High Impulse contacted me yesterday evening contesting this decision. I responded a few hours later, and he followed up with me this afternoon. I've spent the last few hours talking to him and also gathering information from the hosts and other TDs to ensure I correctly understood the situation and the appropriate policy measures to take. If the interim silence has reflected poorly on the TD team, I'll eat it. I'll always prioritize speaking with the affected individuals before any sort of PR.
We have confirmed between the participants that this match can get done within the next 16 hours and have accordingly granted the extension. This is based on a number of extenuating factors, and we cannot always guarantee that an extension will be afforded in similar circumstances. I want to emphasize that this decision was based on what information was assembled regarding the situation and not public outcry. High Impulse presented his case to me in PMs, we heard it out, and that's all that really matters.
I'd like to address some specific points raised in the thread.
I also think there should be some sort of rule against dodging your opponent’s attempts to reschedule. The log shows CBU not replying to HI’s contact attempts on Tuesday, presumably because he talked to Boat and was promised a coinflip. This would all be resolved if CBU had to reply to his opponent; if not trying to reschedule (or even replying to remind/tell HI that he would be busy after Monday) made him ineligible for a coinflip, CBU probably would have responded and they’d get the game done.
CBU wasn't promised anything as far as we can tell. If he was under the impression he was eligible for an activity win, it was by his own, incorrect assumption.
1. Based on the evidence provided by High Impulse, both players missed the scheduled time, however one player made an attempt to contact his opponent on 2/3 of the remaining extended days (during the timeframe which CBU earlier stated was acceptable), while the other player made no attempt to contact his opponent on any of the extended days - why does this result in a coinflip for both players? While neither party covered themselves in glory, there appears to only have been one party who contacted his opponent during any of the extended days, wouldn't this ordinarily result in the only active party being given the win?
High Impulse only followed up from his missed time 24 hours after the fact, giving just a little over a day for the two to schedule a game, and he didn't offer availability, but just asked if CBU could play then, when there was no indication as to whether or he was actually online and available. Given that he missed the initial, pre-extension time, I think it's fair to consider both participants roughly equal at fault in not getting the match done.
2. Why was the host of the tournament allowed to
lie in his justification of the activity call, with seemingly no consequence or explanation needed for this lie. As there had been no communication of CBU's inability to play beyond Monday to High Impulse, it is important that
Boat clarifies why he said this when justifying the decision, as it was not accurate and should not have been factored into any activity call reached.
CBU told the host he would be unavailable after the weekend and posted it on several others' walls while scheduling with them that weekend, before the extended match was to take place. Calling it "well-documented" is meaningless and misleading to the public, who does not have access to the same correspondence, but it's a willfully unfair misrepresentation to frame a poor turn of phrase as something as malicious as a lie.
3. Why do Smogon's own tournament rules of
falsifying activity not come into play here? Based on evidence given by High Impulse, CBU falsified activity by claiming his opponent missed the scheduled time, without making any contact to his opponent during or after this claim. Considering the original activity call was given based on this claim, and then reversed when evidence was provided by High Impulse, doesn't this come under falsifying activity? And if not why is this the case?
CBU's basis for an activity claim was that he could not find High Impulse on main or tours. No, this is not the proper way to check in with your opponent per the new, clarified rules, but it strikes me as draconian to frame an inability to follow the rules as a malicious and infractionable offense when we're in the same breath affording an extension to two people who failed to complete their match because of it.
the
favorable activity decision rules were a mistake for individual tours and lead to unsatisfying technicalities like this all the time
nobody likes coinflips and turning the act system into "you didn't do these specific things so we can't give you the win even though we agree with you" sucks for everyone involved
None of those rules dictated our decision to initially coinflip the match versus grant an extension. In fact, those rules are exactly what nullified CBU's activity win. He didn't check in with High Impulse at the scheduled time; otherwise, the match would've probably gotten done. We stand by these rules and hold the belief that more matches will get done if people follow them.