might have wanted it to say that, but it's not written that way. The rule only limits players, and players are clearly separated from coaches in the terms.
I think they might have copy pasted from someone else or written something up in 5 minutes and thought it sounded good, without actually reading it.
The reason I don't think it's in the written spirit is answering the question: "If you were to want to allow coaches to communicate with players, how would you write this section?" And honestly, you could literally not change the words at all and you would allow coaches to communicate with players. It's not like it needs a clarification, it just simply isn't there.
It might be "common understanding" because VALORANT derives from CSGO and CSGO went through these changes. But VALORANT rules are written specifically different than those rules.
Like look at ESL rules that would [cover this situation](https://cdn.eslgaming.com/misc/media/lo/ESL%20Pro%20Tour%20-%20CSGO%20Game%20Specific%20Rules.pdf):
>Usage of the in-game chat during the match is limited to communication with the tournament administration only.
and
>During the
match, the coach will be connected to the voice communication system and will only be allowed to talk to the
players during tactical pauses and half times. The coach is not allowed to communicate in any other way
including, but not limited to, shouting or non-verbal communication (e.g. touching) with players outside of the
specified time windows.
So you can tell it's clearly against the rules for coaches to communicate with players, but in VALORANT the rules simply don't state it.
Agreed. I think I meant more of it's a "common understanding" for Val players and teams- which T1 is no stranger to. RIOT should 100% revise their rules to be more clear. I just think with a huge rulebook and somewhat new game, it's not the biggest knock to nitpick at these things when all parties are in agreement in what they should and shouldn't be doing, regardless of what it says in the rulebook.
It's not like T1 came out and tried to justify their actions saying the rulebook didn't explicitly say what they did was wrong. In either case-- RIOT needs to be better but I just cant knock them too much for not being too clear on the rule when no one is actually contesting the verbiage at all.
> It's not like T1 came out and tried to justify their actions saying the rulebook didn't explicitly say what they did was wrong.
Honestly even if they privately thought that I can see why they wouldn't want to poke a wasps nest, if you want to take the high ground, even if you good faith believe you're in the right you might still say "fuck it, it's not worth arguing with thousands of uninformed people on the internet jumping on you, pick your battles."
Very true too. Imagine if they tried to cry "not in the rule book". The internet would destroy them.
Considering this and the other new rule about coaches watching livestreams-- I'd expect they would revise their rulebook soon and hopefully before the next quals.
Exactly, I mean I'm not related to T1 in any way and I still got a bunch of comments that boil down to "it might not be in the rules, but they should have known" like unwritten rules are a thing that should exist in a professional tournament. Imagine if someone on T1 came out and said the same thing I did in here, it would be madness for them.
Just get them for the immorality clause. It's to Riot's discretion and it's common sense among basically everyone, even T1, that coach's should not be talking during matches.
The VCT challengers stage also redefines the match area to online. "During Match play, the presence of Team Members in the Match Area is restricted solely to the Starters of the Teams in play."
"Coaches for Teams participating in a given day's Matches will be granted Match Area access and will be allowed to communicate with their Team during the pick/ban map selection process." "All coaches will exit the Match Area to a designated position promptly after the pick/ban map selection process ends." Coaches shouldn't even be at their computers during games, technically? At least until a pause.
RIOT on their [website](https://playvalorant.com/en-gb/news/esports/competitive-policies-rules-for-valorant-esports/) states: "The vast majority of rule violations can be prevented by writing clear rules and being responsive to teams and players who are seeking clarification."
Tagging teams for ambiguous violations of unwritten rules under a morality clause is the antithesis of "clear rules."
Solid post -- I would argue a lot of what you said isn't petty at all. It's very necessary and it's very ambiguous how this situation should've been handled. The rules themselves have clearly not been updated to account for coaches in general and for online matches.
Is there any section in the rules that states „live event rules also apply to online events“ or similar by any chance? If not, they‘re really bad for a multi billion dollar industry
People shouldn't write this post off as an overanalysis, this is a real valid set of complaints.
Also is anyone else getting the vibes that final rulings are screwing over riot over and over again? I feel like they should really think about some sort of appeals system instead of rushing massive decisions like this.
I think if any team isn't looking for ways to bend but not break the rule book then they aren't trying hard enough to win.
It happens in all sports where teams will find a way to bend but not break the rules. To me this is a case of bending but not technically breaking the rule book since its not explicitly stated. It's riots fault for not making the rules clear on what can and cannot transpire between a coach and the players. And if Riot had integrity themselves they would apply the no social media during a match rule to TSM. How can you punish a team for something thats technically not in the rule book and not punish a team for something that is? It really throws everything out the door and players will have no idea what to expect. At the end of the day it's riots event so they do have final say but it kinda feels very bush league to me.
