EPTOBJECTION
Now that I have your attention, I wish to point out what I believe to be contradictions in statements made by Teamliquid Members Nazgul and Kwark.
First we have the opening statement by Liquid Nazgul:
On May 09 2010 11:37 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
So as you are well aware of by now a disc occurred in game 3 of Slush vs Artosis. Artosis disced while he was ahead. Our regular policy for tournaments is that if you disc you can't get a win by just being ahead. If you are a 99/1 favorite to win the game we will not hand out a loss to the non-discing player. It's not his fault his chances to come back were taken away and he is completely innocent in the situation. However we also have the policy that if in the rare occasion a game is 100% won but the opponent didn't gg yet (weird as it may sound this does happen every now and then) we award the win to the player that had the game in the bag. Whoever disced.
So as you are well aware of by now a disc occurred in game 3 of Slush vs Artosis. Artosis disced while he was ahead. Our regular policy for tournaments is that if you disc you can't get a win by just being ahead. If you are a 99/1 favorite to win the game we will not hand out a loss to the non-discing player. It's not his fault his chances to come back were taken away and he is completely innocent in the situation. However we also have the policy that if in the rare occasion a game is 100% won but the opponent didn't gg yet (weird as it may sound this does happen every now and then) we award the win to the player that had the game in the bag. Whoever disced.
Now that seems to be the policy that was repeated by Nazgul twice later in the topic:
On May 09 2010 13:49 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
If you're losing and you disc you get a loss. If you're winning and your opponent discs you get a win. If you're winning and you disc you get a regame unless you couldn't lose anymore. If you're losing and he discs you will get a regame unless you couldn't win anymore.
If you're losing and you disc you get a loss. If you're winning and your opponent discs you get a win. If you're winning and you disc you get a regame unless you couldn't lose anymore. If you're losing and he discs you will get a regame unless you couldn't win anymore.
On May 10 2010 00:58 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Policy
I've seen people suggest we need a better policy. This is completely false please don't post this in the future. Our policy regarding discing is the best out there. However when you have policies and rules they need to be carried out and that's where the mistake happened. Every policy has its pros and cons so to suggest our policy is bad because it allows for human error is incorrect. Human error is something that will not occur when saying disc = loss, but the cons attached to a rule like this are simply enormous and do not weigh up in the slightest against the removal of human error.
Policy
I've seen people suggest we need a better policy. This is completely false please don't post this in the future. Our policy regarding discing is the best out there. However when you have policies and rules they need to be carried out and that's where the mistake happened. Every policy has its pros and cons so to suggest our policy is bad because it allows for human error is incorrect. Human error is something that will not occur when saying disc = loss, but the cons attached to a rule like this are simply enormous and do not weigh up in the slightest against the removal of human error.
HOWEVER, it seems as though comments made by Kwark conflict with the "policy". I'm a new member here so I don't know what it means when your name is in red and have an icon that looks like a fish next to it, so I don't know what Kwark's status in TeamLiquid is since he doesn't have that or an icon that says TL next to his name like Nony. However, some of the comments he's made confuses me over what the rules actually were for this tournament:
On May 09 2010 19:36 KwarK wrote:
I don't believe an error was made.
The rules used were fairly simple. If a player disconnects while winning then it's a regame. If a player disconnects while losing it's a loss. Artosis disconnects while winning therefore it's a regame. Asking Slush if he thought he was so far behind Artosis that Artosis should get the freewin was a gesture towards fairness and if anything helped Artosis because it could have given him the freewin.
I don't believe an error was made.
The rules used were fairly simple. If a player disconnects while winning then it's a regame. If a player disconnects while losing it's a loss. Artosis disconnects while winning therefore it's a regame. Asking Slush if he thought he was so far behind Artosis that Artosis should get the freewin was a gesture towards fairness and if anything helped Artosis because it could have given him the freewin.
On May 09 2010 22:21 KwarK wrote:
Naz incorrectly describes the situation. This probably isn't deliberate because he simply wasn't there but to characterise the ref team as ignorant of the situation because they're not good enough at sc2 to understand it is wrong. Several refs, myself included, are good at sc2. The subject was hotly debated by refs and the opinion of every ref who had seen the replay was taken into account (for the record my vote was that Artosis should be awarded the win). There was no misunderstanding about what happens with 3-2 hydralisks take on 1-0 mutalisks, I was very clear about that in the IRC channel.
The conclusion was that the rules were clear and that a disconnect while ahead was a regame. If Slush felt the game was over then he could concede but he said he felt he still had a chance and it wasn't the place of the referees to deny him that chance.
