EPTSlush vs Artosis - Page 15
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
Crissaegrim
2947 Posts
| ||
BroOd
Austin10833 Posts
On May 09 2010 18:02 QibingZero wrote: Have you guys never done a search on TL before, or what? well, searching for a blank field (all posts) was only made possible recently. | ||
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
Dont blaim others for your crap internet connection. | ||
|
thOr6136
Slovenia1775 Posts
 I like you TL stuff for apologizing but the mistake was done, that's it, you can not do anything, I think even a showmatch is, not appropriate but hmm... it wont change anything, it's not the same. | ||
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21245 Posts
Artosis' advantage was clear-cut. 100% vs. 99% aside, Artosis definitely had some sort of significant advantage. The regame call was based on the staff being unwilling to cheat Slush out of a potential fighting chance. However, why was the reverse not considered - by not cheating Slush out of a "potential regame," why was there no concern for cheating Artosis out of the advantage he built up through a well played game? It doesn't matter if Slush had a fighting chance or not, the fact of the matter is, by doing a regame, you will be cheating the advantaged player out of his advantage. I realize that both calls would lead to one player being "cheated" out of something. I understand the recall, I just dislike using "not cheating Slush out of fighting chance" as a justification, since I find it to be an absurd one. In the end, there is NO justification for the regame, because there can't possibly be a logical one. It was simply a subjective call, and I think it was a "right" call (in the absence of the knowledge that Artosis had it 100%, there are no right calls, simply calls). So please stop defending the call by saying "we don't want to cheat someone out of ____" | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
| ||
|
BroOd
Austin10833 Posts
On May 09 2010 18:13 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: I have one question on the justification for the regame: Artosis' advantage was clear-cut. 100% vs. 99% aside, Artosis definitely had some sort of significant advantage. The regame call was based on the staff being unwilling to cheat Slush out of a potential fighting chance. However, why was the reverse not considered - by not cheating Slush out of a "potential regame," why was there no concern for cheating Artosis out of the advantage he built up through a well played game? It doesn't matter if Slush had a fighting chance or not, the fact of the matter is, by doing a regame, you will be cheating the advantaged player out of his advantage. I realize that both calls would lead to one player being "cheated" out of something. I understand the recall, I just dislike using "not cheating Slush out of fighting chance" as a justification, since I find it to be an absurd one. In the end, there is NO justification for the regame, because there can't possibly be a logical one. It was simply a subjective call, and I think it was a "right" call (in the absence of the knowledge that Artosis had it 100%, there are no right calls, simply calls). So please stop defending the call by saying "we don't want to cheat someone out of ____" Well, in the instance you're describing, TL wouldn't have been cheating artosis, he would've been "cheated" by his own disconnect. | ||
|
tubs
764 Posts
On May 09 2010 18:16 Longshank wrote: Does anyone have the replay? Yeah it can be found here [url blocked] | ||
|
xxjondxx
United States89 Posts
| ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
| ||
|
dogabutila
United States1438 Posts
On May 09 2010 16:16 Disastorm wrote: LOL when MSL got Power Outage when Jaedong was ahead, everyone was complaining there was no rematch. Now this game gets a d/c when Artosis is ahead and everyone is complaining that there WAS a rematch. wtf man? Its quite clear that some of the general posters are quite fanboyish. This is a most unfortunate situation, but at least now we know what kind of person slush is. I'll be honest, I've not seen the replay but neither have I ever seen any artosis stuff ever so it isn't like I favor him. If I was a high level player, I would refuse to participate in any event where slush was also playing. It's the same thing I do in real life. I'll let anybody borrow money atleast once, but if they fail to pay it back then I will remind them once, mayyyybe twice, and if they fail to pay it back in a timely manner (read 6 months...) or deny it, or "forget" I just don't associate with them anymore. | ||
|
BroOd
Austin10833 Posts
| ||
|
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21245 Posts
On May 09 2010 18:18 BroOd wrote: Well, in the instance you're describing, TL wouldn't have been cheating artosis, he would've been "cheated" by his own disconnect. The disconnect is simply something that happens, beyond either players' control, that forces this situation. Ultimately it's the judges' call that's deciding the situation. The disconnect can be replaced by a power outage, Slush's computer spontaneously combusting, or anything of the sort. Strictly speaking, yes, the disconnect cheated Artosis. But practically speaking, if an organizer said that it would just be dodging responsibility. Again, I'm not saying the call was bad, I'm just baffled as to why there's a need to justify it when there's nothing to justify, and, indeed, no logical way to justify it. A call was made, because it had to be made. One party got shafted as a result, but that was a necessity. | ||
|
BroOd
Austin10833 Posts
| ||
|
crappyleft
99 Posts
In my opinion the admins took the right decision. | ||
|
ROOTdrewbie
Canada1392 Posts