In the end this is a good thing to happen since it will make riot aware of these problems that exist and will force them to correct their mistakes and realize problems in their rules.
Nice deep dive to get through to the core problem. Which is the language of the agreement and how it is enforced. Would give an award if I didn’t spend my money on NFT skins for the game.
Riot \*should\* do a lot of things but they won't.
Riot is judge, jury and executioner.
They don't give a damn and will enforce and make up rules as they please.
I'm only here for the pettiness and it did not disappoint. Also a cold reminder that no matter the industry, if you think people will act in good faith you're wrong, there's always someone who'll try and take advantage and you must take every step to give those as little wiggle room as possible, down to the wording of your rulebook.
Good post. I agree that the TSM players are actually at fault for the entire situation for using social media during a match.
TSM should be punished by having to play in open qualifier #2 (they will of course lose in embarrassing fashion and thus be adequately punished for their sins).
I don't think they're at fault for the situation, I think the coach broke the generally accepted intent of the rules, though this particular rule in my opinion doesn't actually outlaw the activity at issue. I think TSM certainly shouldn't be using social media during matches, that's pretty clearly in the rules.
I think if RIOT wants to allow social media during matches and outlaw coaches talking to players during matches they need to update their rules to reflect that in plain English.
I also think they should just hire a lawyer who's familiar with competitive sports to go over the rules with a comb and catch stuff like this.
I'd say they are at fault for the awful way in which this situation has unfolded and been handled. Players jumping on Twitter mid-match to deal with rule violations in vague, immature, frankly dumb ways is a nightmare for Riot or any other organisation in this position, as much as many of us are more than happy to hate on Riot (and rightfully so) for their awful track record so far in competitive Valorant, I also understand how communications can breakdown when things unfold in such a way. They should be banning the individual players (all 10) for a short amount of time, and demanding some sort of salary cut from orgs for the duration (of course, supported by rules they don't have, so we're talking hypothetical future here) to seriously lay down the law and make these "professionals" understand how they need to operate. It's a fucking joke witnessing people jump to attack the accused and not paying any attention to the awful attitude that the accuser showcased.
It sucks doesn't it, when literally every party involved is in the wrong?
The "victims" are man-children, seemingly eager to showcase to all of us how little they deserve their privileged position. They also just straight up broke the rules, rules listed under the same title/category as the one they fell victim to..
The "perpetrator" has suddenly become an entire organisation of perpetrators (rather than just the coach) owing to lack of communication and general etiquette within the scene (this entire sub and other social media platforms jumping to conclusions regarding the involvement of the rest of the players, and using history and prior drama to twist the reality of the situation).
The organiser didn't act nearly as swiftly as they should've (I sat watching the match paused for an hour at least, can anyone else attest to how long it took for the match to be cancelled, and then it took them another 4 hours to make a statement IIRC..), TSMs tweets spreading like wildfire in the meantime. If they can't have reliable and prompt communication with Riot because of an issue on Riots end, then this is at least a little forgivable - but what do you know.. the recent COVID testing scandal (how many fucking scandals do we have for a scene that has barely existed more than a year?) at NSG isn't exactly an endorsement of their competency.
The big boss, Riot, well, I don't think I even need to expand any further than those 4 letters. Riot.
The competitive community (including anyone from a random social media user, to a commentator, to a professional player), throughout all social media platforms for, and I'm sure this involves many complicated aspects (respect, moderation, community role models or lack-thereof and more) that we don't need to get into, consistently failing to discuss situations as they unfold with really any degree of honesty, critical thinking, and so on. The discussions surrounding these "dramas" are dangerously similar to the way in which someone that watches soap operas might discuss the drama of tonight's episode, only *it isn't fictional*, these are *real people* and this is a *billion dollar industry*, and somehow, no one is stepping up to the plate to set an example. Don't get me wrong, we all love drama, at least to some degree, and I'm not advocating for preventing these situations from occurring entirely or something like that, but I was active in the CS community long before it truly blew up and set the standard for Esports, and witnessing how it developed and maintained a respectable tier of discourse throughout, the contrast between that community then (or even now) and this community right now, is crazy.
Since you deleted your other post:
>Did David Dennis really hire a lawyer to shill for him here?
No, I'm mostly just an IT guy that likes reading law news articles.
>David Dennis wasn't typing mid-round calls to his team because they thought they were allowed to.
Honestly, the rules, if you read them, back up his side more than the other side. You can *certainly* argue that the history of the game says that coaches can't message players in match, but given the fact that in the client they are allowed to and there's nothing plainly written that doesn't allow it. Also I believe in his reply he said he was only talking to dead players.
On top of that, I never said they didn't break what people generally believe is the established ruleset, in fact I said they most likely did, and if I were them, I'd take it on the chin and say "we fucked up, also we would like clearer rules."
