|
So as you are well aware of by now a disc occurred in game 3 of Slush vs Artosis. Artosis disced while he was ahead. Our regular policy for tournaments is that if you disc you can't get a win by just being ahead. If you are a 99/1 favorite to win the game we will not hand out a loss to the non-discing player. It's not his fault his chances to come back were taken away and he is completely innocent in the situation. However we also have the policy that if in the rare occasion a game is 100% won but the opponent didn't gg yet (weird as it may sound this does happen every now and then) we award the win to the player that had the game in the bag. Whoever disced.
Today we saw one of those games.
When the disc happened the staff that was working on the tournament reviewed the game and judged that there was still a chance, albeit small, that Slush could come back. This was a mistake, a serious mistake, for which we apologize. Running events is a stressful job. Working under pressure hours before it starts barely ever having a moment to breath trying to get everything to run smoothly. A situation like today is an organizers nightmare. Not just because of the disc but because the pressure on trying to continue the show is something always in the back of your head. Whenever making decisions they will be rushed and have to be taken quickly in order to keep the production quality at a high level. When this is the norm under which you have to work it is very hard to take a step back and assess a situation as so serious that you might need an hour - hours, to find the right solution. That was the case today. Even though the decision was made in an hour which is a good amount of time it was not enough to come to the right conclusion. The conclusion that Artosis had this game 100% won.
Hosting tournaments is a hard job and we don't claim to be perfect. We only claim to be willing to learn from our mistakes and that's what we will do today. We're going to try to keep high level players closer involved in the decision making regarding disconnects (unfortunately I was playing the Benelux tournament myself today so I couldn't be here during the time Artosis was playing Slush). Working with a panel of high level players as disconnect referees having to find consensus on who was winning and by how much before the tournament admins make a decision.
What happens after today? We want to do everything we can to make this right. We have offered Artosis a showmatch with the winner of TLI with prizes at stake. Unfortunately due to their 'personal differences' Artosis isn't interested in playing with Slush. Regardless we'll try to keep looking for options to make this right. If you have any suggestions you are more than welcome to post them here.
Signed,
TL Staff
|
Good follow-up, what was written above is exactly what was needed. You cannot change the ruling now, but this is the next best thing.
EDIT:
On May 10 2010 00:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +Poll: Given the situation, if you were Slush would you have conceded?No (146) 55% Yes (87) 33% I honestly don't know (31) 12% 264 total votes Your vote: Given the situation, if you were Slush would you have conceded? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): I honestly don't know
Well, that's that. lol
Hmmm, when I first read that poll I thought it was asking if you were slush would you concede. Like would you do that NOW after all that has gone on since yesterday. I voted no. Was only after the fact, after I made my choice that I realized it said "conceded" and not "concede". If I was Slush at the time of the incident, yes I would have conceded. I would of watched the replay and realized, yeah i got OWNED at the end, and would have conceded. Now though, it really is to late too concede I'd say.
Wonder how many other people made that same mistake when they first saw the poll.
|
seemed like a rough situation to deal with. best to just forgive and forget
|
Well played, sirs. This is pretty much the response I was hoping for from TL.net.
|
If I were betting man, Artosis will eventually want to play Slush heads up in a showmatch.
To be honest, given the current state of zerg, Artosis likely would have won the entire tournament had he not disced. 
For us casual observers, aside from a few delays it was a great show.
|
Nazgul's reaction > Kennigit reaction
Thank you for straight out admitting the mistake. You have restored my faith in Team Liquid. Your a bigger man then most Nazgul.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Yeah sorry, i can't stay objective in this - too emotionally invested.. Consider nazgul's the official statement
|
On May 09 2010 11:37 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: We have offered Artosis a showmatch with the winner of TLI with prizes at stake. Unfortunately due to their 'personal differences' Artosis isn't interested in playing with Slush.
That is absurd. He needs to grow up.
|
Completely agree with everything that was said here. Glad you guys admitted the mistake. Also, thanks for running all these tournaments! The important thing is to work towards a new policy for dealing with disconnects so this can be handled better in the future. Thanks again so much for running all these tournies!
|
On May 09 2010 11:44 NeoOmega wrote:
Nazgul's reaction > Kennigit reaction
Thank you for straight out admitting the mistake. You have restored my faith in Team Liquid. Your a bigger man then most Nazgul.
This.
|
This is why I was siding with the organizers at the time of the decision. I've had to make tough calls in the past. You do the best you can and you proceed forward. Of course you have to recognize that you were wrong, but it doesn't change the fact you did the best you could.
Certainly no one was acting maliciously towards Artosis or playing favorites. The wrong decision was made, but they had to make a call, and there's always the chance that it could have been wrong the other way. Not in this instance, it turns out, but in a similar case.
|
Braavos36374 Posts
On May 09 2010 11:45 Kishime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 11:37 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: We have offered Artosis a showmatch with the winner of TLI with prizes at stake. Unfortunately due to their 'personal differences' Artosis isn't interested in playing with Slush. That is absurd. He needs to grow up.
Either player has every right to refuse a showmatch.
|
Great manner TL 
|
This is a great response.
Hoping Artosis reconsiders! More SC2, gogo!
|
The way I see it I agree that Artosis had the game won and the ref made a bad call. Some people are saying Slush is bm for not admitting the game was over but that's not his fault, it's the ref's job to make that decision and the ref failed here. Artosis eventually agreed to do a regame and Slush won it fair and square.
|
good response
Artosis needed an apology, and he got it. still waay to late.
One thing i dont get though is that i know you said you were busy with another tournament nazgul
but im sure that there were PLENTY of very high lvl players available out there to watch the replay and give their opinion, even DeMuslim said he could have done it in the last thread. i mean after all you guys used quite some time coming up with the conclusion that it should be a regame or DQ
|
pro, i understand why artosis wouldnt wanna play slush again. Would be even worse if he lost , and slush would get more money haha.
|
Great follow-up guys. Thanks for the tournament.
Still wish Slush woulda looked at replay before moving on to a rematch and tried to explain his situation.
Only need an apology from Artosis for being an ass during those chat logs :/ however deserved.
|
|
|
I don't see what TL has to apologize for. I can see where some one viewing the replay in a stressful situation would think that Slush had a minuscule chance of coming back, and clearly the protocol you described states that you should re-game in that situation. Was it mistake in hindsight? You have all apparently decided it was, but I think it's understandable. What isn't understandable is for Artosis to act like a child throwing a tantrum.
Personally, I think Artosis forfeited his chance for a rematch with Slush with prizes at stake when he acted so ridiculously childish. Thinking in hindsight, he could have played the game, lost, made the complaint to TL admins after the tournament and received a show match with prizes at stake. It still would have been unfortunate that he would be eliminated, but I'm sure TL would be reviewing their process of handling these situations in this hypothetical as well, so the only difference is the shit storm that erupted.
|
Nazgul is the ultimate voice of reason on TL once again.
good post!
|
Really glad Nazgul owned it. Now there won't be any lingering awkwardness going forward.
$10k Artosis v Slush grudge match inc?
|
There isn't a much better way to put it then TL just did, and there is no right or wrong. Sure Slush probably knew he was going to lose, but who is going to admit to that when money is on the line?
Sure, there is sportmanship, where I do agree with Artosis on, but when there are referees, Slush can stand for his opinion as it is ultimately up to them anyways. Hopefully it won't happen again, but there is no way to guarantee it. Good response nonetheless.
|
On May 09 2010 11:47 UbiNax wrote:
good response
Artosis needed an apology, and he got it. still waay to late.
One thing i dont get though is that i know you said you were busy with another tournament nazgul
but im sure that there were PLENTY of very high lvl players available out there to watch the replay and give their opinion, i mean after all you guys used quite some time coming up with the conclusion that it should be a regame or DQ
there certainly were many top players watching this, demuslim said so himself, I dont know though if for example the TL admins had them in their friends list.
On May 09 2010 11:47 Salv wrote:
I don't see what TL has to apologize for. I can see where some one viewing the replay in a stressful situation would think that Slush had a minuscule chance of coming back, and clearly the protocol you described states that you should re-game in that situation. Was it mistake in hindsight? You have all apparently decided it was, but I think it's understandable. What isn't understandable is for Artosis to act like a child throwing a tantrum.
Personally, I think Artosis forfeited his chance for a rematch with Slush with prizes at stake when he acted so ridiculously childish. Thinking in hindsight, he could have played the game, lost, made the complaint to TL admins after the tournament and received a show match with prizes at stake. It still would have been unfortunate that he would be eliminated, but I'm sure TL would be reviewing their process of handling these situations in this hypothetical as well, so the only difference is the shit storm that erupted.
Oh yeah but you're being incredibly grown up with that signature of yours.. rofl
|
I think some people seem to miss the fact that Artosis knew about this problem for ages, yet still entered a tournament for money knowing that he could disconnect at any time and knowing the rules for that. Its not like it was completely unexpected.
|
On May 09 2010 11:47 Salv wrote:
I don't see what TL has to apologize for. I can see where some one viewing the replay in a stressful situation would think that Slush had a minuscule chance of coming back, and clearly the protocol you described states that you should re-game in that situation. Was it mistake in hindsight? You have all apparently decided it was, but I think it's understandable. What isn't understandable is for Artosis to act like a child throwing a tantrum.
Personally, I think Artosis forfeited his chance for a rematch with Slush with prizes at stake when he acted so ridiculously childish. Thinking in hindsight, he could have played the game, lost, made the complaint to TL admins after the tournament and received a show match with prizes at stake. It still would have been unfortunate that he would be eliminated, but I'm sure TL would be reviewing their process of handling these situations in this hypothetical as well, so the only difference is the shit storm that erupted.
On May 09 2010 11:51 7mk wrote:
Oh yeah but you're being incredibly grown up with that signature of yours.. rofl
It's a hilarious quote. Nice red herring also, why don't you address the actual point of my post.
|
On May 09 2010 11:52 infinity2k9 wrote:
I think some people seem to miss the fact that Artosis knew about this problem for ages, yet still entered a tournament for money knowing that he could disconnect at any time and knowing the rules for that. Its not like it was completely unexpected.