This apology by Naz makes very little sense to me because I made damn sure that everyone in the ref IRC knew that in my (good at sc2) opinion the game was over. Other players like Demuslim and Nony saying the same thing aren't adding anything refs didn't know at the time. If the criteria used to judge whether it's a regame or not have changed because of last night then just say that, saying they made a mistake when they didn't is wrong.
Naz incorrectly describes the situation. This probably isn't deliberate because he simply wasn't there but to characterise the ref team as ignorant of the situation because they're not good enough at sc2 to understand it is wrong. Several refs, myself included, are good at sc2. The subject was hotly debated by refs and the opinion of every ref who had seen the replay was taken into account (for the record my vote was that Artosis should be awarded the win). There was no misunderstanding about what happens with 3-2 hydralisks take on 1-0 mutalisks, I was very clear about that in the IRC channel.
The conclusion was that the rules were clear and that a disconnect while ahead was a regame. If Slush felt the game was over then he could concede but he said he felt he still had a chance and it wasn't the place of the referees to deny him that chance.
This apology by Naz makes very little sense to me because I made damn sure that everyone in the ref IRC knew that in my (good at sc2) opinion the game was over. Other players like Demuslim and Nony saying the same thing aren't adding anything refs didn't know at the time. If the criteria used to judge whether it's a regame or not have changed because of last night then just say that, saying they made a mistake when they didn't is wrong.
On May 09 2010 23:14 KwarK wrote:
What I'm criticising here is the suggestion that the refs made an uninformed or hasty decision because it was neither, despite the suggestions of Artosis to the contrary. The ref decision was not to make an exception to the rules of the tournament in this situation because Slush felt he still had a chance. This was made after taking into consideration both Artosis' opinion that he had the game won and my opinion that Artosis should be awarded the win. The conclusion that the refs came to in the end was to follow the rules and that was a legitimate decision in the circumstances. It wasn't the decision I would have made but it was certainly a valid one.
I just dislike the implication that the refs weren't good enough at sc2 to understand the situation when it was factors external to the game (that it was Artosis who dced and that Slush felt he still had a chance) that swung the decision. As much as Artosis insisted that everyone else was bad last night (lolchatlogs) that was him simply refusing to listen to what we were saying.
What I'm criticising here is the suggestion that the refs made an uninformed or hasty decision because it was neither, despite the suggestions of Artosis to the contrary. The ref decision was not to make an exception to the rules of the tournament in this situation because Slush felt he still had a chance. This was made after taking into consideration both Artosis' opinion that he had the game won and my opinion that Artosis should be awarded the win. The conclusion that the refs came to in the end was to follow the rules and that was a legitimate decision in the circumstances. It wasn't the decision I would have made but it was certainly a valid one.
I just dislike the implication that the refs weren't good enough at sc2 to understand the situation when it was factors external to the game (that it was Artosis who dced and that Slush felt he still had a chance) that swung the decision. As much as Artosis insisted that everyone else was bad last night (lolchatlogs) that was him simply refusing to listen to what we were saying.
Now, if my visual cue/guess is correct, the Fish thingy next to Nazgul means he's higher up on the Team Liquid Chain of Command than Kwark is. However, as Kwark pointed out, Nazgul was not directly involved with the refereeing of the Team Liquid Invitational #2. Kwark's statements make it seem as if somehow, the refs of the TLI like himself had the idea that the rules were that, and I quote,
If a player disconnects while winning then it's a regame. If a player disconnects while losing it's a loss. Artosis disconnects while winning therefore it's a regame. .
This contradiction is the core of this argument. If Nazgul is right, then it really was the fault of the tournament referees and they should have made a different call. If Kwark is right, then even though the disconnect was a ****ty situation, the referees really did nothing wrong, and an apology really isn't needed other than the fact that it was a ****ty situation.
Now I am not CRITICIZING Team Liquid's policy. Far from it.
The main problem here seems to be that makes me confused as to what Team Liquid's policy actually is for this sort of thing. And I am sure I am not the only one confused in this situation. Can anyone provide me with a link that would explain what Team Liquid's policy is in writing that was made before this tournament actually began? Is there a list of rules that were made in writing to the rules of the TLI regarding situations like this?
I'm not asking for a change in Team Liquid's rules or policy. I just want it to be better known as to what the rules and policy actually is, and have it be in writing so it can be used to refer to when dealing with situations like this. A link with all the rules and policies for tournaments like this would be helpful.
![[image loading]](http://www.focusmag.gr/id/files/190788/nazgul.jpg)
