|
Ret I don't think you can judge it based on the map simply because they include these maps in the lineup in the first place. Just sets a silly precedent for judging future issues.
Other than that I said my thoughts elsewhere.
|
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...
Indeed. Is it worse to rob a player of a chance to make a comeback or worse to force a player to give away an advantageous position? Seems almost impossible to answer. I would tend to lean towards the former, but yeah....I don't really know =/
|
United States42250 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:59 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2010 23:54 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2010 23:52 Plexa wrote:On January 23 2010 23:48 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2010 23:41 Plexa wrote: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. No the alternate is to fix the system when you have unintended consequences happening. This is CLEARLY not the first time this has occurred, and they have had ample time to adjust policy. But why in the MSL finals? Why in such a critical point in the series? Why in this specific moment do you decide to start ruling differently. You can argue that you have to start somewhere, but is starting at such an important moment the right time? I think not. "We're making a shit decision and fucking JD over and we know we are. But in fairness we have a history of making shit decisions so you can't really be surprised by this. Oddly enough, we actually know we're making the wrong decision in this case but we felt now wasn't the time to start being actually good at our jobs. We'll save the good decisions for when it doesn't matter." Still not convinced that's any better. They weren't even basing their decision off complete information ffs =/ this simply was not the time or place to start with this. And because they decided that they would, they pissed off a shit ton of people. You rule the other way and I bet you Hwaseung doesn't storm out and delay everything for 2 hours.
Out of curiousity, do you contest that the decision was unfair (in terms of the solution accurately reflecting the in game situation) or do you just value consistency over fairness? Because if we have differing goalposts for success then we're not in an argument either of us can win.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:56 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2010 23:50 motbob wrote:On January 23 2010 23:41 Plexa wrote: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 =/ In this case, inconsistency was built into the system (deciding whether to award a regame or appoint a winner is a referee decision, according to KeSPA.) I don't think your argument holds up, given that fact. You say that the Leta deal is actually better than this because Leta knew he would get DQed after writing ppp. However, I feel that this situation is not too much different. Since uncertainty, and the need to make an on-the-spot judgment call, is written in the rulebook, players can assume that sometimes the referee will make a decision that they will not agree with. In fact, you might even say that players could expect that the refs might make a decision, a CORRECT decision, that screws them over to some degree. Remember, in the case of awarding a regame when a player was ahead at the crash, awarding a regame can be equally as hurtful as not awarding one. This just isn't the time or place to deviate from standard policy though. There are way too many unknowns. We can try to correctly assess just how far ahead Jaedong was off of what limited footage we have - but without the whole story how can you conclude that Flash had no chance? We don't know the size of his reinforcements etc or anything really. Sure, Jaedong had a tangible advantage but we cannot quantify it as far as I can see. Decisions in the past have been granted off complete knowledge of what was going on, and indeed, regames have been issued where players have been fucked over by the DC (i.e. rainbow). With limited information and no indication of precedent changing how can you argue that deviating from the norm is a good thing? It pissed off a lot of people, and ruined the series.
What? I'm trying to argue that no matter what the decision was, it didn't "deviate from policy" because uncertainty is built into the system via the "referee's decision" rule.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2010 23:59 Plexa wrote:On January 23 2010 23:54 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2010 23:52 Plexa wrote:On January 23 2010 23:48 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2010 23:41 Plexa wrote: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:
[quote]
... 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. No the alternate is to fix the system when you have unintended consequences happening. This is CLEARLY not the first time this has occurred, and they have had ample time to adjust policy. But why in the MSL finals? Why in such a critical point in the series? Why in this specific moment do you decide to start ruling differently. You can argue that you have to start somewhere, but is starting at such an important moment the right time? I think not. "We're making a shit decision and fucking JD over and we know we are. But in fairness we have a history of making shit decisions so you can't really be surprised by this. Oddly enough, we actually know we're making the wrong decision in this case but we felt now wasn't the time to start being actually good at our jobs. We'll save the good decisions for when it doesn't matter." Still not convinced that's any better. They weren't even basing their decision off complete information ffs =/ this simply was not the time or place to start with this. And because they decided that they would, they pissed off a shit ton of people. You rule the other way and I bet you Hwaseung doesn't storm out and delay everything for 2 hours. Out of curiousity, do you contest that the decision was unfair (in terms of the solution accurately reflecting the in game situation) or do you just value consistency over fairness? Because if we have differing goalposts for success then we're not in an argument either of us can win.