Yeah, well is it really reasonable to expect someone to buy a new computer for a tournament right around the corner? There's not much he can do, and Artosis was reasonable about it by even explaining that it might happen... even saying he got the page pool error during their game.
Sure, he was the one that disconnected, and I'm sure he knew the rules... as stated by TL it was a 100% win at that point. It isn't like Artosis deserved to receive the loss for a faulty computer.
|
I think this statement is quite mature. I for one do not blame TL for making a bad call in the heat of a tournament, as it could happen to anyone. And I certainly praise them for coming back and admitting a mistake. That shows real character... something I've never seen from Blizzard entertainment. =p
(Oops, players really want a chat system? Well, they're wrong! They don't know what they want.)
|
Great statement by TL to admit their mistake, because I think most people will agree that they did make one even if it was somewhat justified due to the pressure of running a tournament.
I watched the replay and thought 100% that Artosis should've been given the win, not a regame. Glad that this issue can be put to rest, although ;( no showcase rematch.
|
Canada5565 Posts
TL is awesome, as shown here.
|
After all is said and done, I hope this is just used as a learning point and future tournaments are just improved upon. Great statement by Nazgul though.
|
Artosis needs to stop bawwing and fix his fucking computer. That is the root cause of the entire problem.
|
I'm glad TL came forth with this reasonable response. You can always count on TL to do the right thing... eventually. 
everythingwentbetterthanexpected.jpg
|
It is what it is. Shit like this happens and we just have to move on. What's done is done. Slush surprisingly put this aside and went on to win the even which was quiet an upset. The games were great. Stream was great. Commentary was great. Aside from this drama, the tournament went well and was enjoyable.
|
On May 09 2010 11:54 skYfiVe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 11:52 infinity2k9 wrote:
I think some people seem to miss the fact that Artosis knew about this problem for ages, yet still entered a tournament for money knowing that he could disconnect at any time and knowing the rules for that. Its not like it was completely unexpected. Yeah, well is it really reasonable to expect someone to buy a new computer for a tournament right around the corner? There's not much he can do, and Artosis was reasonable about it by even explaining that it might happen... even saying he got the page pool error during their game. Sure, he was the one that disconnected, and I'm sure he knew the rules... as stated by TL it was a 100% win at that point. It isn't like Artosis deserved to receive the loss for a faulty computer.
I think its reasonable not to play in a tournament knowing it might happen at some point. I don't believe that a whole new computer would be needed to fix the problem anyway (sounds like RAM issue?), and hes known there's a problem at least since 22nd April when its mentioned on his twitter. You can't go into games like this just hoping you won't DC. After all he is supposed to now be a progamer on a proteam so you'd expect not to be knowingly play with faulty equipment.
|
Really professional statement from the TL staff. That's the way to be guys, thanks for setting an example to others. And just one thing to keep in mind is the nature of the game.. right now its in beta .. so the normal rules may not apply sometimes. It's up to the players end of the day to be a good sport.
|
Very professional response from TL. This is exactly what needed to be said and I think we can all learn from what happened today.
|
On May 09 2010 11:57 artanis2 wrote:
Artosis needs to stop bawwing and fix his fucking computer. That is the root cause of the entire problem.
This is pretty unnecessary honestly.. at least be constructive with your post... it isn't like money grows on trees for new computers either.
|
After acting like he did, Artosis didn't deserve an apology, but the other players in the tournament did so that this wouldn't just loom as an unresolved problem. Cheers.
|
On May 09 2010 11:54 Salv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 11:47 Salv wrote:
I don't see what TL has to apologize for. I can see where some one viewing the replay in a stressful situation would think that Slush had a minuscule chance of coming back, and clearly the protocol you described states that you should re-game in that situation. Was it mistake in hindsight? You have all apparently decided it was, but I think it's understandable. What isn't understandable is for Artosis to act like a child throwing a tantrum.
Personally, I think Artosis forfeited his chance for a rematch with Slush with prizes at stake when he acted so ridiculously childish. Thinking in hindsight, he could have played the game, lost, made the complaint to TL admins after the tournament and received a show match with prizes at stake. It still would have been unfortunate that he would be eliminated, but I'm sure TL would be reviewing their process of handling these situations in this hypothetical as well, so the only difference is the shit storm that erupted. Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 11:51 7mk wrote:
Oh yeah but you're being incredibly grown up with that signature of yours.. rofl It's a hilarious quote. Nice red herring also, why don't you address the actual point of my post.
More like genetic fallacy bud.
|
Artosis and TL have a history in the Starcraft Scene.
Obviously Artosis was emotionally affected after he was given a loss, and obviously TL Staff was emotionally affected after giving artosis the loss.
Just let things get more calm and both TL staff and Artosis will have a good time once again.
Nice response by nazgul.
GN8 everyone and thanks for the casting.
|
Artosis is a child throwing a tantrum. When it comes to behavior and manners he really should start acting more like Tasteless instead of Idra.
But at least he is providing plenty of entertainment, I give him that.
Regarding the rules, just make it very simple and award the loss automatically to whoever disconnects no matter what. There is no need of any subjective ruling that will always be subjected to drama.
|
I am new to the SC scene and TL but it is the best SC site I have found and I am thankful for it. You guys issuing the apology speaks volumes and I am very glad to see you guys did it rather than just let the situation go without speaking up about it. Thanks for all you guys do and I really enjoyed watching the tournament today, and look forward to watching more in the future.
|
On May 09 2010 11:59 Jyvblamo wrote:I'm glad TL came forth with this reasonable response. You can always count on TL to do the right thing... eventually. everythingwentbetterthanexpected.jpg
Exactly, love TL <3.
People still posting with negative comments about Artosis' behavior - he had every right to be upset.
|
Regardless we'll try to keep looking for options to make this right. If you have any suggestions you are more than welcome to post them here.
Buy Artosis a new stick of ram.
^_^
|
On May 09 2010 12:01 Eury wrote:
Artosis is a child throwing a tantrum. When it comes to behavior and manners he really should start acting more like Tasteless instead of Idra.
But at least he is providing plenty of entertainment, I give him that.
Regarding the rules, just make it very simple and award the loss automatically to whoever disconnects no matter what. There is no need of any subjective ruling that will always be subjected to drama.
Yeah, because battle.net and other things that are completely out of your control should totally be held against a player. TL's policy is the proper policy.
|
Austin10831 Posts
I'm going to post so you get the perspective of one of the people involved in reviewing the replay and coming to what we can now acknowledge was a poor decision.
At the time, we had to weigh the idea of 99% winning vs 100% winning. The line between the two is small but profound. As someone who hasn't played SC2 enough yet to know how large army battles will come out (I thought slush had the left-side battle won easily with those fungal growths), I couldn't say for certain that Slush had 0% chance of ever coming back in any possible universe. It was unfortunate that we didn't have someone more knowledgable on hand at the time to make a more informed call, but c'est la vie.
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?
That said, after having time to review the game and get input from better players than I, I can certainly defer to their opinion and concede that artosis had won 100%, and should have been awarded that win post-disconnect. At the time, it wasn't that clear, and the fairest option for both players seemed to be to offer a re-game. I can certainly say it was a mistake, and a very unfortunate situation for both artosis and slush. The most we can try to gain from this, like Nazgul said, is the ability to judge these situations better in the future.
I hope this helped explain some of the reasons why this whole situation boiled into what it did. When TL admins like Nazgul and Kennigit make tough decisions like this, they do so in good faith and with the best interests of the players and the tournament in mind, it's important to remember that.
|
Most people don't know how incredibly difficult it is to run a high profile tournament. <3 TL mistakes happen don't let it get you down keep running cool events please. Not going to comment on anyones behavior in particular but it's always a tough decision to make on if to give someone a win or not from a disc in a high profile tournament no matter the circumstances. Theres a ton of pressure on you to get it right and sometimes you wind up being a little bit too conservative ask anyone with a decent amount of tournament experience it happens. People should calm down.
|
|
|
make a showmatch with cauthonluck and artosis as the final that should have happen
|
On May 09 2010 12:06 Xeris wrote:This really should have not happened in the first place , a reasoned decision should have been made from the get-go. If the tournament admins don't know the game enough to make a reasoned decision, other people should have been consulted. Naz is great for trying to rectify a situation that shouldn't have even happened in the first place. Artosis got dicked and that SUCKS 
Responses like this are EXACTLY what I'm talking about I'm coming from 2 years on iCCup and 3 seasons on PGTour as my listed experience in this matter. This is much much easier said than done especially when the players have already talked about and argued about it so that you're being pressured even more to make hte "right" decision.
|
Seems like it was a heated response from Artosis towards TL and apologies from both are necessary.
I think it was up to sLush to concede graciously and it is actually there that the issue lies.
|
Very professional response. I can understand Artosis's frustration, since he probably was close to the "99/1 favorite" to win that game. But a policy is a policy, and as administrators you've got to stick to your guns (and think of both players when making the decision). Perhaps Slush should have conceded, or perhaps there should have been high-level players to give a more accurate appraisal of how the game would turn out and whether there should be a regame. Regardless, those options weren't available, so you did what you said you would do in any situation, in any tournament, and decided to regame.
|
On May 09 2010 12:04 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:01 Eury wrote:
Artosis is a child throwing a tantrum. When it comes to behavior and manners he really should start acting more like Tasteless instead of Idra.
But at least he is providing plenty of entertainment, I give him that.
Regarding the rules, just make it very simple and award the loss automatically to whoever disconnects no matter what. There is no need of any subjective ruling that will always be subjected to drama. Yeah, because battle.net and other things that are completely out of your control should totally be held against a player. TL's policy is the proper policy.
If Battlenet is truly at fault, then in most cases both players will be dropped, not just one.
But fine, don't have auto loss. Check the replay and then decide if the disconnected player got a very clear advantage. If so, then allow a rematch.
Never, ever, award a win to someone that disconnects no matter how big the advantage is in favor of him. That would be completely unfair to the opponent.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:13 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:04 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 09 2010 12:01 Eury wrote:
Artosis is a child throwing a tantrum. When it comes to behavior and manners he really should start acting more like Tasteless instead of Idra.
But at least he is providing plenty of entertainment, I give him that.
