|
United States42520 Posts
motbob, you mean July vs Bisu (on Blue Storm).
|
On January 24 2010 00:10 Leath wrote: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.
Jaedong had 15:00 as well... It would be 2v1 bases if they both mined out main/nat and Flash's base is a min only, no gas. Not to mention Flash just had mnms, no tanks at all, wouldn't be able to fight off swarm and plague and can't take another base with JD having full map control and expanding anywhere he wants whenever he wants.
|
Any interviews with Flash or Jaedong?
|
On January 24 2010 00:14 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2010 00:07 Plexa wrote: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:
[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 =/ 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's July v Bisu on Bluestorm and if you watch the game it is clearly over. If the DT got out it STILL would have been completely over but it would have been a regame regardless. Plexa is saying that if they were going to regame if the DT came out for Bisu (he would have no chance really) and Flash v JD was much much closer, then they definitely should have regamed for Flash/JD
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:14 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2010 00:07 Plexa wrote: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:
[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 =/ 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. No, it doesn't... it further emphasizes where I'm coming from. And you mean July vs Bisu 
Like I explained on page 1, if Bisu had produced a DT from his gateway then a regame would have been called. The criteria for a game being decided was an insurmountable advantage - Bisu had probes and cannons against a mass of hydra. If a DT had popped, then you can't say with 100% certainty that July would have won the game. (he probably would have, but a regame called nonetheless). Contrast this against the Rainbow/July game - where July got the regame despite being wayy behind (more so than flash imho) and still getting a regame (because he had units and an outside chance).
|
a good writeup doesnt change the fact that that free win was really uncalled for t.t
|
Canada5565 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2010 00:07 Xxio wrote: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.
He makes his huge group of ultralisks when he has 3 bases mining gas. Then the 1o clock base gets taken out, so down to 2 gas.
The last time we see his 3rd base he has no drones or extractor there. He makes a few more ultralisks and defilers to help hold off 7 - obviously the production has slowed down/stopped. You can't spam ultralisk/defiler on 2 gas.
I think that while 7 was being fought over JD was only beginning to make drones at his 3rd.
|
On January 23 2010 23:48 Alethios wrote:
Just out of interest. If a similar situation developed during a TSL match. Considering people are playing from home and siblings can kick out wires and so forth, it seems much more likely.
What would be the decision? 100% Rematch?
What happens if there is a disconnect?
In the event of a disconnect the referee will ask the players about what they think the result of the game should be (regame/win/loss). If both players can agree on the result then that result will stand. If both players cannot agree on the result a panel of 5 TSL staff and/or informed people will be called to make a decision. Players will have the opportunity to veto any of the members of panel beforehand if they have good reason to do so (e.g. bias). One of the following courses of action will be taken by the panel. The decision reached by the panel is final. Whether a player has disconnected or not will be determined by the TSL Anti-hack since being dropped does not necessarily mean you disconnected.
1) A disconnector can be identified
If all five people on the panel can identify an advantage for the non-
disconnector he will be awarded the game. If all five people on the panel
determine that the disconnecting player has the game absolutely won,
the disconnector will be awarded the win. If not, a regame will be issued.
2) A disconnector cannot be identified
If all five people on the panel determine that one player has the game
absolutely won, he will be awarded the win. Otherwise, a regame will be
issued including situations where one player has an advantage.
3) Exceptional circumstances
Game and conditions will be reviewed and a decision will be made by
the panel deciding the course of action to take.
4) A player is caught intentionally disconnecting himself/his opponent
The player will be disqualified from the TSL, banned from all future
TeamLiquid events, and will not receive any prize money.
I have to add to this that we also have the right to modify any rules and make rulings different that what is outlined in our rulebook as a rule. Of course you should not expect us to suddenly overthrow good rules but it's a little protection mechanism just in case new experiences lead us to believe our previous rules are not good.
Thus:
Flash discing we would award a loss. Jaedong discing we would award a regame. Only in case of a game being 100% over we would award a win to the non-discing player. Todays game was not 100% over.
Our rules are different from the MBC situation because an online tournament at all times has to create their rules in such a manner that you can never reward a discer. Therefor you have to be very careful with awarding wins to discing players.
|
On January 24 2010 00:16 BG1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2010 00:10 Leath wrote: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. Jaedong had 15:00 as well... It would be 2v1 bases if they both mined out main/nat and Flash's base is a min only, no gas. Not to mention Flash just had mnms, no tanks at all, wouldn't be able to fight off swarm and plague and can't take another base with JD having full map control and expanding anywhere he wants whenever he wants.