I will say that Flash was losing the game, but I don't feel like we know enough about the game to be able to call it. Such information was lost when we lost the replays. As crap as it is, I beleive it was the wrong decision on every level, and I'm surprised that so many people called it the other way. But regardless, in this thread I'm just arguing consistency.
|
This is definitely the only finals I am not sorry I couldn't stay up for.
Sounds like it was absolutely lose-lose either way. Thanks for the fast writeup.
|
On January 24 2010 00:00 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2010 23:56 BG1 wrote:On January 23 2010 23:52 Xxio wrote:On January 23 2010 23:40 Cassius wrote:
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. Flash did have 3/3 upgrades, I remember that for sure. Also, if you look closely at the mini map at the last few seconds you can see a stream of m/m coming from Flash's main, so he was still producing units (for what purpose, who knows). They weren't scvs because he had already moved them. So when people say he was abandoning 7, he could have just been grouping up with those new units. Or he could have been planning to go somewhere else. Noone will ever know. There was nothing coming afer 18:49, he still had units producing but he was staying at the nat and retreating the leftovers from 7:00. At 18:49 you can clearly see many yellow dots being produced in Flash's main and moving out to a rally point, at the very last frame you can see one of these dots out past the yellow blob that is the natural
Yea obviously he has more units built and grouped at the nat but he clearly abandoned 7:00 and was moving out everything he had to defend his mineral only expansion.
|
What are the koreans saying about this btw? Any statement from MBC, Flash, or Jaedong? Surely they could let us know what they think of their own vod...
|
United States42250 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:04 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2010 00:01 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2010 23:59 Plexa wrote:On January 23 2010 23:54 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2010 23:52 Plexa wrote:On January 23 2010 23:48 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2010 23:41 Plexa wrote:On January 23 2010 23:33 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2010 23:26 Plexa wrote:On January 23 2010 23:22 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. No the alternate is to fix the system when you have unintended consequences happening. This is CLEARLY not the first time this has occurred, and they have had ample time to adjust policy. But why in the MSL finals? Why in such a critical point in the series? Why in this specific moment do you decide to start ruling differently. You can argue that you have to start somewhere, but is starting at such an important moment the right time? I think not. "We're making a shit decision and fucking JD over and we know we are. But in fairness we have a history of making shit decisions so you can't really be surprised by this. Oddly enough, we actually know we're making the wrong decision in this case but we felt now wasn't the time to start being actually good at our jobs. We'll save the good decisions for when it doesn't matter." Still not convinced that's any better. They weren't even basing their decision off complete information ffs =/ this simply was not the time or place to start with this. And because they decided that they would, they pissed off a shit ton of people. You rule the other way and I bet you Hwaseung doesn't storm out and delay everything for 2 hours. Out of curiousity, do you contest that the decision was unfair (in terms of the solution accurately reflecting the in game situation) or do you just value consistency over fairness? Because if we have differing goalposts for success then we're not in an argument either of us can win. I will say that Flash was losing the game, but I don't feel like we know enough about the game to be able to call it. Such information was lost when we lost the replays. As crap as it is, I beleive it was the wrong decision on every level, and I'm surprised that so many people called it the other way. But regardless, in this thread I'm just arguing consistency.
Then I'll agree to disagree. I've made my views about how over the game was several times over and there's nothing to be gained by repeating them.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:03 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2010 23:56 Plexa wrote:On January 23 2010 23:50 motbob wrote:On January 23 2010 23:41 Plexa wrote: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 =/ In this case, inconsistency was built into the system (deciding whether to award a regame or appoint a winner is a referee decision, according to KeSPA.) I don't think your argument holds up, given that fact. You say that the Leta deal is actually better than this because Leta knew he would get DQed after writing ppp. However, I feel that this situation is not too much different. Since uncertainty, and the need to make an on-the-spot judgment call, is written in the rulebook, players can assume that sometimes the referee will make a decision that they will not agree with. In fact, you might even say that players could expect that the refs might make a decision, a CORRECT decision, that screws them over to some degree. Remember, in the case of awarding a regame when a player was ahead at the crash, awarding a regame can be equally as hurtful as not awarding one. This just isn't the time or place to deviate from standard policy though. There are way too many unknowns. We can try to correctly assess just how far ahead Jaedong was off of what limited footage we have - but without the whole story how can you conclude that Flash had no chance? We don't know the size of his reinforcements etc or anything really. Sure, Jaedong had a tangible advantage but we cannot quantify it as far as I can see. Decisions in the past have been granted off complete knowledge of what was going on, and indeed, regames have been issued where players have been fucked over by the DC (i.e. rainbow). With limited information and no indication of precedent changing how can you argue that deviating from the norm is a good thing? It pissed off a lot of people, and ruined the series. What? I'm trying to argue that no matter what the decision was, it didn't "deviate from policy" because uncertainty is built into the system via the "referee's decision" rule. When every other decision has been assessed a certain way, and then suddenly you have the most important match of your life assessed in a different way (especially given the lack of information) do you not think that is a deviation in standard policy?