Regarding the rules, just make it very simple and award the loss automatically to whoever disconnects no matter what. There is no need of any subjective ruling that will always be subjected to drama. Yeah, because battle.net and other things that are completely out of your control should totally be held against a player. TL's policy is the proper policy. If Battlenet is truly at fault, then in most cases both players will be dropped, not just one. But fine, don't have auto loss. Check the replay and then decide if the disconnected player got a very clear advantage. If so, then allow a rematch. Never, ever, award a win to someone that disconnects no matter how big the advantage is in favor of him. That would be completely unfair to the opponent.
i disagree, ofc they should be able to give a win to the disc if he got it 100% as Nazgul stated in the OP
-- on that note i think a solution could be:
Take away slush's TLI 2# title and price money and let artosis play against Cauthonluck in the finals.
And even though Slush should have conceded the game and given the win to artosis then he should get a showmatch with pricemoney to make up for it.
|
On May 09 2010 12:09 Tone_ wrote:
Seems like it was a heated response from Artosis towards TL and apologies from both are necessary.
I think it was up to sLush to concede graciously and it is actually there that the issue lies.
I agree. I think TL, though it made a wrong decision, can't really be blamed in this situation, especially given the apology issued in this thread. I also think Artosis' anger is 100% justified. In a situation like that, what SHOULD have happened is that slush should have given artosis the win.
Edit: I'm certainly not a high level player, so my opinion....may not mean that much.
|
TL: made a mistake in good faith
Artosis: got screwed by mistake, got emotional, and couldn't handle it like a mature adult (kind of understandable though given the situation)
Slush: took the regame even though he probably knew he lost, not deserving of respect (unless maybe he needed the money to pay for his sick mother's hospital bills or something lol)
|
Good response. Writing up a set of rules and judging procedures would really help in the future, since you can always look to the rules in a tough spot. There are really only a couple of disc scenarios, most of which Naz already lined out.
For this situation, some rule should be written beforehand to determine the difference between 99% winning a game (which would be regame), and effectively 100%. It doesn't really matter how you define 'effectively 100%', just that everyone is aware of it.
|
On May 09 2010 12:15 UbiNax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:13 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:04 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 09 2010 12:01 Eury wrote:
Artosis is a child throwing a tantrum. When it comes to behavior and manners he really should start acting more like Tasteless instead of Idra.
But at least he is providing plenty of entertainment, I give him that.
Regarding the rules, just make it very simple and award the loss automatically to whoever disconnects no matter what. There is no need of any subjective ruling that will always be subjected to drama. Yeah, because battle.net and other things that are completely out of your control should totally be held against a player. TL's policy is the proper policy. If Battlenet is truly at fault, then in most cases both players will be dropped, not just one. But fine, don't have auto loss. Check the replay and then decide if the disconnected player got a very clear advantage. If so, then allow a rematch. Never, ever, award a win to someone that disconnects no matter how big the advantage is in favor of him. That would be completely unfair to the opponent. i disagree, ofc they should be able to give a win to the disc if he got it 100% as Nazgul stated in the OP
It wasn't 100%.
100% would had been if Slush had an extractor and nothing else.
|
***Spoilers for the series here if that isn't obvious.***
Judging as a player I can say [I double checked the replay since it was noted I couldn't have been paying much attention the first time] that artosis did have the game 100% won. [I still say that the battle at the end may not have been 100% won, but there was no chance of comeback from slush]
As an admin with limited SC2 insight, I can definitely understand giving slush the regame. Remember you might think that the better player should win the regame as well, but considering how tilted artosis was, only regaming for risk of being DQ'd, it was no suprise that he lost the game.
Under pressure, from the flow of the tournament and the players themselves, you have to respect someone actually manning up and actually making a decision, right or wrong. And there will be people hating you for it either way. It's not an easy situation to make and I think you guys should be a bit more emphatic in this situation.
The only "manner" way to resolve the situation is for the player losing to forfeit. Not an easy thing to do but its the only way to avoid admins having a situation they don't want to be in.
|
Wait.. why TL has staff members who haven't played the game reviewing and making win/loss decisions in the first place 
|
Suggestion:
+ Show Spoiler + Artosis vs Cauthonluck Mock final-- give the people what they want!!
+ Show Spoiler + Artosis vs Slush best of 9 grudgematch!!
Headline grudgematch with the highly anticipated Idra vs Smuft -- talk about viewer numbers...
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:17 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:15 UbiNax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:13 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:04 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 09 2010 12:01 Eury wrote:
Artosis is a child throwing a tantrum. When it comes to behavior and manners he really should start acting more like Tasteless instead of Idra.
But at least he is providing plenty of entertainment, I give him that.
Regarding the rules, just make it very simple and award the loss automatically to whoever disconnects no matter what. There is no need of any subjective ruling that will always be subjected to drama. Yeah, because battle.net and other things that are completely out of your control should totally be held against a player. TL's policy is the proper policy. If Battlenet is truly at fault, then in most cases both players will be dropped, not just one. But fine, don't have auto loss. Check the replay and then decide if the disconnected player got a very clear advantage. If so, then allow a rematch. Never, ever, award a win to someone that disconnects no matter how big the advantage is in favor of him. That would be completely unfair to the opponent. i disagree, ofc they should be able to give a win to the disc if he got it 100% as Nazgul stated in the OP It wasn't 100%. 100% would had been if Slush had an extractor and nothing else.
not gonna discuss with you if it was 100% or not... the replay and OP speaks for itself
it was a 100% win
--
As i edited in my previous post just now.
on that note i think a solution could be:
Take away slush's TLI 2# title and price money and let artosis play against Cauthonluck in the finals.
And even though Slush should have conceded the game and given the win to artosis then he should get a showmatch with pricemoney to make up for it.
|
Very mature response by TL.
Artosis deserved this from playing as well as he did. I just hope that next time he can react to a sticky situation as maturely as TL has done here instead of flying off the handle. He played really well though and I am glad his play is getting the recognition it deserves with the 100% win. Hopefully he will have an equally professional and apologetic response for his rash behavior during the decision process.
|
On May 09 2010 12:20 UbiNax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:17 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:15 UbiNax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:13 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:04 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 09 2010 12:01 Eury wrote:
Artosis is a child throwing a tantrum. When it comes to behavior and manners he really should start acting more like Tasteless instead of Idra.
But at least he is providing plenty of entertainment, I give him that.
Regarding the rules, just make it very simple and award the loss automatically to whoever disconnects no matter what. There is no need of any subjective ruling that will always be subjected to drama. Yeah, because battle.net and other things that are completely out of your control should totally be held against a player. TL's policy is the proper policy. If Battlenet is truly at fault, then in most cases both players will be dropped, not just one. But fine, don't have auto loss. Check the replay and then decide if the disconnected player got a very clear advantage. If so, then allow a rematch. Never, ever, award a win to someone that disconnects no matter how big the advantage is in favor of him. That would be completely unfair to the opponent. i disagree, ofc they should be able to give a win to the disc if he got it 100% as Nazgul stated in the OP It wasn't 100%. 100% would had been if Slush had an extractor and nothing else. not gonna discuss with you if it was 100% or not... the replay and OP speaks for itself it was a 100% win
If you are not going to discuss it then I suggest you stop posting about it.
|
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
Obviously the have played Starcraft 2. But the "excuse" is that they do not play the game on the same level as these players to make a judgement. They called the game 99% / 1% in favor of Artosis and not 100% / 0%
O boy, wait till WCG/ESL and all those esports organizations come along.
|
On May 09 2010 12:04 BroOd wrote:
I'm going to post so you get the perspective of one of the people involved in reviewing the replay and coming to what we can now acknowledge was a poor decision.
At the time, we had to weigh the idea of 99% winning vs 100% winning. The line between the two is small but profound. As someone who hasn't played SC2 enough yet to know how large army battles will come out (I thought slush had the left-side battle won easily with those fungal growths), I couldn't say for certain that Slush had 0% chance of ever coming back in any possible universe. It was unfortunate that we didn't have someone more knowledgable on hand at the time to make a more informed call, but c'est la vie.
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?
That said, after having time to review the game and get input from better players than I, I can certainly defer to their opinion and concede that artosis had won 100%, and should have been awarded that win post-disconnect. At the time, it wasn't that clear, and the fairest option for both players seemed to be to offer a re-game. I can certainly say it was a mistake, and a very unfortunate situation for both artosis and slush. The most we can try to gain from this, like Nazgul said, is the ability to judge these situations better in the future.
I hope this helped explain some of the reasons why this whole situation boiled into what it did. When TL admins like Nazgul and Kennigit make tough decisions like this, they do so in good faith and with the best interests of the players and the tournament in mind, it's important to remember that.
The problem here is with the rules that Kennigit and the original decision enforced: the actual decision is left to the other player [ slush ]. It was entirely up to Slush to man up and say gg to concede the game or fall to plan B and let the regame happen which as all would agree is already unfair to Artosis before the rematch is even started.
What SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED and should happen in the future is there should always be one ref and one knowledgeable player. All this talk about preparation and hard work to continue the stream, all should agree it is not unreasonable to have at least 1 ref and 1 knowledgeable player at all times...Even in a situation like this where the tourney goes on for 8 hours or whatever. You admit that you are not familiar enough with SC2 to make a decision about armies. In a 99% won game, a knowledgeable player like Naz is gonna give it to Artosis aka the RIGHT DECISION. I think its funny how you are able to discern the difference between 99% and 100% yet just prior you mention how you are unable to judge the outcome of large army battles.
If there is 1 ref and 1 knowledgeable player for every game, the decision is never ever left up to one of the participating players. This is what is fair.
|
Great responce by tl. Tbh I think if one is massively ahead and gets DC's, they should do a rematch, not simply awarding the win to the other.
The losing playing is happy for a chance to get back in the game. For the winning player well its manly his fault that he DC'd, getting a rematch is already much better than being granted an instant loss so I think they'd be fine with it.
Btw I support Slush 100% for taking his chance. You enter a tournament to win, not to play gentleman. Just look in real sports how much BM there is.
|
Thank you for taking the time to make this post, Nazgul. I can sympathize with you in that events can be very stressful to run and sometimes mistakes are made. Very professional response.
|
Also consider if this was TSL2 and Nony was where Artosis was...lol what a shitstorm you'd have there. He said this in another thread but yeah its good he got his $0k without having to deal with incompetence.
|
On May 09 2010 11:44 NeoOmega wrote:
Nazgul's reaction > Kennigit reaction
.
