|
United States12607 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:28 SuperArc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2010 23:26 Plexa wrote:On January 23 2010 23:22 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2010 23:19 Plexa wrote:On January 23 2010 23:16 KwarK wrote:
Plexa
You can't say "well they considered doing something really stupid one time so they should totally have done this thing which is marginally less stupid". If they'd decided on a regame in that Bisu July it would have been a travesty. July had a prepared cheese which he couldn't do twice and the game was over. That doesn't mean that anything less of a travesty than that is fine. ... Rainbow vs July Rainbow cheeses July with some cute goon/reaver timing push disconnect game isnt over, regame occurs July rapes rainbow since his cheese is spent Fair? I'm not prepared to comment on that. However, this decision IS inconsistent with every other decision kespa has made as far as I am aware of. Hell, let's go back further - YellOw vs Xellos, it happened there too. About time they started getting their act together then. If they fail to disqualify someone for typing "ppp" when their monitor dies I won't be complaining and bringing up precedent either. At least in that case the players knew what was going to happen. Part of having a good rule set is being able to interpret the result before the ref give his decision. There should be no surprises when that ref opens his/her mouth. That situation was dumb, but it was due to a shit ruleset. Everyone on KT expected regame because that's what has been done before. If they had called regame, hwaseung probably wouldn't have walked out (they would have been pissed though most likely) but they would understand the ruling because that's what's happened before. Now if you want to go and change the rules willy-nilly in the middle of the biggest final in history then what faith can player or coaches have in any KeSPA ruling? Hell, why have a ruleset to begin with. Someone said accoring Kespa rules if something like this happens the refs will have to decide the winner. So they didnt just change the rule on the fly
This obviously isn't the rule in practice, as KeSPA has granted regames in the past and I'm pretty sure one was in the discussion here.
On second thought: there is no way this is the rule, lol. Never a regame? So if there is a disconnect while the players are doing their worker split, the refs have to pick a winner and then the series goes on? Come on.
|
United States41973 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:26 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2010 23:22 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2010 23:19 Plexa wrote:On January 23 2010 23:16 KwarK wrote:
Plexa
You can't say "well they considered doing something really stupid one time so they should totally have done this thing which is marginally less stupid". If they'd decided on a regame in that Bisu July it would have been a travesty. July had a prepared cheese which he couldn't do twice and the game was over. That doesn't mean that anything less of a travesty than that is fine. ... Rainbow vs July Rainbow cheeses July with some cute goon/reaver timing push disconnect game isnt over, regame occurs July rapes rainbow since his cheese is spent Fair? I'm not prepared to comment on that. However, this decision IS inconsistent with every other decision kespa has made as far as I am aware of. Hell, let's go back further - YellOw vs Xellos, it happened there too. About time they started getting their act together then. If they fail to disqualify someone for typing "ppp" when their monitor dies I won't be complaining and bringing up precedent either. At least in that case the players knew what was going to happen. Part of having a good rule set is being able to interpret the result before the ref give his decision. There should be no surprises when that ref opens his/her mouth. That situation was dumb, but it was due to a shit ruleset. Everyone on KT expected regame because that's what has been done before. If they had called regame, hwaseung probably wouldn't have walked out (they would have been pissed though most likely) but they would understand the ruling because that's what's happened before. Now if you want to go and change the rules willy-nilly in the middle of the biggest final in history then what faith can player or coaches have in any KeSPA ruling? Hell, why have a ruleset to begin with.
The old way of doing it was bad. I think I've seen that rainbow July vod. July does the hatch bug and crashes the game and then wins the re and rainbow never qualifies for shit again. Disappointing result. Anyway, that's the precedent you're defending. You're arguing a sudden change is surprising and everyone expected the same "always replay the game" result. That doesn't make that the right result, just the expected one.
I'd argue that in a game as over as this one a replay is the wrong thing to do and it's about time Kespa started doing this. KT's and Hwaseung's expectations don't matter much. KT raging because they expected Kespa's usual incompetence to swing their way this time doesn't make it any better. Nor does the fact that Hwaseung would have stoicly accepted Kespa's incompetence if they got hit by it.
Incompetence is bad. Less incompetence is a good thing, even if it comes at sudden and unexpected times.
Hopefully this sets a precedent so next time intotherainbow doesn't get knocked out after July crashes the game after losing.
Edit: This wasn't a change in the rules. It was always within their power to judge these situations as far as I know. This is a change in their interpretation, from auto replay no matter what happened to actually looking at the game in question. It's a good thing.
|
Flash will probably admit himself tomorrow that he lost that game after reviewing the footage.
|
On January 23 2010 23:34 BG1 wrote:
Flash will probably admit himself tomorrow that he lost that game after reviewing the footage.