Except JD needed to macro an army and while he did that Flash could establish his. :/. Even EMP could have been used well in this game. We never know what would happen BG1 which is what everyone who thinks there should have been a regame is trying to point out. It's not clear cut at all
|
motbob
United States12546 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?
First of all, the KeSPA people had access to information we did not: the FPviews of the players. They knew the mineral count of each, and that may have led them to a decision. We don't really know.
Second of all, just because there is a "bunch of discussion" on this game doesn't mean that the outcome was heavily in doubt. I mean, the HQ VOD isn't even out yet! How can people make rational decisions about the kind of advantage JD had?
For my money, 5 gas Zerg vs a Terran with maybe 4 vessels, a tiny MnM army, and 2.5 bases is a decisive advantage. But, again, the HQ VOD isn't out yet.
|
United States42520 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:18 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2010 00:11 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2010 00:07 Xxio wrote: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. He makes his huge group of ultralisks when he has 3 bases mining gas. Then the 1o clock base gets taken out, so down to 2 gas. The last time we see his 3rd base he has no drones or extractor there. He makes a few more ultralisks and defilers to help hold off 7 - obviously the production has slowed down/stopped. You can't spam ultralisk/defiler on 2 gas. I think that while 7 was being fought over JD was only beginning to make drones at his 3rd.
Any units made while 1 was being fought over weren't involved beyond the first few seconds of the struggle for 7. That battle was a grinder, unit production pitted against unit production, both armies rallying there. JD won the contest of unit production. You can't argue that doesn't mean much because he lost a base when that base was lost before the battle at 7. It's simply not relevant to anything.
|
If you think there needs to be an argument over whether July had beaten Bisu in that game that ended with Bisu disconnecting, you are seriously retarded, or have an unnatural fixation to see every game that does not end with one player conceding defeat no matter what the situation, no matter what the consequences, to be replayed from scratch.
There is no way in hell to make up the rule that is fool-proof unless you force every players to replay a game that has been crashed no matter what how big the advantage one player had, or the consequences of the rematch (strategies being exposed, one player may have more cards to play on the map than the other etc). If this is your definition of what is right, then ok, Jaedong should have played Flash again in game three.
If you think there's a line that can be drawn, then either;
a) list up every scenario conceivable and write down the exact criteria for giving one player the win
b) leave it up to the Kespa referees since it's their jobs
In this particular situation, the Kespa referee thought Jaedong had enough advantage in the game to win the game from cut-off point with suffice probability. Maybe you don't. Perhaps Jaedong need to place himself in a situation where it's impossible for him to lose unless he has a sudden cardiac arrest like the one July placed himself against Bisu for him to be seen as the rightful winner in your eyes, maybe it needs to be even more cut and dry so you can be REALLY sure. I really couldn't care less, because there's no way to "fix" the fuck-up, and pretending the rematch as the fair thing to do is something quite dillusional unless you have 100% faith in the "rematch-no-matter-what-the-situation" thing.
|
United States42520 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:20 motbob 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? First of all, the KeSPA people had access to information we did not: the FPviews of the players. They knew the mineral count of each, and that may have led them to a decision. We don't really know. Second of all, just because there is a "bunch of discussion" on this game doesn't mean that the outcome was heavily in doubt. I mean, the HQ VOD isn't even out yet! How can people make rational decisions about the kind of advantage JD had? For my money, 5 gas Zerg vs a Terran with maybe 4 vessels, a tiny MnM army, and 2.5 bases is a decisive advantage. But, again, the HQ VOD isn't out yet.
It was 1.5 bases, not 2.5. Main was mined out a during the start of the battle for 7.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:18 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2010 00:14 motbob wrote:On January 24 2010 00:07 Plexa wrote: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:
[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 =/ 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. No, it doesn't... it further emphasizes where I'm coming from. And you mean July vs Bisu Like I explained on page 1, if Bisu had produced a DT from his gateway then a regame would have been called. The criteria for a game being decided was an insurmountable advantage - Bisu had probes and cannons against a mass of hydra. If a DT had popped, then you can't say with 100% certainty that July would have won the game. (he probably would have, but a regame called nonetheless). Contrast this against the Rainbow/July game - where July got the regame despite being wayy behind (more so than flash imho) and still getting a regame (because he had units and an outside chance).