They're both appropriate reactions. Both of them were/are right, IMO.
Normally I am rubbed the wrong way by Kennigit's lack of tact, but it's not as if Artosis was showing any tact either. I think based on his behavior, he got the best he deserved.
That said, obviously we can all watch that replay and judge that the only way Artosis would lose that game was if he just decided to stop trying for several minutes while Slush rebuilt, and even then he'd still have the advantage. So if they'd awarded him the win, you could say it's fair based on the overwhelming advantage he enjoyed.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:21 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:20 UbiNax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:17 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:15 UbiNax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:13 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:04 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 09 2010 12:01 Eury wrote:
Artosis is a child throwing a tantrum. When it comes to behavior and manners he really should start acting more like Tasteless instead of Idra.
But at least he is providing plenty of entertainment, I give him that.
Regarding the rules, just make it very simple and award the loss automatically to whoever disconnects no matter what. There is no need of any subjective ruling that will always be subjected to drama. Yeah, because battle.net and other things that are completely out of your control should totally be held against a player. TL's policy is the proper policy. If Battlenet is truly at fault, then in most cases both players will be dropped, not just one. But fine, don't have auto loss. Check the replay and then decide if the disconnected player got a very clear advantage. If so, then allow a rematch. Never, ever, award a win to someone that disconnects no matter how big the advantage is in favor of him. That would be completely unfair to the opponent. i disagree, ofc they should be able to give a win to the disc if he got it 100% as Nazgul stated in the OP It wasn't 100%. 100% would had been if Slush had an extractor and nothing else. not gonna discuss with you if it was 100% or not... the replay and OP speaks for itself it was a 100% win If you are not going to discuss it then I suggest you stop posting about it.
Oh as i said in my post " im not gonna discuss it with (you) " i will discuss it with anyone else because they clearly see that it was a 100% win which you dont.
The end.
|
It's a shame Nazgul was forced into posting this thanks to the childish reaction of not only Artosis but a vast majority of the posters in the thread he started.
|
I don't think that it's necessarily the right thing to do to make Slush forfeit his prize money or force him to continue playing for it. It was a bad call, but you can't just presume Artosis would have beaten all the opponents that Slush did. The right thing to do is to give Artosis a consolation prize or a seed in a future tourney.... or again, buy him a new stick of ram so he'll stop dc'ing, lol. =)
|
On May 09 2010 12:26 NukeGoesKABOOM wrote:
It's a shame Nazgul was forced into posting this thanks to the childish reaction of not only Artosis but a vast majority of the posters in the thread he started.
I think it's good for discussion sometimes. If TL can come out of this situation with a better known and discussed policy, there will be less drama/less chance of error than if this came up for a major tournament like TSL 3 (fingers crossed).
|
On May 09 2010 12:28 shinosai wrote:
...seed in a future tourney... =)
That sounds great O.o
|
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
We've all played it, very few of us are 1800+ plat. Still, we should've done more to get an authority on high-level play to review the replay.
While I'm posting... many of you seem to be under the impression that our decision was to give Slush the win. That's incorrect. We forced a re-game, which is quite different. Slush did beat Artosis in their final game. It's true they shouldn't have had to play that final game but Slush, for his part, earned his victory. We're the one's that messed up.
|
On May 09 2010 12:28 shinosai wrote:
I don't think that it's necessarily the right thing to do to make Slush forfeit his prize money or force him to continue playing for it. It was a bad call, but you can't just presume Artosis would have beaten all the opponents that Slush did. The right thing to do is to give Artosis a consolation prize or a seed in a future tourney.... or again, buy him a new stick of ram so he'll stop dc'ing, lol. =)
Agreed. Despite this shit of a drama, Slush played really well against both Louder and Cauthonluck.
|
On May 09 2010 12:23 Thamoo wrote:
Great responce by tl. Tbh I think if one is massively ahead and gets DC's, they should do a rematch, not simply awarding the win to the other.
The losing playing is happy for a chance to get back in the game. For the winning player well its manly his fault that he DC'd, getting a rematch is already much better than being granted an instant loss so I think they'd be fine with it.
Btw I support Slush 100% for taking his chance. You enter a tournament to win, not to play gentleman. Just look in real sports how much BM there is.
But an e-sports community has always been wrapped in the concept of good manner. Just because real sports is a "BM" event doesn't justify doing something like this. I'm a bit neutral on the whole issue as I wasn't here to watch it, but seeing someone else kick someone in the face doesn't justify your actions.
If Slush didn't man up, then he should have. That's the end of the story. It doesn't matter if Artosis was whining or whatever, if someone doesn't man up, then that's a BM play that shouldn't be accepted in an e-sports community.
|
Artosis won the game, Go watch the replay if you think he should have lost. The thing is, its in the past and there isnt anything we can do about it. So Artosis go and brush the dirt off your shoulders and lets all move on.
|
I feel people need to stop bashing Artosis, yea his temper got the best of him....but on the real tip...if you felt someone was going to snatch 300 dollars out of your hands you would get angry too.
|
On May 09 2010 12:34 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:23 Thamoo wrote:
Great responce by tl. Tbh I think if one is massively ahead and gets DC's, they should do a rematch, not simply awarding the win to the other.
The losing playing is happy for a chance to get back in the game. For the winning player well its manly his fault that he DC'd, getting a rematch is already much better than being granted an instant loss so I think they'd be fine with it.
Btw I support Slush 100% for taking his chance. You enter a tournament to win, not to play gentleman. Just look in real sports how much BM there is. But an e-sports community has always been wrapped in the concept of good manner. Just because real sports is a "BM" event doesn't justify doing something like this. I'm a bit neutral on the whole issue as I wasn't here to watch it, but seeing someone else kick someone in the face doesn't justify your actions. If Slush didn't man up, then he should have. That's the end of the story. It doesn't matter if Artosis was whining or whatever, if someone doesn't man up, then that's a BM play that shouldn't be accepted in an e-sports community.
This. It doesn't matter how well Slush played later. The fact is he should have forfeited that game, and didn't because he doesn't have integrity. I think Artosis acted childishly but he's 100% right not to play with Slush again.
|
On May 09 2010 12:35 JassyP wrote:
I feel people need to stop bashing Artosis, yea his temper got the best of him....but on the real tip...if you felt someone was going to snatch 300 dollars out of your hands you would get angry too.
He flipped out over a video game dude.
|
Things happen. You guys provide us with great tournaments and a platform to discuss/watch other great tournaments as well as discuss the game we all love to play. Mistakes happen everyday but having the fortitude to step up and admit a mistake is bigger than everything else I mentioned. Good job TL.
|
Artosis vs Louder, the only way to make this right 
|
Very classy post by Nazgul. I hope things work out better in the future.
|
On May 09 2010 12:37 NukeGoesKABOOM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:35 JassyP wrote:
I feel people need to stop bashing Artosis, yea his temper got the best of him....but on the real tip...if you felt someone was going to snatch 300 dollars out of your hands you would get angry too. He flipped out over a video game dude.
Lets hope your post count stays at 2.
|
Can you people just shut up about Slush being BM or whatever? He didn't disconnect there's nothing BM about playing a rematch when the other guy's computer fucks up.
[B]On May 09 2010 12:39 SuperXlax wrote:
Lets hope your post count stays at 2.
Oh boy the post count response, good manner TL.
|
On May 09 2010 12:37 NukeGoesKABOOM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:35 JassyP wrote:
I feel people need to stop bashing Artosis, yea his temper got the best of him....but on the real tip...if you felt someone was going to snatch 300 dollars out of your hands you would get angry too. He flipped out over a video game dude.
You'll go far with that attitude on a forum dedicated to said game...
Obvious troll is obvious; but at least your name will be appropriate at this rate.
|
On May 09 2010 12:40 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:37 NukeGoesKABOOM wrote:On May 09 2010 12:35 JassyP wrote:
I feel people need to stop bashing Artosis, yea his temper got the best of him....but on the real tip...if you felt someone was going to snatch 300 dollars out of your hands you would get angry too. He flipped out over a video game dude. You'll go far with that attitude on a forum dedicated to said game... Obvious troll is obvious; but at least your name will be appropriate at this rate.
Yeah get out NukeGoesKABOOM.....
|
Such BM by Slush. You could tell he was embarrassed by his inability to suppress the greed of winning at any cost.
|
Baltimore, USA22251 Posts
On May 09 2010 12:07 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:06 Xeris wrote:This really should have not happened in the first place , a reasoned decision should have been made from the get-go. If the tournament admins don't know the game enough to make a reasoned decision, other people should have been consulted. Naz is great for trying to rectify a situation that shouldn't have even happened in the first place. Artosis got dicked and that SUCKS Responses like this are EXACTLY what I'm talking about I'm coming from 2 years on iCCup and 3 seasons on PGTour as my listed experience in this matter. This is much much easier said than done especially when the players have already talked about and argued about it so that you're being pressured even more to make hte "right" decision.
Reinforcing what Raelcun just said to be true.
I was the ref in this game. To be up front, I'm absolutely not the most well versed player on SC2 game flow. While I can confidently say I'd be able to make an accurate judgement call in BW 99+% of the time, I'm definitely not that confident that I could make a similar call in SC2. So why would they allow me to ref a game if that's the case? To be honest, we were simply very short on available staff members and I had nothing going on today. I didn't even think I was going to be needed, but I was sitting in the channel at 2pm, they realized they needed another person, and I raised my hand to keep the tournament moving.
So, fast forward to the end of the first game #3. The drop screen pops up and counts down, both Slush and myself even left it up for another full minute or two just incase, but ultimately, yeah, Artosis had dropped. While the drop screen was up, I surveyed the situation asap - Artosis was up about 35 supply (both were still over 100), up a couple bases (although some weren't online with workers just yet), and had a better upgraded army. Slush still had standing units, and had 3k minerals in the bank. No one anywhere could dispute Artosis was ahead, but was it enough to award Artosis the win, and deny Slush his chance to comeback? I didn't know.