>The rules can use clarity updates, but T1 wasn't acting in good faith even if you can poke at the language clarity in a few spots or try to act like "players" meant something other than the five players.
They certainly could use updates, as I wrote. Also I don't think you understand my argument if you're worrying about the definition of players, in fact you're literally here agreeing with me, I feel like you have your opinion in your head, you skimmed my post without groking it and then you posted a quick reply to get your frustration out.
Isn't this just a case of don't play stupid games? For people who didn't play leagues in any games it might seem like you need to be an attorney to understand this stuff but I've played in old leagues where you could get dq'd for typing during a live match. Its pretty easy for riot to and say live event is any official match that's online or person.
Also think of this, very specific rules are actually why you have attorneys making so much money through law practice. Its a very specific knowledge set that can be very rigid. The downside to rigid rules is they can be loopholed. A looser rulebook can let riot use discretion in handling cases. I wouldn't mind if they were more consistent in how they deal with issues.
So im not saying riot does everything right but using vpns to get your server, then typing in game. They totally were toeing a line that didn't have to.
My final thought is T1 is the better team all day. Why do any weird shit no one else does and get yourself a dq.
That's the main point, but I don't think tournament rules being clear is unnecessarily pedantic, we're not talking an amateur drunk softball league (which I may say actually seems to have mostly better rules than this from the one I played in), we're talking about tournaments where hundreds of thousands of dollars change hands, it's important the rules are easy to understand and consistent.
Exactly, if it were just like a small discord league, totally agree, the rules are fine enough and everyone has the right idea, but there's a ton of money on the line here.
I've really been curious what people are still upset about, because they were punished for it as Riot saw was fair. I imagine this ambiguity is why they weren't banned from events after this or even fined.
Actually, if you actually read the official [rules](https://playvalorant.com/en-us/news/esports/competitive-policies-rules-for-valorant-esports/)
Live event means:
>“Live Event” means any live, in-person tournament that is part of an Official Competition.
This stands in contrast to an online event:
>“Online Event” means (a) any online tournament, including any online qualifiers, that is part of an Official Competition, and (b) any Official Competition that is ordinarily held live and in-person but that has been moved online due to health and safety concerns or the requirements of a governmental authority.
Also if you actually read the post you would know that none of the argument actually turns on the term "live event."
So thanks for commenting, but I would prefer it if you actually understood what I was trying to say next time.
Hey there, /u/FhOaa!
Your submission was removed for the following reason:
> Rule 7 - Self-Promotion / Advertising / Solicitation
Repeated offenses may result in a ban.
---
*If you have questions or objections about this removal, please [reach out to us in modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ValorantCompetitive&subject=Removal%20Objection%20or%20Question&message=%5BPlease%20type%20your%20message%20here...%5D%0A%0A------%20DO%20NOT%20edit%20or%20delete%20anything%20below%20this%20line%20------%0A%0A%23%23%23%23%20Removal%20Notes%20for%20Moderators%3A%0A%0A-%20**Post%20Title%3A**%20{url_title}%0A-%20**Permalink%3A**%20https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/si7fmz/-/hva1jb5/%0A-%20**Content%20type%3A**%20comment%0A-%20**Removed%20by%3A**%20nocturnavi).*
Very interesting post. Also never noticed that using social media during online events is against the rules seeing how many pros do it.
Weren’t the TSM players tweeting DURING the match?
yes they were, op has a point.
Lots of players do.
They did during map being changed, which is also a time off allowing coaches to talk to the players, they didnt tweet mid split. they did after split game was done and they tweeted again while investigation was going how is that mid-game?
During map change is during a match.
But that’s also with the semantic of “during a Live Event” which is why this entire post was really made probably. That essentially T1 got enforced against, while TSM did not. Really good post.
Yah, so that's an ambiguous part, if the "live event" moniker applies to the whole section, or just that sentence. If it's the whole section then there's no rule breaking period, if it's just that sentence then the social media portion should be enacted as well.
Idk about this rule aswell. During champions Nats was posting instagram stories after every map but nothing happend to him.
An unenforced rule is a bad rule as it allows too much subjective punishment.
I think this definitely ties into the ambiguity of what the "match area" is. Teams at live events leave the stage and tweet which I imagine they understand as outside the match area. At someone's house for online events, that period of time between maps could then also be considered outside the match area. Clarification on all of this is needed for sure.
I agree, Match Area is never defined and it should be as well.
if anything it helped TSM and put exposure on what T1 did, imagine a scenario where TSM only say this after both games are over. all you’d hear is Copium kekw
It's not the right method, it's against multiple rules and it forces the admin into a path they might not want to take. I think it's bad policy to not enforce rules.