|
Canada5565 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:00 Vasoline73 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2010 23:40 Cassius wrote:
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. Really good point and people have been overlooking it.. :/. Flash had MnM coming out of his raxs and you can see that on the minimap before it crashed. You definitely cannot call it. JD still needed to power economy to pump an army to crush Flash (which he didn't have btw before anyone says it, you can see like 4 lings and an ultra moving across the map before it cuts out and that's it) JD would need to get a perfect swarm off in Flash's min only to seal the game quickly and there's plenty of ways Flash could have stopped that and delayed the game considerably longer. It deserved a rematch :/
Exactly. Flash was still producing 3/3 units whereas Jaedong's 3rd and 4th bases didn't have a high drone count and couldn't keep producing ultralisks at the rate he had before to protect 7. Jaedong used most of his larva and resources on ultralisks and cracklings (not to mention defiler/scourge), but you can't sustain that ultralisk production with the econ he had.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:06 Vasoline73 wrote:
What are the koreans saying about this btw? Any statement from MBC, Flash, or Jaedong? Surely they could let us know what they think of their own vod...
For the first time since I started following the Korean scene, I couldn't care less what the Korean have to say. I don't want to read netizen comments or apologies. I don't want to read interviews or progamer gossip. I don't know why.
|
United States12607 Posts
I think the amount of debate over the specifics of the game just settles that it should not have been called by the refs. When this much uncertainty and controversy remains over a game's outcome, surely it ought to be replayed?
I mean, I can remember discussion surrounding the Bisu-July game for example. There were a few obvious fanboys who called for a rematch but they were shouted off the forum by the majority, which included all of the seemingly-intelligent posters and held that the refs were right to call the game. Why isn't that happening this time around?
|
I think it is ambiguous.
 Flash had his third, we could see him transfer the scvs.
Flash's nat was not mined out yet.
 Jaedong could just have been in a similar position. Though, we could see minerals in both his main/nat, they were gonna be mined soon, Im sure.
They would be fighting off 1 base shortly, and would depend in a lot of factors.
Jaedong seemed to be ahead, but I would not say his chance of winning were 99%, maybe 65% at best.
|
United States42250 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:07 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2010 00:00 Vasoline73 wrote:On January 23 2010 23:40 Cassius wrote:
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. Really good point and people have been overlooking it.. :/. Flash had MnM coming out of his raxs and you can see that on the minimap before it crashed. You definitely cannot call it. JD still needed to power economy to pump an army to crush Flash (which he didn't have btw before anyone says it, you can see like 4 lings and an ultra moving across the map before it cuts out and that's it) JD would need to get a perfect swarm off in Flash's min only to seal the game quickly and there's plenty of ways Flash could have stopped that and delayed the game considerably longer. It deserved a rematch :/ Exactly. Flash was still producing 3/3 units whereas Jaedong's 3rd and 4th bases didn't have a high drone count and couldn't keep producing ultralisks at the rate he had before to protect 7. Jaedong used most of his larva and resources on ultralisks and cracklings, but you can't sustain that ultralisk production with the econ he had.
Why couldn't he keep up the same rate of production as he was before. He hasn't lost access to any minerals nor lost any drones. His income would either be the same if the situation was unchanged or better if he'd made some more drones (we don't know). Saying that he couldn't sustain his production, despite there being no decrease in his income, makes absolutely no sense. It's just wishful thinking.
Edit: On the note of ultralisks. Terran has 0 tanks. Terran had 0 firebats. Terran had 0 mines. Terran had 4 vessels with no irradiates left in them. Zerg had swarm + ultra + gas to use it. I honestly don't understand how T could hold his min only against 2 ultralisks under a swarm. And JD had more than 2 ultralisks. And the gap between them was just widening.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:09 JWD wrote:
I think the amount of debate over the specifics of the game just settles that it should not have been called by the refs. When this much uncertainty and controversy remains over a game's outcome, surely it ought to be replayed?
I mean, I can remember discussion surrounding the Bisu-July game for example. There were a few obvious fanboys who called for a rematch but they were shouted off the forum by the majority, which included all of the seemingly-intelligent posters and held that the refs were right to call the game. Why isn't that happening this time around?