Second opinions were necessary, and several staff and veteran members quickly surveyed the situation and reviewed the replay. Keep in mind we had the pressure of a live cast going on with nothing casting at the moment; Not an excuse but a reality. From the people there at the time, no one felt 100% confident that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Slush to come back. Incredibly unlikely, but we were not absolutely certain. Given the information we had right then, in the middle of a live cast, we made what we thought was the best, most fair option at the time. Something I will gladly defend and justify, even if it ultimately turned out to be incorrect.
Keep in mind our #1 concern is to maintain fairness as much as possible for all players involved. In a situation like this, NO MATTER WHAT DECISION WE MAKE, someone will be unhappy(Go see the MSL finals if you don't know what I'm talking about). It's a bad situation for everyone to be in. Immediately after the game, Slush felt as if he still had a chance, even if a small one, to win. We had to examine that chance and at the time we felt that Artosis's advantage wasn't overwhelming enough to deny Slush that chance. A re-game was the fairest option.
As some of you saw in the chat logs and game chat, Artosis was definitely not happy with the decision, and reacted less than professionally, something that belies his ability and true character. For what it's worth, Artosis has already apologized to me personally for the way he acted after we informed him of the decision. Did he react excessively? Yes, most definitely. Do I blame him? No, not at all. I thought he had every right to be upset given the circumstances.
The only thing we can do now is learn from the experience and move forward. Better preperation could have definitely helped. Having more experts readily available to weigh in would have helped. Having more time to review the game and explore all possible scenarios could have helped. But we didn't have those this time around. We will next time, we owe that much to our players and to our spectators.
You guys are the best, and I appreciate the understanding and level-headedness that most people have shown during this.
|
On May 09 2010 12:25 UbiNax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:21 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:20 UbiNax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:17 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:15 UbiNax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:13 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:04 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 09 2010 12:01 Eury wrote:
Artosis is a child throwing a tantrum. When it comes to behavior and manners he really should start acting more like Tasteless instead of Idra.
But at least he is providing plenty of entertainment, I give him that.
Regarding the rules, just make it very simple and award the loss automatically to whoever disconnects no matter what. There is no need of any subjective ruling that will always be subjected to drama. Yeah, because battle.net and other things that are completely out of your control should totally be held against a player. TL's policy is the proper policy. If Battlenet is truly at fault, then in most cases both players will be dropped, not just one. But fine, don't have auto loss. Check the replay and then decide if the disconnected player got a very clear advantage. If so, then allow a rematch. Never, ever, award a win to someone that disconnects no matter how big the advantage is in favor of him. That would be completely unfair to the opponent. i disagree, ofc they should be able to give a win to the disc if he got it 100% as Nazgul stated in the OP It wasn't 100%. 100% would had been if Slush had an extractor and nothing else. not gonna discuss with you if it was 100% or not... the replay and OP speaks for itself it was a 100% win If you are not going to discuss it then I suggest you stop posting about it. Oh as i said in my post " im not gonna discuss it with (you) " i will discuss it with anyone else because they clearly see that it was a 100% win which you dont. The end.
You don't seem to understand what 100% means. That would mean that it was theoretical impossible for Slush to win, which just isn't the case. That would mean that even if you played the game trillion after trillion of times, Slush would never ever win the match. I have seen bigger comebacks than that in Starcraft before, and there have been way less than a trillion games played in the history of Starcraft..
|
On May 09 2010 12:39 NukeGoesKABOOM wrote:Can you people just shut up about Slush being BM or whatever? He didn't disconnect there's nothing BM about playing a rematch when the other guy's computer fucks up. Show nested quote +[B]On May 09 2010 12:39 SuperXlax wrote:
Lets hope your post count stays at 2. Oh boy the post count response, good manner TL.
It wasn't so much as a "post count response" it's more like "I would like you to never post again".
|
[B]On May 09 2010 12:41 Eury wrote:
You don't seem to understand what 100% means. That would mean that it was theoretical impossible for Slush to win, which just isn't the case.
Whoa an intelligent post about the debacle, didn't think I'd see one of those.
PS saying something you don't agree with aint trolling (aint directed at you Eury).
[B]On May 09 2010 12:44 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
I'm not sure why you're arguing this point. TL.net concedes that it was 100% win for Artosis and there are maybe.... 2 people on this website at the moment who have agreed with your stance?
Argumentum ad populum. TL is only doing this to appease the masses.
|
On May 09 2010 12:41 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:25 UbiNax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:21 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:20 UbiNax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:17 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:15 UbiNax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:13 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:04 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 09 2010 12:01 Eury wrote:
Artosis is a child throwing a tantrum. When it comes to behavior and manners he really should start acting more like Tasteless instead of Idra.
But at least he is providing plenty of entertainment, I give him that.
Regarding the rules, just make it very simple and award the loss automatically to whoever disconnects no matter what. There is no need of any subjective ruling that will always be subjected to drama. Yeah, because battle.net and other things that are completely out of your control should totally be held against a player. TL's policy is the proper policy. If Battlenet is truly at fault, then in most cases both players will be dropped, not just one. But fine, don't have auto loss. Check the replay and then decide if the disconnected player got a very clear advantage. If so, then allow a rematch. Never, ever, award a win to someone that disconnects no matter how big the advantage is in favor of him. That would be completely unfair to the opponent. i disagree, ofc they should be able to give a win to the disc if he got it 100% as Nazgul stated in the OP It wasn't 100%. 100% would had been if Slush had an extractor and nothing else. not gonna discuss with you if it was 100% or not... the replay and OP speaks for itself it was a 100% win If you are not going to discuss it then I suggest you stop posting about it. Oh as i said in my post " im not gonna discuss it with (you) " i will discuss it with anyone else because they clearly see that it was a 100% win which you dont. The end. You don't seem to understand what 100% means. That would mean that it was theoretical impossible for Slush to win, which just isn't the case. That would mean that even if you played the game trillion after trillion of times, Slush would never ever win the match. I have seen bigger comebacks than that in Starcraft before, and there have been way less than a trillion games played in the history of Starcraft..
Replays of said game please.
I'm not sure why you're arguing this point. TL.net concedes that it was 100% win for Artosis and there are maybe.... 2 people on this website at the moment who have agreed with your stance?
|
Though the issue of whether the game was over or not has pretty much already been decided, I'm hoping someone creates a UMS that faithfully depicts the game-state at the time of the disconnect.
It would be an interesting exercise to see if anyone can come back from Slush's position vs roughly equally skilled opposition.
|
So once again, I ask the question: was this "panel of judges to decide whether a game has been decided or not" in the rules agreed to prior to tournament, and in writing?
I personally think the first thing to do to clear up ALMOST ALL misunderstandings like this is to make it clear what the rules actually are regarding situations like this, and put it in writing in a link that everyone can see. If these written rules existed, most of this debacle could have been entirely avoided.
A LOT of this debate occurred over what the rules regarding situations like this actually were, and no one could really prove the other was wrong because I don't think these written rules exist. And as a result, people just gave their subjective opinions on what should occur in a situation like this because no objective procedure had been established.
|
On May 09 2010 12:37 NukeGoesKABOOM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:35 JassyP wrote:
I feel people need to stop bashing Artosis, yea his temper got the best of him....but on the real tip...if you felt someone was going to snatch 300 dollars out of your hands you would get angry too. He flipped out over a video game dude.
No one is contesting that fact...whenever money is involved people get serious. Its not just a video game, its his(and my) number one hobby/pasttime for years and anyone, not just Artosis would get angry when they felt cheated out of a win. All im saying is that maybe alittle understanding is what is needed to mend this bad situation.
|
On May 09 2010 12:41 Eury wrote:
You don't seem to understand what 100% means. That would mean that it was theoretical impossible for Slush to win, which just isn't the case. That would mean that even if you played the game trillion after trillion of times, Slush would never ever win the match. I have seen bigger comebacks than that in Starcraft before, and there have been way less than a trillion games played in the history of Starcraft..
This isnt a mathematics lecture. Leave the technicalities and semantics at the door please. Practically speaking, Artosis had the game won, 100%. If the game was played trillions of times, slush might have won a few. If the game was played a million times, he probably would not have. Have you even seen the replay? There haven't been many (if any) comebacks from a position as bad as that which Slush found himself in...
|
Man if you think about it. What sucks about this whole situation is that this shit ended up happening in the North American tournament.
|
It's funny how nobody considers Artosis fucking up towards the end of the game when a bunch of games in these high level tourneys for SC2 have ended for similar reasons since folks haven't played the game nonstop for 12 years.
|
On May 09 2010 12:51 NukeGoesKABOOM wrote:
It's funny how nobody considers Artosis fucking up towards the end of the game when a bunch of games in these high level tourneys for SC2 have ended for similar reasons since folks haven't played the game nonstop for 12 years.
I'm pretty sure everyone has considered the possibility, but reasoned that the chance of Artosis fucking up bad enough to actually lose his advantage in that game was negligible.
|
On May 09 2010 12:41 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:25 UbiNax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:21 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:20 UbiNax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:17 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:15 UbiNax wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 12:13 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:04 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 09 2010 12:01 Eury wrote:
Artosis is a child throwing a tantrum. When it comes to behavior and manners he really should start acting more like Tasteless instead of Idra.
But at least he is providing plenty of entertainment, I give him that.