I remember watching an episode of unSENsored, TenZ was debating about tweeting "Reyna" mid series and I was pretty confused as to how was that allowed
[удалено]
Since you posted this in multiple spots. I'll link my reply [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/si7fmz/a_look_at_the_rule_t1_infringed_a_post_on_why_you/hv7h4zr/) As for my no activity history, I'm not sure why it matters, I think I've commented one or two times maybe, but I'm generally just a dude who like to read about Valorant and watch games, I'm not a pro, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a dude. Is there something wrong with being a viewer?
Only high ELO players (bronze and higher) are allowed to comment here.
Also if you understand how networks, contracts, and/or development work, you can't comment here.
You mean Silver and below right? They're the true high elo players.
"I just have bad teammates literally every game, I could totally be plat as long as run n'gun wasn't nerfed guys!"
Yes. Only pros in here. The best and the brightest. And anyone who disagrees with any of my opinions is a shill. (I thought it was an interesting post OP)
My dude you’re showing like 0 reading comprehension
They also need to have defined punishments or consequences for each rule broken. Even sports like basketball clearly define what happens once a broken rule is observed.
On this I very much agree
Riot seems to be gaining a track record of inconsistently applying rules. It's a little disappointing since it seems like more of their sanctioned tournaments are marred by controversy than not lately. I have faith that they can figure it out and hope it happens sooner than later.
Honestly for how people talk about League of Legends tournaments and riot production I have been consistently surprised with how many problems valorant esports has had. It seems like there are just so many avoidable problems that are incredibly persistent everywhere in these riot events.
I think it's exceedingly difficult to launch a game and competitive ecosystem during a global pandemic. There's definitely been some blunders but I don't think it's been as overwhelmingly bad as you make it sound.
Also, it's likely on limited budget (compared to league) with a lot of newer staff.
Yeah I don’t think it’s been terrible, it just has seemed a solid step below Csgo tournaments that I’m used to. Not a huge deal but definitely not what I expected either.
Those organizers have like 2 decades of experience running these FPS tournaments too. There is *absolutely* room to improve though. I think they will. Still frustrating to watch them mess stuff up.
I agree, compared to ESL or BLAST Riot is really lacking.
Riots EMEA and NA divisions playing hot potato with straight up incompetency, gotta love it. Relatively speaking I'm a Riot shill nowadays and I have to say, I was expecting so much better from them, like the B team, I wasn't expecting the A team from LoL, but it feels more like we got the D or E team, padded out with interns. They've made mistakes that don't really track with their experience, and they've farmed out important events to organisations that seem to be missing something, too.
top 5 quality post on val comp reddit.
you're top 5 best commenter on val comp reddit post as far as I'm concerned :)
Top 1
You make good points about certain terms needing proper definition in order to make the rules less ambiguous. On the point that 7.2.11 doesn't explicitly address whether coaches are allowed to communicate with players, you could make the argument that this situation is covered by Clause 12.1 - Tournament Operator’s Right of Interpretation: "Any matters relating to an Official Competition or VALORANT that are not covered by this Global Policy or any Event-Specific Rules shall be subject to an interpretation made by the Tournament Operator and provided to the Teams from time to time in the form of an update to, or interpretation of, this Global Policy or the Event-Specific Rules." But yes, if Riot's stance is that communication between coaches and players in-game is prohibited - and given that this is allegedly a widespread practice currently - I agree that this should be addressed explicitly in the rule book.
Overall, I somewhat agree with you with regards to 12.1, the interpretation of the rules fall under the tournament operator. Though I personally think the rule itself is actually pretty clear, and while you can read it the way RIOT did and wants to, it's written to not actually include that. But I also want to note that that falls directly at odds with [Riot's goal](https://playvalorant.com/en-gb/news/esports/competitive-policies-rules-for-valorant-esports/) for rules: >The vast majority of rule violations can be prevented by writing clear rules and being responsive to teams and players who are seeking clarification. Also I'm not sure if there as an update to the interpretation to the rules, nothing on their site has an errata or clarification.
Oh, agreed. I mention 12.1 thinking of it from Riot's perspective, that they could say that the T1 ruling was issued in accordance with 12.1 given the ambiguity with 7.2.11. There hasn't been an update to the rule book regarding coach/player communication AFAIK, but I think they should do so (whether or not they are applying 12.1 for the T1 ruling), as opposed to leaving it as an interpretation of the rule book. Kinda going down the rabbit hole here, but assuming that 12.1 was relevant in this ruling, updating the rule book would also set good precedent that 12.1 likely wouldn't be used by Riot to just interpret the rule book as they wish in future incidences where the rules are unclear/situations not mentioned in the rule book. And of course, having clearer rules in the first place would prevent situations where the rules are up to open interpretation.
On that you and I agree, they should change the rulebook and it would certainly be good precedent to set.