Which is the July/Rainbow game in question? Do we have a VOD?
|
United States12607 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:20 motbob 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? First of all, the KeSPA people had access to information we did not: the FPviews of the players. They knew the mineral count of each, and that may have led them to a decision. We don't really know. Second of all, just because there is a "bunch of discussion" on this game doesn't mean that the outcome was heavily in doubt. I mean, the HQ VOD isn't even out yet! How can people make rational decisions about the kind of advantage JD had? For my money, 5 gas Zerg vs a Terran with maybe 4 vessels, a tiny MnM army, and 2.5 bases is a decisive advantage. But, again, the HQ VOD isn't out yet.
Not having access to the players' mineral counts or an HQ VOD surely can't explain all of the controversy. Are you really suggesting that if we knew how many minerals Flash/JD had that this debate would be completely settled?
As for "Just because there is a 'bunch of discussion' on this game doesn't mean that the outcome was heavily in doubt" … actually yes that is exactly what it means.
|
On January 24 2010 00:19 Vasoline73 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2010 00:16 BG1 wrote:On January 24 2010 00:10 Leath wrote: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. Jaedong had 15:00 as well... It would be 2v1 bases if they both mined out main/nat and Flash's base is a min only, no gas. Not to mention Flash just had mnms, no tanks at all, wouldn't be able to fight off swarm and plague and can't take another base with JD having full map control and expanding anywhere he wants whenever he wants. Except JD needed to macro an army and while he did that Flash could establish his. :/. Even EMP could have been used well in this game. We never know what would happen BG1 which is what everyone who thinks there should have been a regame is trying to point out. It's not clear cut at all
It's clear that Jaedong had a big advantage and though he hasn't won the game, how is it fair to give Flash a regame for a match he had 1% chance of winning, or even 20%. Either decision is unfair but they had to choose and they chose the lesser of two evils.
|
United States12607 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:18 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2010 23:48 Alethios wrote:
Just out of interest. If a similar situation developed during a TSL match. Considering people are playing from home and siblings can kick out wires and so forth, it seems much more likely.
What would be the decision? 100% Rematch? Show nested quote +
What happens if there is a disconnect?
In the event of a disconnect the referee will ask the players about what they think the result of the game should be (regame/win/loss). If both players can agree on the result then that result will stand. If both players cannot agree on the result a panel of 5 TSL staff and/or informed people will be called to make a decision. Players will have the opportunity to veto any of the members of panel beforehand if they have good reason to do so (e.g. bias). One of the following courses of action will be taken by the panel. The decision reached by the panel is final. Whether a player has disconnected or not will be determined by the TSL Anti-hack since being dropped does not necessarily mean you disconnected.
1) A disconnector can be identified
If all five people on the panel can identify an advantage for the non-
disconnector he will be awarded the game. If all five people on the panel
determine that the disconnecting player has the game absolutely won,
the disconnector will be awarded the win. If not, a regame will be issued.
2) A disconnector cannot be identified
If all five people on the panel determine that one player has the game
absolutely won, he will be awarded the win. Otherwise, a regame will be
issued including situations where one player has an advantage.
3) Exceptional circumstances
Game and conditions will be reviewed and a decision will be made by
the panel deciding the course of action to take.
4) A player is caught intentionally disconnecting himself/his opponent
The player will be disqualified from the TSL, banned from all future
TeamLiquid events, and will not receive any prize money.
I have to add to this that we also have the right to modify any rules and make rulings different that what is outlined in our rulebook as a rule. Of course you should not expect us to suddenly overthrow good rules but it's a little protection mechanism just in case new experiences lead us to believe our previous rules are not good. Thus: Flash discing we would award a loss. Jaedong discing we would award a regame. Only in case of a game being 100% over we would award a win to the non-discing player. Todays game was not 100% over. Our rules are different from the MBC situation because an online tournament at all times has to create their rules in such a manner that you can never reward a discer. Therefor you have to be very careful with awarding wins to discing players.
TSL has clear rules and I'm sure any decision implementing them would be explained fully…
MSL looking like the amateur tournament here.
|
If he could, Jaedong would have regamed him and wooped his ass back into the stoneage another time.
|
On January 24 2010 00:10 Leath wrote: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.
Lol jaedong had 4 bases dude.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On January 24 2010 00:20 motbob 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? First of all, the KeSPA people had access to information we did not: the FPviews of the players. They knew the mineral count of each, and that may have led them to a decision. We don't really know. We dont' know those exist. I presume they were only able to get the vod footage because it was streamed. i.e. as in obs sent that information to a relay where it was recorded and distributed before the power went out. The extra 30s footage is probably down to an inbuilt delay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