Regarding the rules, just make it very simple and award the loss automatically to whoever disconnects no matter what. There is no need of any subjective ruling that will always be subjected to drama. Yeah, because battle.net and other things that are completely out of your control should totally be held against a player. TL's policy is the proper policy. If Battlenet is truly at fault, then in most cases both players will be dropped, not just one. But fine, don't have auto loss. Check the replay and then decide if the disconnected player got a very clear advantage. If so, then allow a rematch. Never, ever, award a win to someone that disconnects no matter how big the advantage is in favor of him. That would be completely unfair to the opponent. i disagree, ofc they should be able to give a win to the disc if he got it 100% as Nazgul stated in the OP It wasn't 100%. 100% would had been if Slush had an extractor and nothing else. not gonna discuss with you if it was 100% or not... the replay and OP speaks for itself it was a 100% win If you are not going to discuss it then I suggest you stop posting about it. Oh as i said in my post " im not gonna discuss it with (you) " i will discuss it with anyone else because they clearly see that it was a 100% win which you dont. The end. You don't seem to understand what 100% means. That would mean that it was theoretical impossible for Slush to win, which just isn't the case. That would mean that even if you played the game trillion after trillion of times, Slush would never ever win the match. I have seen bigger comebacks than that in Starcraft before, and there have been way less than a trillion games played in the history of Starcraft..
to make it really simple, artosis had 6 hatcheries to slush's 2. even if slush's muta force would have traded evenly with artosis' hydra/corruptor force (which they wouldn't have), slush would have been down to just 2 or more than likely 1 hatchery to produce from. it doesn't matter how much minerals he had in the bank, he just had no means to sufficiently reinforce after that conflict.
|
I don't think you guys should have apologized, especially given the less than mature response of Artosis. Refs make mistakes in every game in the world, yet professional players know to stay calm and not to debate the ref's decision.
Besides, I really don't see how he can get mad considering this was an invitational tournament and you guys could have invited someone else instead of him. If anything, he should be grateful he was given the chance to play.
|
EvilTeletubby FTW
I appreciate you.
|
On May 09 2010 12:41 EvilTeletubby wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:07 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:On May 09 2010 12:06 Xeris wrote:This really should have not happened in the first place , a reasoned decision should have been made from the get-go. If the tournament admins don't know the game enough to make a reasoned decision, other people should have been consulted. Naz is great for trying to rectify a situation that shouldn't have even happened in the first place. Artosis got dicked and that SUCKS Responses like this are EXACTLY what I'm talking about I'm coming from 2 years on iCCup and 3 seasons on PGTour as my listed experience in this matter. This is much much easier said than done especially when the players have already talked about and argued about it so that you're being pressured even more to make hte "right" decision. Reinforcing what Raelcun just said to be true. I was the ref in this game. To be up front, I'm absolutely not the most well versed player on SC2 game flow. While I can confidently say I'd be able to make an accurate judgement call in BW 99+% of the time, I'm definitely not that confident that I could make a similar call in SC2. So why would they allow me to ref a game if that's the case? To be honest, we were simply very short on available staff members and I had nothing going on today. I didn't even think I was going to be needed, but I was sitting in the channel at 2pm, they realized they needed another person, and I raised my hand to keep the tournament moving. So, fast forward to the end of the first game #3. The drop screen pops up and counts down, both Slush and myself even left it up for another full minute or two just incase, but ultimately, yeah, Artosis had dropped. While the drop screen was up, I surveyed the situation asap - Artosis was up about 35 supply (both were still over 100), up a couple bases (although some weren't online with workers just yet), and had a better upgraded army. Slush still had standing units, and had 3k minerals in the bank. No one anywhere could dispute Artosis was ahead, but was it enough to award Artosis the win, and deny Slush his chance to comeback? I didn't know. Second opinions were necessary, and several staff and veteran members quickly surveyed the situation and reviewed the replay. Keep in mind we had the pressure of a live cast going on with nothing casting at the moment; Not an excuse but a reality. From the people there at the time, no one felt 100% confident that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Slush to come back. Incredibly unlikely, but we were not absolutely certain. Given the information we had right then, in the middle of a live cast, we made what we thought was the best, most fair option at the time. Something I will gladly defend and justify, even if it ultimately turned out to be incorrect. Keep in mind our #1 concern is to maintain fairness as much as possible for all players involved. In a situation like this, NO MATTER WHAT DECISION WE MAKE, someone will be unhappy(Go see the MSL finals if you don't know what I'm talking about). It's a bad situation for everyone to be in. Immediately after the game, Slush felt as if he still had a chance, even if a small one, to win. We had to examine that chance and at the time we felt that Artosis's advantage wasn't overwhelming enough to deny Slush that chance. A re-game was the fairest option. As some of you saw in the chat logs and game chat, Artosis was definitely not happy with the decision, and reacted less than professionally, something that belies his ability and true character. For what it's worth, Artosis has already apologized to me personally for the way he acted after we informed him of the decision. Did he react excessively? Yes, most definitely. Do I blame him? No, not at all. I thought he had every right to be upset given the circumstances. The only thing we can do now is learn from the experience and move forward. Better preperation could have definitely helped. Having more experts readily available to weigh in would have helped. Having more time to review the game and explore all possible scenarios could have helped. But we didn't have those this time around. We will next time, we owe that much to our players and to our spectators. You guys are the best, and I appreciate the understanding and level-headedness that most people have shown during this.
This, combined with Nazgul's post, are why I love TL. Better this happen now than in the next TSL.
|
8748 Posts
I'd like to take a moment to apologize to TL.net staff about the way I responded to this issue. My stance on it polarized me against them and when I didn't gain any ground with somewhat civil discussion, I dropped all civility.
My suggestions:
(1) Artosis vs Cauthonluck showmatch. Call it the TLI finals in an alternate reality.*
(2) Disqualify Slush and bump everyone else up one place. If virtually everyone agrees that Artosis won that game, then virtually everyone agrees that Slush was in fact eliminated at the conclusion of that game. What actually happened is more important than what the ref called. I understand that there are good reasons to not continue to ref the match so long after its conclusion, but given the strong consensus that Artosis won, or more relevantly that Slush lost, I think it's worth considering.
*sorry Louder please don't take offense to this =]
|
On May 09 2010 12:41 EvilTeletubby wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:07 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:On May 09 2010 12:06 Xeris wrote:This really should have not happened in the first place , a reasoned decision should have been made from the get-go. If the tournament admins don't know the game enough to make a reasoned decision, other people should have been consulted. Naz is great for trying to rectify a situation that shouldn't have even happened in the first place. Artosis got dicked and that SUCKS Responses like this are EXACTLY what I'm talking about I'm coming from 2 years on iCCup and 3 seasons on PGTour as my listed experience in this matter. This is much much easier said than done especially when the players have already talked about and argued about it so that you're being pressured even more to make hte "right" decision. Reinforcing what Raelcun just said to be true. I was the ref in this game. To be up front, I'm absolutely not the most well versed player on SC2 game flow. While I can confidently say I'd be able to make an accurate judgement call in BW 99+% of the time, I'm definitely not that confident that I could make a similar call in SC2. So why would they allow me to ref a game if that's the case? To be honest, we were simply very short on available staff members and I had nothing going on today. I didn't even think I was going to be needed, but I was sitting in the channel at 2pm, they realized they needed another person, and I raised my hand to keep the tournament moving. So, fast forward to the end of the first game #3. The drop screen pops up and counts down, both Slush and myself even left it up for another full minute or two just incase, but ultimately, yeah, Artosis had dropped. While the drop screen was up, I surveyed the situation asap - Artosis was up about 35 supply (both were still over 100), up a couple bases (although some weren't online with workers just yet), and had a better upgraded army. Slush still had standing units, and had 3k minerals in the bank. No one anywhere could dispute Artosis was ahead, but was it enough to award Artosis the win, and deny Slush his chance to comeback? I didn't know. Second opinions were necessary, and several staff and veteran members quickly surveyed the situation and reviewed the replay. Keep in mind we had the pressure of a live cast going on with nothing casting at the moment; Not an excuse but a reality. From the people there at the time, no one felt 100% confident that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Slush to come back. Incredibly unlikely, but we were not absolutely certain. Given the information we had right then, in the middle of a live cast, we made what we thought was the best, most fair option at the time. Something I will gladly defend and justify, even if it ultimately turned out to be incorrect. Keep in mind our #1 concern is to maintain fairness as much as possible for all players involved. In a situation like this, NO MATTER WHAT DECISION WE MAKE, someone will be unhappy(Go see the MSL finals if you don't know what I'm talking about). It's a bad situation for everyone to be in. Immediately after the game, Slush felt as if he still had a chance, even if a small one, to win. We had to examine that chance and at the time we felt that Artosis's advantage wasn't overwhelming enough to deny Slush that chance. A re-game was the fairest option. As some of you saw in the chat logs and game chat, Artosis was definitely not happy with the decision, and reacted less than professionally, something that belies his ability and true character. For what it's worth, Artosis has already apologized to me personally for the way he acted after we informed him of the decision. Did he react excessively? Yes, most definitely. Do I blame him? No, not at all. I thought he had every right to be upset given the circumstances. The only thing we can do now is learn from the experience and move forward. Better preperation could have definitely helped. Having more experts readily available to weigh in would have helped. Having more time to review the game and explore all possible scenarios could have helped. But we didn't have those this time around. We will next time, we owe that much to our players and to our spectators. You guys are the best, and I appreciate the understanding and level-headedness that most people have shown during this.
/thread
|
I don't think you guys should have apologized, especially given the less than mature response of Artosis. Refs make mistakes in every game in the world, yet professional players know to stay calm and not to debate the ref's decision.
No Way. Read the responses of Kennegit and in the original thread, and then read Nazgul's and Teletubby's response in this one, and ask yourself which community you want to be a part of.
|
If I'm evantually in the final of a tournament and I'm way ahead, I'll intentionally lose my connection to be certain that I won't make a big mistake under all that stress.
Bad manner? prove it now.
|
maybe artosis should play louder? if he wins, then play cauthonluck. BO3. if he loses, play HuK? although HuK would probably not want to given his own PC problems..
|
Nice to see how the true Slush acts behind the scenes. That kind of attitude shouldn't be welcomed anywhere near the competitive gaming scene.
|
I sincerely hope that ESPN will report these kind of things someday as opposed to things like Tiger being a bit too frisky.
|
On May 09 2010 13:01 Thamoo wrote:
If I'm evantually in the final of a tournament and I'm way ahead, I'll intentionally lose my connection to be certain that I won't make a big mistake under all that stress.
Bad manner? prove it now.
If you had the game won 100% like Artosis did, then you get the win, albeit you also get to deal with controversy and dicks saying you didn't win.
|
On May 09 2010 12:57 Liquid`NonY wrote:
My suggestions:
(1) Artosis vs Cauthonluck showmatch. Call it the TLI finals in an alternate reality.