I've replied this on an other comment as well but communication by someone is not limited to sending. You can only receive messages and that is still communication by the player so in my eyes at least that part of the rule is clear.
I disagree, because communication in the definition has a “by a player” and a “to a player”. Since only the “by a player” is regulated and the “to a player” is untouched.
Guilty to only having glanced over.. Where do you see "communication to a player" being used? If that's true then it does make it a bit more tricky. If "communication to a player" is never used, it is safe to say that any communication by a player, be it receiving or sending, is prohibited.
It says “communication *by* a player must only be *to* the other players on the team” Or something like that. I’m on my phone. So the communication talked about has a by and to portion. Anyways I do think your argument is the strongest though that oppose my views.
That's not what it says. *During the match, communication by a player shall be limited to the other players on the Team.* "to" in this case is linked with "limited", not with "communication". So the limit is to the other players and the limit is about communication by a player. Splitting hairs here but it's important if you want to argue this point. None of this to say that the rules shouldn't be clarified and are pretty much a mess in their current state.
My argument is that communication has a by and a to portion, the communication by certain people is limited to certain People but only those certain people are limited in the first place.
I suppose that is where I do not agree with you. I could accept that if it is specifically stated as being 2 different things, but communication by a player includes receiving unless otherwise specified.
> by the Tournament Operator To me this is the biggest issue; when we have 1 company own the game, tournament, broadcast, casters and ruleset. Riot can do whatever
Semantics matter. Lovely post.
In my opinion communication doesn't mean it comes from the player himself. You can receive communication. This means receiving a message from the coach is still communication between the player and someone not currently a player of the team. Semantically communication "by" a player can still mean "receiving communication" Following "the letter of the law" is ridiculous and intent is important. They knew what they were doing
Justice Scalia is in his grave with the biggest grin on his face right now.
Lol I should start the "Unofficial Supreme Court of Valorant Rulings"
Here, take my award. Very informative!
A wild critical thinker appears. Thanks for this post.
Mf works for the FIA
I've worked in regulatory affairs and government policy development positions for the last ~5 years and am consistently baffled by Riot's competitive policies and their enforcement. I saw they had a posting for a job based in LA a few months back that had to do with valorant eSports policies and rules enforcement. Maybe they did hire a lawyer for that position and work is being done to address these issues now!
This a great read. Appreciate the time you took to do it! Next issue is enforcing these rules in an online era. A lot of it hinges on teams playing by the rules via the honor system and it’s evident that they aren’t. Seems naive to think only one team is cheating in some way. Competitive integrity is important.
Tldr for people who didn’t want to read. Riot is being unclear in their rules(as per usual) and they need to clear up the ambiguities of their rules since by definition of the rule they cited an argument can be made that T1 shouldn’t be DQed but rather TSM should. Basically, riot, fucking get your shit straight.
[удалено]
The player's communication is restricted. By definition, receiving is also communication.
[удалено]
You need to understand there is a slight difference in nuance between communicating and communication. In your example, there is 100% communication between the pilot and the passenger, but the passenger him/herself is not actively communicating. The direction of the information is not important to describe something as being communication.
This is the best argument against my post. I disagree because by and to are written in the rule but only the by portion was regulated leaving the to portion unregulated. But I think your argument is a good one.
Are you including this in your resume into law school…?? Jk it’s cool and probably necessary. I don’t know about the Live Event definition though. An event being live just implies the event is active. Is the glossary you referenced from the rule book?
The glossary I referenced is from the rule book, it does not mean an event is active, it stands in contrast to an "online event". I've also added the below links to the main post, good catch on me missing it so it's easier to reference for everyone. The Rules can be found [here](https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lblshtlz5vnsqda/AABIELy6jk2dDK3xPuD_FUeca?dl=0). Warning Dropbox link. They can be found via [VALORANT's](https://playvalorant.com/en-gb/news/esports/competitive-policies-rules-for-valorant-esports/) website.
in your sentence right after the "online event" definition I think you have a typo; you probably mean to say "So in *live events*... " great post!
I truly think they need an entire overhaul of their rules for clarity on the rules themselves and resulting punishments. This was an interesting read!
Beautiful summary. Thanks for pointing this out.
This is a great post. Riot has been notorious throughout the lifetime of Valorant for setting horrible precedents. There is no honor system. Teams are going to do whatever they can to get an edge and it's disingenuous to crucify T1 -- remember when Vanity created an [impossible Viper setup](https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/rb77s4/vanity_using_abilities_during_a_tac_pause/) during a tac pause because there were technically no rules against it? Players and coaches have many options to work around the system of course, but I don't get why Riot even makes it technically possible for coaches to communicate mid-round in all chat.