If Flash's expressions at the end were honest he most likely knows already.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:23 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2010 23:20 motbob wrote:
This isn't the SCOTUS. Who cares about Chill's "precedent?" Why should we worry about what has happened before as opposed to what the correct decision is right at this moment? To me, the correct decision is completely obvious, and once Baezzi's VOD of Game 3 finishes processing I'll make a long post with pictures talking about the overwhelming advantage that Jaedong had and the statistical basis for the argument against granting a regame. Precedent matters because it's a strong indication of what the community/players/referees have considered to be fair in similar situations in the past. We can look to those decisions to remove ourselves a bit from particularities of this situation which might bias us one way or another. Bottom line is: disconnects have usually been handled X way in the past, instead of Y way. This is good (but obviously not conclusive) evidence that X way is superior to Y way and more accurately reflects the community ethos/our conception of fairness.
As someone posted above, one things, to me, shows that precedent isn't a good thing to point to in this case. The KeSPA rulebook states that regames are a referee decision. In other words, the referee must analyze whatever game is in question and make a decision on the spot whether to award a regame or announce a winner. This implies to me that regames can be either granted or not granted, depending entirely on the content of the game.
I wrote a whole bunch of other stuff anticipating arguments against this post but I'll wait for those arguments to actually be made 
|
I think it was 50/50...
Although JD had the 2 defilers, I dont think he had enough to push up and attempt an attack on Flash's new expo.
At the same time, Flash would not have been able to wipe out the defiler/ultra/ling/sunk at 7 due to the irads he had just used.
Too close to give the win to JD.
I had initally thought it was correct going to JD, but after watching that VOD, its 50/50 in my opinion.
|
On January 23 2010 23:34 BG1 wrote:
Flash will probably admit himself tomorrow that he lost that game after reviewing the footage.
Everyone knows it (the people with a functioning brain anyhow). They just want a rematch because the game wasn't technically finished, not because that would be fair, but because they've seen it being done before. Especially more so for people who root for Flash considering the huge advantage Flash would have had had there been a rematch.
|
I don't know what to say, somebody should be fired (d@mn electric unions XD) but if ret says that JD would of won game 3 then i guess i have to agree. Everyone has to give JD props for feelin the desperation rush in game 4. gg
|
United States41973 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:38 Predator_au wrote:
I think it was 50/50...
Although JD had the 2 defilers, I dont think he had enough to push up and attempt an attack on Flash's new expo.
At the same time, Flash would not have been able to wipe out the defiler/ultra/ling/sunk at 7 due to the irads he had just used.
Too close to give the win to JD.
I had initally thought it was correct going to JD, but after watching that VOD, its 50/50 in my opinion.
JD was 4 base vs 2 and it was about to be 4 base vs 1 when Flash mined out. Flash had lost almost all his vessels. Why would JD possibly be attacking?
Saying neither player could attack may be true but a draw it does not make.
|
This is probably a really moot point, but you can clearly see seconds before the power went out that Flash's M/M was 3/3. You can also see another stream of yellow most likely another control group of M/M halfway to the base, while Jaedong only had 1 ultra 3 lings and a defiler in his base. I know there was more on the way, but I feel like if the defiler is irradiated and that base is taken out its now completely even with upgrades and base power. Jaedong's tech tree is already climbed, if Flash decides to take a couple minutes to incorporate siege mode after he possibly takes out that base then it's a completely different game IMO. This was wayyyy to close to call, I think they should have redid the game, or Jaedong should have manned up with some good sportsmanship and GG'd the 4th game and take it to a 5th. The 5th game would be on Matchpoint where Jaedong just owned Flash in less than 10 mins with ridge Muta micro.
|
On January 23 2010 23:38 Letmelose wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2010 23:34 BG1 wrote:
Flash will probably admit himself tomorrow that he lost that game after reviewing the footage. Everyone knows it (the people with a functioning brain anyhow). They just want a rematch because the game wasn't technically finished, not because that would be fair, but because they've seen it being done before. Especially more so for people who root for Flash considering the huge advantage Flash would have had had there been a rematch.