(2) Disqualify Slush and bump everyone else up one place. If virtually everyone agrees that Artosis won that game, then virtually everyone agrees that Slush was in fact eliminated at the conclusion of that game.
I agree
Take away slush's TLI 2# title and price money and let artosis play against Cauthonluck in the finals.
And then maybe setup a showmatch for slush with some pricemoney to make up for taking away his title and pricemoney from the finals.
" since you did let him play in the finals because of the call in the Artosis Slush match 3# "
|
On May 09 2010 12:57 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I'd like to take a moment to apologize to TL.net staff about the way I responded to this issue. My stance on it polarized me against them and when I didn't gain any ground with somewhat civil discussion, I dropped all civility.
My suggestions:
(1) Artosis vs Cauthonluck showmatch. Call it the TLI finals in an alternate reality.*
(2) Disqualify Slush and bump everyone else up one place. If virtually everyone agrees that Artosis won that game, then virtually everyone agrees that Slush was in fact eliminated at the conclusion of that game.
*sorry Louder please don't take offense to this =]
Retroactive disqualification is something that should be reserved for cheaters, imo.
In athletic sports refs that make obvious mistakes don't necessarily apologize, and they definitely don't reverse their decision after an event is over. But they do make up for it, often by making ticky-tac calls that benefit the player/team they 'wronged.' Because of the nature of e-sports, we can't do that. But we can apologize, and we can make up for it in other ways. I like your first suggestion.
|
^ Who is to say he would have beaten Louder though? Even though Nony doesn't intend to disrespect him, which is why backtracking this whole thing is just not worth it. Move on. Host TLI Asia next.
|
On May 09 2010 13:01 Thamoo wrote:
If I'm evantually in the final of a tournament and I'm way ahead, I'll intentionally lose my connection to be certain that I won't make a big mistake under all that stress.
Bad manner? prove it now.
Good luck proving that there's no way your opponent could win. Cause if you were in a situation to 100% win I've really got to question why you'd be so dense as to d/c... since there's considerably less than a 99% chance that the admins will agree with you.
|
On May 09 2010 13:03 Jyvblamo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 13:01 Thamoo wrote:
If I'm evantually in the final of a tournament and I'm way ahead, I'll intentionally lose my connection to be certain that I won't make a big mistake under all that stress.
Bad manner? prove it now. If you had the game won 100% like Artosis did, then you get the win, albeit you also get to deal with controversy and dicks saying you didn't win.
Don't care about 5-6 random dudes on the forums. Hell if most people side with artosis now, and when I'll do it I won't rage, I'm certain most people will side with me.
I'm obviously not really gonna do that, hell I'll probably never get in a real tournament. I'm just illustrating the flaws with such a policy. Where do you draw the lane? Who should draw that lane? Wouldn't that be proned to favoritism? Wouldn't there be some ways to abuse this?
The awnsers are ; Unknown, the top players, yes and yes.
On May 09 2010 13:07 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 13:01 Thamoo wrote:
If I'm evantually in the final of a tournament and I'm way ahead, I'll intentionally lose my connection to be certain that I won't make a big mistake under all that stress.
Bad manner? prove it now. Good luck proving that there's no way your opponent could lose. Cause if you were in a situation to 100% win I've really got to question why you'd be so dense as to d/c... since there's considerably less than a 99% chance that the admins will agree with you.
100% is an exageration. What if I'm at 98%? Who's going to judge at exactly how many % I am? Don't you think people will have differant views on that number? If I know that in a particular situation (because of past games where people legitly DC'd) the refs will side by me, theres really no reasons not to intentionally DC to avoid making a big blunder. (Except not being an ass, but you can't really count on that)
|
|
|
On May 09 2010 13:07 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 13:01 Thamoo wrote:
If I'm evantually in the final of a tournament and I'm way ahead, I'll intentionally lose my connection to be certain that I won't make a big mistake under all that stress.
Bad manner? prove it now. Good luck proving that there's no way your opponent could lose. Cause if you were in a situation to 100% win I've really got to question why you'd be so dense as to d/c... since there's considerably less than a 99% chance that the admins will agree with you.
His whole point would be that there would be no way to prove whether he d/c'd intentionally or because of a game error. Much like it is in this situation.
|
On May 09 2010 12:37 NukeGoesKABOOM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:35 JassyP wrote:
I feel people need to stop bashing Artosis, yea his temper got the best of him....but on the real tip...if you felt someone was going to snatch 300 dollars out of your hands you would get angry too. He flipped out over a video game dude.
StarCraft is literally Artosis life dude. His job. His sport. His passion. And he was robbed.
Nice response from Nazgul though. I am sure nothing will happen like this again. TL is still awesome.
|
On May 09 2010 13:08 XtrEEmMaShEEN3k2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 13:07 shinosai wrote:On May 09 2010 13:01 Thamoo wrote:
If I'm evantually in the final of a tournament and I'm way ahead, I'll intentionally lose my connection to be certain that I won't make a big mistake under all that stress.
Bad manner? prove it now. Good luck proving that there's no way your opponent could lose. Cause if you were in a situation to 100% win I've really got to question why you'd be so dense as to d/c... since there's considerably less than a 99% chance that the admins will agree with you. His whole point would be that there would be no way to prove whether he d/c'd intentionally or because of a game error. Much like it is in this situation.
My whole point is he's attacking a strawman. He's attacking the situation where he's "in the lead" and not where he's got the game in the bag. And if it is the case that he's got the game in the bag, he'd have to be mentally retarded to then leave it up to the admins who may or may not side with him.
|
I agree with everything in the OP but I won't believe that it takes hours to come to a conclusion in games like that. You really only need to look at the replay for about a minute (check expos, army, upgrades, supply, etc.) and come to a conclusion.
|
8748 Posts
On May 09 2010 13:04 Tadzio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:57 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I'd like to take a moment to apologize to TL.net staff about the way I responded to this issue. My stance on it polarized me against them and when I didn't gain any ground with somewhat civil discussion, I dropped all civility.
My suggestions:
(1) Artosis vs Cauthonluck showmatch. Call it the TLI finals in an alternate reality.*
(2) Disqualify Slush and bump everyone else up one place. If virtually everyone agrees that Artosis won that game, then virtually everyone agrees that Slush was in fact eliminated at the conclusion of that game.
*sorry Louder please don't take offense to this =] Retroactive disqualification is something that should be reserved for cheaters, imo. In athletic sports refs that make obvious mistakes don't necessarily apologize, and they definitely don't reverse their decision after an event is over. But they do make up for it, often by making ticky-tac calls that benefit the player/team they 'wronged.' Because of the nature of e-sports, we can't do that. But we can apologize, and we can make up for it in other ways. I like your first suggestion.
I know that following the precedent of similar organizations/events often produces the best results, but it should never be the strongest reason for doing something. I think it would be best to first consider what the most just outcome is, considering only the details of this particular event. If you feel that it is more just to keep Slush as your champion than to disqualify him, then it's perfectly good to solidify your initial conclusion by seeing that it agrees with precedents. But if you think it might be more just to disqualify him, I think it's a mistake to overrule that thinking with precedents.
|
I just hope Artosis doesn't leave us... That would be terrible.
Artosis vs Cauthonluck Showmatch go!
|
On May 09 2010 13:13 Clow wrote:
I just hope Artosis doesn't leave us... That would be terrible.
Artosis vs Cauthonluck Showmatch go!
hehe im sure he wont turn down future TL events or leave the TL forum/Community because of this, its just a headache/ a bump in the road, bet he is already back up on his feet.
|
I think Artosis is directing his hate towards the wrong people. the REFS told Slush to regame, its not like Slush was putting up a fight going "OMG I HAD A CHANCE, REGAME"..
Slush was just doing what the refs were told. and Artosis should be pissed at them, rather than be pissed at Slush.
It seems like a situation where Artosis knows he has so many fans, he doesnt even care about the rules, he just wants to make a stink and get people hating Slush for doing what the refs told him.
|
On May 09 2010 13:12 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 13:04 Tadzio wrote:On May 09 2010 12:57 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I'd like to take a moment to apologize to TL.net staff about the way I responded to this issue. My stance on it polarized me against them and when I didn't gain any ground with somewhat civil discussion, I dropped all civility.
My suggestions:
(1) Artosis vs Cauthonluck showmatch. Call it the TLI finals in an alternate reality.*
(2) Disqualify Slush and bump everyone else up one place. If virtually everyone agrees that Artosis won that game, then virtually everyone agrees that Slush was in fact eliminated at the conclusion of that game.
*sorry Louder please don't take offense to this =] Retroactive disqualification is something that should be reserved for cheaters, imo. In athletic sports refs that make obvious mistakes don't necessarily apologize, and they definitely don't reverse their decision after an event is over. But they do make up for it, often by making ticky-tac calls that benefit the player/team they 'wronged.' Because of the nature of e-sports, we can't do that. But we can apologize, and we can make up for it in other ways. I like your first suggestion. I know that following the precedent of similar organizations/events often produces the best results, but it should never be the strongest reason for doing something. I think it would be best to first consider what the most just outcome is, considering only the details of this particular event. If you feel that it is more just to keep Slush as your champion than to disqualify him, then it's perfectly good to solidify your initial conclusion by seeing that it agrees with precedents. But if you think it might be more just to disqualify him, I think it's a mistake to overrule that thinking with precedents.
I think it's more just to allow Slush to remain champion. Everygame he won, he won on his own merits. It's true that he got a second chance in the Artosis series, but that's our fault, not his. You can think he's slimy for taking advantage of our mistake, but I don't think there's any way we could justify revoking his accomplishments. And even if we did, it would not give Artosis-- the victim of our ignorance-- justice.
It is most responsible to recognize Slush's accomplishment and celebrate it, admit our faults, and repair our relationship with Artosis, and tournament gamers in general.
|
|
|
I know that following the precedent of similar organizations/events often produces the best results, but it should never be the strongest reason for doing something. I think it would be best to first consider what the most just outcome is, considering only the details of this particular event. If you feel that it is more just to keep Slush as your champion than to disqualify him, then it's perfectly good to solidify your initial conclusion by seeing that it agrees with precedents. But if you think it might be more just to disqualify him, I think it's a mistake to overrule that thinking with precedents.