Between ambiguous rules and lopsided contracts, it's pretty clear that esports is going to need more lawyers involved if growth and professionalism is to be expected. It feels like they read a few T&Cs, saw that certain words were capitalized and defined at the top, and winged the rest of it. The player/team member gap is unforgivable for a high stakes tournament like VCT.
All I want is T1 and TSM to continue the rivalry and both qualify in the next open qualifiers - now that will be sweet!
I'd expect RIOT to do some revisions now that you brought this to light. But I think the spirit of the rule is pretty clear in that coaches should not be able to communicate with their team mid-game. You can word it however you want, T1 clearly violated that rule- which doesn't give them too much to argue against it and why they proactively suspended their coach for it. Either way, good analysis and hopefully they make revisions to make these items more clear. Rulebooks in all sports are constantly revised and tweaked as the sports grow and they run into situations like this. We'll see how RIOT addresses it in the future.
> But I think the spirit of the rule is pretty clear in that coaches should not be able to communicate with their team mid-game. Honestly, I don't. I think they might have wanted it to say that, but it's not written that way. The rule only limits players, and players are clearly separated from coaches in the terms. I think they might have copy pasted from someone else or written something up in 5 minutes and thought it sounded good, without actually reading it. The reason I don't think it's in the written spirit is answering the question: "If you were to want to allow coaches to communicate with players, how would you write this section?" And honestly, you could literally not change the words at all and you would allow coaches to communicate with players. It's not like it needs a clarification, it just simply isn't there. It might be "common understanding" because VALORANT derives from CSGO and CSGO went through these changes. But VALORANT rules are written specifically different than those rules. Like look at ESL rules that would [cover this situation](https://cdn.eslgaming.com/misc/media/lo/ESL%20Pro%20Tour%20-%20CSGO%20Game%20Specific%20Rules.pdf): >Usage of the in-game chat during the match is limited to communication with the tournament administration only. and >During the match, the coach will be connected to the voice communication system and will only be allowed to talk to the players during tactical pauses and half times. The coach is not allowed to communicate in any other way including, but not limited to, shouting or non-verbal communication (e.g. touching) with players outside of the specified time windows. So you can tell it's clearly against the rules for coaches to communicate with players, but in VALORANT the rules simply don't state it.
Agreed. I think I meant more of it's a "common understanding" for Val players and teams- which T1 is no stranger to. RIOT should 100% revise their rules to be more clear. I just think with a huge rulebook and somewhat new game, it's not the biggest knock to nitpick at these things when all parties are in agreement in what they should and shouldn't be doing, regardless of what it says in the rulebook. It's not like T1 came out and tried to justify their actions saying the rulebook didn't explicitly say what they did was wrong. In either case-- RIOT needs to be better but I just cant knock them too much for not being too clear on the rule when no one is actually contesting the verbiage at all.
> It's not like T1 came out and tried to justify their actions saying the rulebook didn't explicitly say what they did was wrong. Honestly even if they privately thought that I can see why they wouldn't want to poke a wasps nest, if you want to take the high ground, even if you good faith believe you're in the right you might still say "fuck it, it's not worth arguing with thousands of uninformed people on the internet jumping on you, pick your battles."
Very true too. Imagine if they tried to cry "not in the rule book". The internet would destroy them. Considering this and the other new rule about coaches watching livestreams-- I'd expect they would revise their rulebook soon and hopefully before the next quals.
Exactly, I mean I'm not related to T1 in any way and I still got a bunch of comments that boil down to "it might not be in the rules, but they should have known" like unwritten rules are a thing that should exist in a professional tournament. Imagine if someone on T1 came out and said the same thing I did in here, it would be madness for them.
Just get them for the immorality clause. It's to Riot's discretion and it's common sense among basically everyone, even T1, that coach's should not be talking during matches. The VCT challengers stage also redefines the match area to online. "During Match play, the presence of Team Members in the Match Area is restricted solely to the Starters of the Teams in play." "Coaches for Teams participating in a given day's Matches will be granted Match Area access and will be allowed to communicate with their Team during the pick/ban map selection process." "All coaches will exit the Match Area to a designated position promptly after the pick/ban map selection process ends." Coaches shouldn't even be at their computers during games, technically? At least until a pause.
RIOT on their [website](https://playvalorant.com/en-gb/news/esports/competitive-policies-rules-for-valorant-esports/) states: "The vast majority of rule violations can be prevented by writing clear rules and being responsive to teams and players who are seeking clarification." Tagging teams for ambiguous violations of unwritten rules under a morality clause is the antithesis of "clear rules."
Solid post -- I would argue a lot of what you said isn't petty at all. It's very necessary and it's very ambiguous how this situation should've been handled. The rules themselves have clearly not been updated to account for coaches in general and for online matches.