Because it was clearly over (replay confirmed that bisu had shit all units, and no dts in particular). If Bisu had a DT then there would have been a regame, and probably a big debate about the issue. No one talked about the rainbow game because the community was smaller and it was for something like osl or msl wildcards.
|
On January 24 2010 00:08 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2010 00:06 Vasoline73 wrote:
What are the koreans saying about this btw? Any statement from MBC, Flash, or Jaedong? Surely they could let us know what they think of their own vod... For the first time since I started following the Korean scene, I couldn't care less what the Korean have to say. I don't want to read netizen comments or apologies. I don't want to read interviews or progamer gossip. I don't know why.
True, I guess I mean more along the lines of
"Flash: I had x and x in the bank and felt my chances of winning were xx% during the game, but after watching the VOD and talking with Jaedong I would say my chances were xx%"
Which I guess could be a pipe dream. :/
|
United States12607 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:12 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2010 00:09 JWD wrote:
I think the amount of debate over the specifics of the game just settles that it should not have been called by the refs. When this much uncertainty and controversy remains over a game's outcome, surely it ought to be replayed?
I mean, I can remember discussion surrounding the Bisu-July game for example. There were a few obvious fanboys who called for a rematch but they were shouted off the forum by the majority, which included all of the seemingly-intelligent posters and held that the refs were right to call the game. Why isn't that happening this time around? Because it was clearly over (replay confirmed that bisu had shit all units, and no dts in particular). If Bisu had a DT then there would have been a regame, and probably a big debate about the issue. No one talked about the rainbow game because the community was smaller and it was for something like osl or msl wildcards.
That was a rhetorical question but you made my point  This game was not "clearly over".
Also I'd like to point everyone to page 123 of the LR thread, which is exactly when the blackout hit:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=110541¤tpage=123
Read back a couple pages and see if you can find any posts that would indicate the game is decided one way or the other…just an interesting test to see how people felt about the game before it became such an important issue.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:07 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2010 00:03 motbob wrote:On January 23 2010 23:56 Plexa wrote:On January 23 2010 23:50 motbob wrote:On January 23 2010 23:41 Plexa wrote: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 =/ In this case, inconsistency was built into the system (deciding whether to award a regame or appoint a winner is a referee decision, according to KeSPA.) I don't think your argument holds up, given that fact. You say that the Leta deal is actually better than this because Leta knew he would get DQed after writing ppp. However, I feel that this situation is not too much different. Since uncertainty, and the need to make an on-the-spot judgment call, is written in the rulebook, players can assume that sometimes the referee will make a decision that they will not agree with. In fact, you might even say that players could expect that the refs might make a decision, a CORRECT decision, that screws them over to some degree. Remember, in the case of awarding a regame when a player was ahead at the crash, awarding a regame can be equally as hurtful as not awarding one. This just isn't the time or place to deviate from standard policy though. There are way too many unknowns. We can try to correctly assess just how far ahead Jaedong was off of what limited footage we have - but without the whole story how can you conclude that Flash had no chance? We don't know the size of his reinforcements etc or anything really. Sure, Jaedong had a tangible advantage but we cannot quantify it as far as I can see. Decisions in the past have been granted off complete knowledge of what was going on, and indeed, regames have been issued where players have been fucked over by the DC (i.e. rainbow). With limited information and no indication of precedent changing how can you argue that deviating from the norm is a good thing? It pissed off a lot of people, and ruined the series. What? I'm trying to argue that no matter what the decision was, it didn't "deviate from policy" because uncertainty is built into the system via the "referee's decision" rule. When every other decision has been assessed a certain way, and then suddenly you have the most important match of your life assessed in a different way (especially given the lack of information) do you not think that is a deviation in standard policy?
You pointed out yourself that July vs Best was decided in favor of an awarded win. This directly counters your claim that every other decision has been assessed a certain way.
Your argument just doesn't work. You can't argue that the July vs Best "doesn't count" because the game was basically over, because the definition of "basically over" is itself a judgment call! Once an exception has been made, the argument for adherence to precedent immediately evaporates.
|
it isnt logic and fair, what makes sc so good is because of the amazing come back games. Anything unpredictable can change tide of game, no way man this isnt right decision, SHOULD BE A REGAME! However is over , I can do nothing but only upset over KeSPA decision again just like they screw GomTV, ban Sea.Leta for just 'ppp' and many ridiculous stuff, sad .
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