On May 09 2010 18:13 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: I have one question on the justification for the regame: Artosis' advantage was clear-cut. 100% vs. 99% aside, Artosis definitely had some sort of significant advantage. The regame call was based on the staff being unwilling to cheat Slush out of a potential fighting chance. However, why was the reverse not considered - by not cheating Slush out of a "potential regame," why was there no concern for cheating Artosis out of the advantage he built up through a well played game? It doesn't matter if Slush had a fighting chance or not, the fact of the matter is, by doing a regame, you will be cheating the advantaged player out of his advantage. I realize that both calls would lead to one player being "cheated" out of something. I understand the recall, I just dislike using "not cheating Slush out of fighting chance" as a justification, since I find it to be an absurd one. In the end, there is NO justification for the regame, because there can't possibly be a logical one. It was simply a subjective call, and I think it was a "right" call (in the absence of the knowledge that Artosis had it 100%, there are no right calls, simply calls). So please stop defending the call by saying "we don't want to cheat someone out of ____" yeah thats nice but.......... artosis was the one who disconnected, it was his fault and he wasting slush's time, if we go by your dumbass logic then ill start discing on purpose after i get a slight advantage woo | ||
|
DminusTerran
Canada1337 Posts
after i get a slight advantage woo [url blocked] Watch it plz. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
| ||
|
yoshi_yoshi
United States440 Posts
On May 09 2010 18:20 xxjondxx wrote: I think the fact that Artosis could have easily dced when slush was in a lead should be a big reason in having to regame. Especially because it was clear that Artosis was having issues and was dcing somewhat frequently. Slush should probably have just stepped up and forfeited if the game was truly over but I can somewhat see a reason in wanting to regame just because there was probably even a relatively high chance of it being the other way around. Wat. If Artosis dc'ed with Slush in the lead, Slush would win and noone would complain. To others, we really shouldn't demonize Slush. He could have done the good guy thing, but deferring to admin judgement is totally within his right. There really seems to be only a couple of grey area situations for DCs, and in the future we need some rules written for them: (1) "If a player is in the lead and DCs, he gets a regame. However if he is behind and DCs (or maybe even slightly ahead), he forfeits" ---> how do you determine when he is ahead and behind. IMO, just get an odd # of impartial judges and vote. (2) The situation we just had: "If a player is 99 % in the lead and DCs, regame. If a player is 100% in the lead and DCs, he wins." ---> How do you determine between 99% and 100%? IMO, present judges with this scenario: if a mediocre player takes over for winning side, and <best player ever> takes over for loser, would you still expect the former to win 100 of 100 games? Anyways, the actual method for determining these two scenarios is not as important as the fact that they exist and people know about it. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44174 Posts
On May 09 2010 12:19 Mikami_ wrote: Wait.. why TL has staff members who haven't played the game reviewing and making win/loss decisions in the first place  They were. I was a ref and was in the IRC channel talking it over after reviewing the rep. I'm currently 1500 plat and increasing. I feel I made it very clear to everyone in IRC that I felt Artosis had won when we were all asked for our recommendations I made the recommendation that Artosis be given the win. It's not that refs didn't understand the situation in that game, it's the external factors such as Slush saying he thought he had a chance and the fact that it was Artosis who disconnected which impacted their decision. A lot of debate went into the decision. Upon being informed of the decision Artosis' response was to insult all the refs claiming they were all too stupid or bad to understand how over it was. He refused to listen when it was explained that they were simply unwilling to reward a disconnect for any reason unless the other player conceeded. Artosis isn't obliged to agree with that call but he is obliged to follow it. His refusal to even listen to what the refs were saying and instead just keep calling everyone idiots delayed the tournament considerably and that is unacceptable. He just kept repeating the same bullshit about how all the refs were too bad to understand he won the game because we were all idiots. I think tl has been surprisingly reasonable to him given all that was said last night. Although I voted that he be given the win I think the decision made was perfectly reasonable, most tournaments have a blanket disconnect = lose rule. On May 09 2010 12:04 BroOd wrote: We were well aware that artosis was very ahead. The issue is that if you get the win in a situation where you're only 99% winning, you essentially benefit from your own disconnect by denying your opponent the opportunity (no matter how infinitesimal it might be) to try to make a comeback. Every player deserves the right to keep fighting until he's dead or taps out, and there's no way one player should get to take away that right if they were were the one who disconnected. Rules have to be broadly applicable and easily definable. What I mean is that the rules that apply to one person and their games have to stand for every other game to maintain fairness. How do we judge how far ahead someone was objectively, with what critera? How can we apply that standard to other games in the future? Were you 99% ahead? 95%? And is that the line? Or is the line 88% ahead? | ||
| ||