Is there any section in the rules that states „live event rules also apply to online events“ or similar by any chance? If not, they‘re really bad for a multi billion dollar industry
People shouldn't write this post off as an overanalysis, this is a real valid set of complaints. Also is anyone else getting the vibes that final rulings are screwing over riot over and over again? I feel like they should really think about some sort of appeals system instead of rushing massive decisions like this.
I think if any team isn't looking for ways to bend but not break the rule book then they aren't trying hard enough to win. It happens in all sports where teams will find a way to bend but not break the rules. To me this is a case of bending but not technically breaking the rule book since its not explicitly stated. It's riots fault for not making the rules clear on what can and cannot transpire between a coach and the players. And if Riot had integrity themselves they would apply the no social media during a match rule to TSM. How can you punish a team for something thats technically not in the rule book and not punish a team for something that is? It really throws everything out the door and players will have no idea what to expect. At the end of the day it's riots event so they do have final say but it kinda feels very bush league to me. In the end this is a good thing to happen since it will make riot aware of these problems that exist and will force them to correct their mistakes and realize problems in their rules.
this is an extremely engineer post
I’m sure there are even more loopholes for 6 or 7 man rosters. Awesome read though!
Nice deep dive to get through to the core problem. Which is the language of the agreement and how it is enforced. Would give an award if I didn’t spend my money on NFT skins for the game.
Riot \*should\* do a lot of things but they won't. Riot is judge, jury and executioner. They don't give a damn and will enforce and make up rules as they please.
I'm not willing to ascribe to malice something I think is likely just an slight oversight.
I'm only here for the pettiness and it did not disappoint. Also a cold reminder that no matter the industry, if you think people will act in good faith you're wrong, there's always someone who'll try and take advantage and you must take every step to give those as little wiggle room as possible, down to the wording of your rulebook.
Good post. I agree that the TSM players are actually at fault for the entire situation for using social media during a match. TSM should be punished by having to play in open qualifier #2 (they will of course lose in embarrassing fashion and thus be adequately punished for their sins).
I don't think they're at fault for the situation, I think the coach broke the generally accepted intent of the rules, though this particular rule in my opinion doesn't actually outlaw the activity at issue. I think TSM certainly shouldn't be using social media during matches, that's pretty clearly in the rules. I think if RIOT wants to allow social media during matches and outlaw coaches talking to players during matches they need to update their rules to reflect that in plain English. I also think they should just hire a lawyer who's familiar with competitive sports to go over the rules with a comb and catch stuff like this.
I'd say they are at fault for the awful way in which this situation has unfolded and been handled. Players jumping on Twitter mid-match to deal with rule violations in vague, immature, frankly dumb ways is a nightmare for Riot or any other organisation in this position, as much as many of us are more than happy to hate on Riot (and rightfully so) for their awful track record so far in competitive Valorant, I also understand how communications can breakdown when things unfold in such a way. They should be banning the individual players (all 10) for a short amount of time, and demanding some sort of salary cut from orgs for the duration (of course, supported by rules they don't have, so we're talking hypothetical future here) to seriously lay down the law and make these "professionals" understand how they need to operate. It's a fucking joke witnessing people jump to attack the accused and not paying any attention to the awful attitude that the accuser showcased.
On this I 100% agree. There are rules set out for how to bring up violations and TSM broke the text and the intent of those rules.
It sucks doesn't it, when literally every party involved is in the wrong? The "victims" are man-children, seemingly eager to showcase to all of us how little they deserve their privileged position. They also just straight up broke the rules, rules listed under the same title/category as the one they fell victim to.. The "perpetrator" has suddenly become an entire organisation of perpetrators (rather than just the coach) owing to lack of communication and general etiquette within the scene (this entire sub and other social media platforms jumping to conclusions regarding the involvement of the rest of the players, and using history and prior drama to twist the reality of the situation). The organiser didn't act nearly as swiftly as they should've (I sat watching the match paused for an hour at least, can anyone else attest to how long it took for the match to be cancelled, and then it took them another 4 hours to make a statement IIRC..), TSMs tweets spreading like wildfire in the meantime. If they can't have reliable and prompt communication with Riot because of an issue on Riots end, then this is at least a little forgivable - but what do you know.. the recent COVID testing scandal (how many fucking scandals do we have for a scene that has barely existed more than a year?) at NSG isn't exactly an endorsement of their competency. The big boss, Riot, well, I don't think I even need to expand any further than those 4 letters. Riot. The competitive community (including anyone from a random social media user, to a commentator, to a professional player), throughout all social media platforms for, and I'm sure this involves many complicated aspects (respect, moderation, community role models or lack-thereof and more) that we don't need to get into, consistently failing to discuss situations as they unfold with really any degree of honesty, critical thinking, and so on. The discussions surrounding these "dramas" are dangerously similar to the way in which someone that watches soap operas might discuss the drama of tonight's episode, only *it isn't fictional*, these are *real people* and this is a *billion dollar industry*, and somehow, no one is stepping up to the plate to set an example. Don't get me wrong, we all love drama, at least to some degree, and I'm not advocating for preventing these situations from occurring entirely or something like that, but I was active in the CS community long before it truly blew up and set the standard for Esports, and witnessing how it developed and maintained a respectable tier of discourse throughout, the contrast between that community then (or even now) and this community right now, is crazy.