*sigh* It's obvious you yourself have no bias.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2010 23:26 Plexa wrote:On January 23 2010 23:22 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2010 23:19 Plexa wrote:On January 23 2010 23:16 KwarK wrote:
Plexa
You can't say "well they considered doing something really stupid one time so they should totally have done this thing which is marginally less stupid". If they'd decided on a regame in that Bisu July it would have been a travesty. July had a prepared cheese which he couldn't do twice and the game was over. That doesn't mean that anything less of a travesty than that is fine. ... Rainbow vs July Rainbow cheeses July with some cute goon/reaver timing push disconnect game isnt over, regame occurs July rapes rainbow since his cheese is spent Fair? I'm not prepared to comment on that. However, this decision IS inconsistent with every other decision kespa has made as far as I am aware of. Hell, let's go back further - YellOw vs Xellos, it happened there too. About time they started getting their act together then. If they fail to disqualify someone for typing "ppp" when their monitor dies I won't be complaining and bringing up precedent either. At least in that case the players knew what was going to happen. Part of having a good rule set is being able to interpret the result before the ref give his decision. There should be no surprises when that ref opens his/her mouth. That situation was dumb, but it was due to a shit ruleset. Everyone on KT expected regame because that's what has been done before. If they had called regame, hwaseung probably wouldn't have walked out (they would have been pissed though most likely) but they would understand the ruling because that's what's happened before. Now if you want to go and change the rules willy-nilly in the middle of the biggest final in history then what faith can player or coaches have in any KeSPA ruling? Hell, why have a ruleset to begin with. The old way of doing it was bad. I think I've seen that rainbow July vod. July does the hatch bug and crashes the game and then wins the re and rainbow never qualifies for shit again. Disappointing result. Anyway, that's the precedent you're defending. You're arguing a sudden change is surprising and everyone expected the same "always replay the game" result. That doesn't make that the right result, just the expected one. I'd argue that in a game as over as this one a replay is the wrong thing to do and it's about time Kespa started doing this. KT's and Hwaseung's expectations don't matter much. KT raging because they expected Kespa's usual incompetence to swing their way this time doesn't make it any better. Nor does the fact that Hwaseung would have stoicly accepted Kespa's incompetence if they got hit by it. Incompetence is bad. Less incompetence is a good thing, even if it comes at sudden and unexpected times. Hopefully this sets a precedent so next time intotherainbow doesn't get knocked out after July crashes the game after losing. I'm arguing for consistency and hence faith in the system, however flawed the system may be. Players and Coaches need to be able to rely on KeSPA do deliver consistent rulings. You take that away from KeSPA and then you have nothing. If the rulings are decided by an incompetent ruleset then that ruleset should change - if that means Leta gets hit in the process then that's an unfortunate casualty but for the greater good (since the rule has now been abolished). But atleast in that case Leta knew that there was a 99.99% chance of him getting DQd. You didn't see the OGN manager storm out of the stadium at that point either.
Basically, you have a whole bunch of fans (and Flash) who had their expectations built up on precedent only to let them down in an extremely tense moment. That's why this whole incident is so bad, and why Flash's dad got so pissed etc. Incompetence is bad, but inconsistency is worse. Incompetence can be singled down to people not giving enough thought into the ruleset and having unintended consequences arise from that. Inconsistency is just so much worse than that =/
|
United States12607 Posts
This is a fascinating debate…the more I think about it the more I see there are deep-seated conceptions of justice/punishment at stake here. For example, is decreasing someone's chance of living (or getting some benefit) from 90% to 40% worse than decreasing it from 10% to 0%? This is a really interesting question and I imagine there is tons of intelligent philosophy surrounding it already...
|
On January 23 2010 23:38 Predator_au wrote:
I think it was 50/50...
Although JD had the 2 defilers, I dont think he had enough to push up and attempt an attack on Flash's new expo.
At the same time, Flash would not have been able to wipe out the defiler/ultra/ling/sunk at 7 due to the irads he had just used.
Too close to give the win to JD.
I had initally thought it was correct going to JD, but after watching that VOD, its 50/50 in my opinion.
lol. In the news today: Ret and Nazgul - 99% JD win. Idra - Massive advantage. Predator_au - "I think it was 50/50"
+ Show Spoiler +No hard feelings Pred 
|
Teamliquid should consider itself lucky. At least we aren't all cricket fans. We don't have to deal with the duckworth lewis system.
|
On a side note, it really sucks that we don't have TSL today to make up for this epic fail finals 
|
On January 23 2010 23:41 JWD wrote:
This is a fascinating debate…the more I think about it the more I see there are deep-seated conceptions of justice/punishment at stake here. For example, is decreasing someone's chance of living (or getting some benefit) from 90% to 40% worse than decreasing it from 10% to 0%? This is a really interesting question and I imagine there is tons of intelligent philosophy surrounding it already...
Hmm, interesting post.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:41 JWD wrote:
This is a fascinating debate…the more I think about it the more I see there are deep-seated conceptions of justice/punishment at stake here. For example, is decreasing someone's chance of living (or getting some benefit) from 90% to 40% worse than decreasing it from 10% to 0%? This is a really interesting question and I imagine there is tons of intelligent philosophy surrounding it already...
When is a game 75% over? Honestly, when people talk about how "over" a game is its almost exclusively 50/50 or pretty much over. Perhaps 60/40 at a stretch, but really... Can you really quantify how over a game of starcraft is accurately?
|
On January 23 2010 23:42 BG1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2010 23:38 Predator_au wrote:
I think it was 50/50...
Although JD had the 2 defilers, I dont think he had enough to push up and attempt an attack on Flash's new expo.
At the same time, Flash would not have been able to wipe out the defiler/ultra/ling/sunk at 7 due to the irads he had just used.
Too close to give the win to JD.
I had initally thought it was correct going to JD, but after watching that VOD, its 50/50 in my opinion. lol. In the news today: Ret and Nazgul - 99% JD win. Idra - Massive advantage. Predator_au - "I think it was 50/50" + Show Spoiler +No hard feelings Pred
"Chill: I dont even think JD had the advantage"
Chill and Predator chilling on the cool side 
|
United States41973 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:41 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2010 23:33 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2010 23:26 Plexa wrote:On January 23 2010 23:22 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2010 23:19 Plexa wrote:On January 23 2010 23:16 KwarK wrote:
Plexa
You can't say "well they considered doing something really stupid one time so they should totally have done this thing which is marginally less stupid". If they'd decided on a regame in that Bisu July it would have been a travesty. July had a prepared cheese which he couldn't do twice and the game was over. That doesn't mean that anything less of a travesty than that is fine. ... Rainbow vs July Rainbow cheeses July with some cute goon/reaver timing push disconnect game isnt over, regame occurs July rapes rainbow since his cheese is spent Fair? I'm not prepared to comment on that. However, this decision IS inconsistent with every other decision kespa has made as far as I am aware of. Hell, let's go back further - YellOw vs Xellos, it happened there too. About time they started getting their act together then. If they fail to disqualify someone for typing "ppp" when their monitor dies I won't be complaining and bringing up precedent either. At least in that case the players knew what was going to happen. Part of having a good rule set is being able to interpret the result before the ref give his decision. There should be no surprises when that ref opens his/her mouth. That situation was dumb, but it was due to a shit ruleset. Everyone on KT expected regame because that's what has been done before. If they had called regame, hwaseung probably wouldn't have walked out (they would have been pissed though most likely) but they would understand the ruling because that's what's happened before. Now if you want to go and change the rules willy-nilly in the middle of the biggest final in history then what faith can player or coaches have in any KeSPA ruling? Hell, why have a ruleset to begin with. The old way of doing it was bad. I think I've seen that rainbow July vod. July does the hatch bug and crashes the game and then wins the re and rainbow never qualifies for shit again. Disappointing result. Anyway, that's the precedent you're defending. You're arguing a sudden change is surprising and everyone expected the same "always replay the game" result. That doesn't make that the right result, just the expected one. I'd argue that in a game as over as this one a replay is the wrong thing to do and it's about time Kespa started doing this. KT's and Hwaseung's expectations don't matter much. KT raging because they expected Kespa's usual incompetence to swing their way this time doesn't make it any better. Nor does the fact that Hwaseung would have stoicly accepted Kespa's incompetence if they got hit by it. Incompetence is bad. Less incompetence is a good thing, even if it comes at sudden and unexpected times. Hopefully this sets a precedent so next time intotherainbow doesn't get knocked out after July crashes the game after losing. I'm arguing for consistency and hence faith in the system, however flawed the system may be. Players and Coaches need to be able to rely on KeSPA do deliver consistent rulings. You take that away from KeSPA and then you have nothing. If the rulings are decided by an incompetent ruleset then that ruleset should change - if that means Leta gets hit in the process then that's an unfortunate casualty but for the greater good (since the rule has now been abolished). But atleast in that case Leta knew that there was a 99.99% chance of him getting DQd. You didn't see the OGN manager storm out of the stadium at that point either. Basically, you have a whole bunch of fans (and Flash) who had their expectations built up on precedent only to let them down in an extremely tense moment. That's why this whole incident is so bad, and why Flash's dad got so pissed etc. Incompetence is bad, but inconsistency is worse. Incompetence can be singled down to people not giving enough thought into the ruleset and having unintended consequences arise from that. Inconsistency is just so much worse than that =/
Say they're consistently bad and people complain. They then decide to be consistently good. There's a point between the final bad decision and the first good one where they're being inconsistent. There's no way of avoiding this though. The alternative is to be incompetent forever. I think Flash can take one for the team here. Especially if the hit he's taking is being hit by a fair decision when he was expecting to benefit from an unfair one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