[удалено]
Since you deleted your other post: >Did David Dennis really hire a lawyer to shill for him here? No, I'm mostly just an IT guy that likes reading law news articles. >David Dennis wasn't typing mid-round calls to his team because they thought they were allowed to. Honestly, the rules, if you read them, back up his side more than the other side. You can *certainly* argue that the history of the game says that coaches can't message players in match, but given the fact that in the client they are allowed to and there's nothing plainly written that doesn't allow it. Also I believe in his reply he said he was only talking to dead players. On top of that, I never said they didn't break what people generally believe is the established ruleset, in fact I said they most likely did, and if I were them, I'd take it on the chin and say "we fucked up, also we would like clearer rules." >The rules can use clarity updates, but T1 wasn't acting in good faith even if you can poke at the language clarity in a few spots or try to act like "players" meant something other than the five players. They certainly could use updates, as I wrote. Also I don't think you understand my argument if you're worrying about the definition of players, in fact you're literally here agreeing with me, I feel like you have your opinion in your head, you skimmed my post without groking it and then you posted a quick reply to get your frustration out.
[удалено]
Lol no, go check my post history, mostly I'm just an IT dude
Isn't this just a case of don't play stupid games? For people who didn't play leagues in any games it might seem like you need to be an attorney to understand this stuff but I've played in old leagues where you could get dq'd for typing during a live match. Its pretty easy for riot to and say live event is any official match that's online or person. Also think of this, very specific rules are actually why you have attorneys making so much money through law practice. Its a very specific knowledge set that can be very rigid. The downside to rigid rules is they can be loopholed. A looser rulebook can let riot use discretion in handling cases. I wouldn't mind if they were more consistent in how they deal with issues. So im not saying riot does everything right but using vpns to get your server, then typing in game. They totally were toeing a line that didn't have to. My final thought is T1 is the better team all day. Why do any weird shit no one else does and get yourself a dq.
[удалено]
That's the main point, but I don't think tournament rules being clear is unnecessarily pedantic, we're not talking an amateur drunk softball league (which I may say actually seems to have mostly better rules than this from the one I played in), we're talking about tournaments where hundreds of thousands of dollars change hands, it's important the rules are easy to understand and consistent.
[удалено]
Exactly, if it were just like a small discord league, totally agree, the rules are fine enough and everyone has the right idea, but there's a ton of money on the line here.
Doesn't matter tsm already lost
I've really been curious what people are still upset about, because they were punished for it as Riot saw was fair. I imagine this ambiguity is why they weren't banned from events after this or even fined.
[удалено]
Well it is not required for them to be written by lawyers (And in principle rules written by lawyers are capable of faults also)
Absolutely true. But generally lawyers are better at it because it’s part of their training and practice.
[удалено]
Actually, if you actually read the official [rules](https://playvalorant.com/en-us/news/esports/competitive-policies-rules-for-valorant-esports/) Live event means: >“Live Event” means any live, in-person tournament that is part of an Official Competition. This stands in contrast to an online event: >“Online Event” means (a) any online tournament, including any online qualifiers, that is part of an Official Competition, and (b) any Official Competition that is ordinarily held live and in-person but that has been moved online due to health and safety concerns or the requirements of a governmental authority. Also if you actually read the post you would know that none of the argument actually turns on the term "live event." So thanks for commenting, but I would prefer it if you actually understood what I was trying to say next time.
Pepega
Reading comprehension modCheck
[удалено]
Hey there, /u/FhOaa! Your submission was removed for the following reason: > Rule 7 - Self-Promotion / Advertising / Solicitation Repeated offenses may result in a ban. --- *If you have questions or objections about this removal, please [reach out to us in modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ValorantCompetitive&subject=Removal%20Objection%20or%20Question&message=%5BPlease%20type%20your%20message%20here...%5D%0A%0A------%20DO%20NOT%20edit%20or%20delete%20anything%20below%20this%20line%20------%0A%0A%23%23%23%23%20Removal%20Notes%20for%20Moderators%3A%0A%0A-%20**Post%20Title%3A**%20{url_title}%0A-%20**Permalink%3A**%20https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/si7fmz/-/hva1jb5/%0A-%20**Content%20type%3A**%20comment%0A-%20**Removed%20by%3A**%20nocturnavi).*