But the thing is, Slush didn't just (not) beat Artosis...he also went on to take down two other players as well in totally legit fashion. If his games versus Artosis had been the finals, then I agree, Slush should be disqualified; but that's not the case here. Slush won the semi-finals and finals straight up, even if he got there in a questionable fashion. It just wouldn't be fair to disqualify him now, after the fact.
But, yeah, something should be done as recompense for Artosis...if only just the community raising a few hundred dollars for him.
Ah, well...looking forward to the next TLI!
|
Guess I am going to have to watch Artosis vs Slush when I see it posted...
|
8748 Posts
On May 09 2010 13:20 Tadzio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 13:12 Liquid`NonY wrote:On May 09 2010 13:04 Tadzio wrote:On May 09 2010 12:57 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I'd like to take a moment to apologize to TL.net staff about the way I responded to this issue. My stance on it polarized me against them and when I didn't gain any ground with somewhat civil discussion, I dropped all civility.
My suggestions:
(1) Artosis vs Cauthonluck showmatch. Call it the TLI finals in an alternate reality.*
(2) Disqualify Slush and bump everyone else up one place. If virtually everyone agrees that Artosis won that game, then virtually everyone agrees that Slush was in fact eliminated at the conclusion of that game.
*sorry Louder please don't take offense to this =] Retroactive disqualification is something that should be reserved for cheaters, imo. In athletic sports refs that make obvious mistakes don't necessarily apologize, and they definitely don't reverse their decision after an event is over. But they do make up for it, often by making ticky-tac calls that benefit the player/team they 'wronged.' Because of the nature of e-sports, we can't do that. But we can apologize, and we can make up for it in other ways. I like your first suggestion. I know that following the precedent of similar organizations/events often produces the best results, but it should never be the strongest reason for doing something. I think it would be best to first consider what the most just outcome is, considering only the details of this particular event. If you feel that it is more just to keep Slush as your champion than to disqualify him, then it's perfectly good to solidify your initial conclusion by seeing that it agrees with precedents. But if you think it might be more just to disqualify him, I think it's a mistake to overrule that thinking with precedents. I think it's more just to allow Slush to remain champion. Everygame he won, he won on his own merits. It's true that he got a second chance in the Artosis series, but that's our fault, not his. You can think he's slimy for taking advantage of our mistake, but I don't think there's any way we could justify revoking his accomplishments. And even if we did, it would not give Artosis-- the victim of our ignorance-- justice. It is most responsible to recognize Slush's accomplishment and celebrate it, admit our faults, and repair our relationship with Artosis, and tournament gamers in general.
Yeah, the only thing that gets me is that he did not earn a regame. I believe that in those 27 minutes of play, he earned a loss. And then that changes the way I feel about the whole thing.
|
On May 09 2010 12:37 NukeGoesKABOOM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:35 JassyP wrote:
I feel people need to stop bashing Artosis, yea his temper got the best of him....but on the real tip...if you felt someone was going to snatch 300 dollars out of your hands you would get angry too. He flipped out over a video game dude.
This is what Artosis devotes his life and career too.... its more than a game to him.
but ya i think he could have handled him self a bit better, but as you see he was right about the situation.
i would like to see a show match when things blow over, i think it would be a great game.
|
France1919 Posts
TL staff will learn from this and won't repeat the same mistake in the future.
That make me say that Artosis is such a baller, he is contributing to the SC community even when he disc in a tournament.
|
On May 09 2010 13:18 Skyze wrote:
I think Artosis is directing his hate towards the wrong people. the REFS told Slush to regame, its not like Slush was putting up a fight going "OMG I HAD A CHANCE, REGAME"..
Slush was just doing what the refs were told. and Artosis should be pissed at them, rather than be pissed at Slush.
It seems like a situation where Artosis knows he has so many fans, he doesnt even care about the rules, he just wants to make a stink and get people hating Slush for doing what the refs told him.
Well you must know more than us.
|
As some idiot with like 5 posts on TL, I'd say that while the fair thing to do would be to DQ Slush and have Artosis play Louder and have the winner play Cauthon, though it wouldn't necessarily be appropriate or reasonable.
Slush's POV should be disregarded. He lost, and then manipulated a self-proclaimed newbie (who inexplicably got himself into a position to referee the game) into awarding him the regame, cheesing his way to the championship. If his title was stripped, I would fully support it, but I don't know if that's realistic or reasonable in any way.
It's pretty open-and-shut for what's right. Whether or not it's appropriate is another matter, but once the people running the tournament come out and admit that Artosis won, and their so-called champion lost, you can't exactly trot him out as your champion.
|
8748 Posts
On May 09 2010 13:24 Captain Peabody wrote:Show nested quote +I know that following the precedent of similar organizations/events often produces the best results, but it should never be the strongest reason for doing something. I think it would be best to first consider what the most just outcome is, considering only the details of this particular event. If you feel that it is more just to keep Slush as your champion than to disqualify him, then it's perfectly good to solidify your initial conclusion by seeing that it agrees with precedents. But if you think it might be more just to disqualify him, I think it's a mistake to overrule that thinking with precedents. But the thing is, Slush didn't just (not) beat Artosis...he also went on to take down two other players as well in totally legit fashion. If his games versus Artosis had been the finals, then I agree, Slush should be disqualified; but that's not the case here. Slush won the semi-finals and finals straight up, even if he got there in a questionable fashion. It just wouldn't be fair to disqualify him now, after the fact.
But the order of events is completely relevant here. It is a strange circumstance that Slush ended up playing a bunch of games that don't matter but that doesn't change the fact that the games don't matter. He lost in the Ro8 so his result should reflect that.
Anyway, this is just my suggestion. I don't believe it's the only reasonable way to respond to conclude the issue but it is where I end up.
|
On May 09 2010 12:57 Liquid`NonY wrote:
My suggestions:
(1) Artosis vs Cauthonluck showmatch. Call it the TLI finals in an alternate reality.*
(2) Disqualify Slush and bump everyone else up one place. If virtually everyone agrees that Artosis won that game, then virtually everyone agrees that Slush was in fact eliminated at the conclusion of that game. What actually happened is more important than what the ref called. I understand that there are good reasons to not continue to ref the match so long after its conclusion, but given the strong consensus that Artosis won, or more relevantly that Slush lost, I think it's worth considering.
*sorry Louder please don't take offense to this =]
Totally stole my idea Nony
On May 09 2010 12:20 zTz wrote:Suggestion: + Show Spoiler + Artosis vs Cauthonluck Mock final-- give the people what they want!! Artosis vs Slush best of 9 grudgematch!!
Headline grudgematch with the highly anticipated Idra vs Smuft -- talk about viewer numbers...
although I agree with previous post -- cannot take away his winning, the matches would be the best way to serve "justice" and create an exciting event for our community
|
Trying to get him in a showmatch against Louder or CauthonLuck sounds like a good idea.
Flipping out over a referee decision that you disagree with is a pretty common occurrence in sports, so I can understand Artosis's reaction. Slush did go 2-2 against Artosis, though.
|
artosis owned by his own pc rofl
|
slush should at least give artosis half the price money, they are 2:2
|
I remember after the MSL Finals that many people were pissed that Jaedong got the win, even though Flash had a small chance of recovering and people argued that Flash deserved a regame. This was a lose-lose situation for TL Staff.
|
On May 09 2010 11:37 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
So as you are well aware of by now a disc occurred in game 3 of Slush vs Artosis. Artosis disced while he was ahead. Our regular policy for tournaments is that if you disc you can't get a win by just being ahead. If you are a 99/1 favorite to win the game we will not hand out a loss to the non-discing player. It's not his fault his chances to come back were taken away and he is completely innocent in the situation. However we also have the policy that if in the rare occasion a game is 100% won but the opponent didn't gg yet (weird as it may sound this does happen every now and then) we award the win to the player that had the game in the bag. Whoever disced.
Well, there's the policy in writing folks. Glad it was clarified. But how can the opponent know when to gg? Was this really a situation where Slush could have gg'd but didn't?
|
Haven't read through all the comments so I am sure that this has been said many times, but I gotta give major major props to TL.
Not because of making a right or wrong decision, but because they are so open, honest, and earnest about being the best tournament admins they can be. They can probably get away with not caring and not taking the time to really be fair, since we all know we would be loyal to TL either way, but they don't and you gotta love it.
|
I love comebacks and love the never say die attitude, it is a true test of character to strive against all odds and succeed.Don't talk bad about slush for having this quality in his character. I agree with teletubby's decision that since slush still had over 100 supply and 3k in the bank (that buys a LOT of lings lol!) the game wasn't 100% but more importantly, TL has shown it's quality of character by doing everything they can to make amends with all parties concerned. I think in the future it may be prudent to extend any series in which something like this happens (ex. make a bo3 into a bo5) so that no one can say they weren't given an opportunity to have the match decided by skill and skill alone. Also Artosis, a person who creates content that I absolutely love, I'm very disappointed to hear how he acted,especially considering he knew before hand that this was a possibility and it was his end that had a problem. If you ever watch UFC, Dana white tells the fighters every time "Never leave it in the hands of the judges". Also enough of the talk of rematch and alternate universe B.S. there will be plenty more tourneys and I'm sure these two will meet again. It's only Beta afterall! We have many years of intense sc2 ahead, so smile and think about all we have yet to see!!
|
Ok so, I missed the TLI hopefully the vods will be posted later but can someone please tell me how artosis threw a tantrum? Im very interested to know. I really hope its recorded in the livestream channel so that I can go watch it when my comp finally gets fixed.
|
"It's not his fault his chances to come back were taken away and he is completely innocent in the situation."
so was artosis
+ mental advantage for slush
advice for upcoming TL event players: if you think your losing or u get surprised by some cheese strat proxy or whatever, just disc on purpose.
|
On May 09 2010 13:36 KingV wrote:
I remember after the MSL Finals that many people were pissed that Jaedong got the win, even though Flash had a small chance of recovering and people argued that Flash deserved a regame. This was a lose-lose situation for TL Staff.
Except that was MBC's fault, artosis knew he had problems with lagging/disconnecting in the past.
|
I breathed a huge sigh of relief when I read this thread. Artosis has a very different mindset in approaching Starcraft than I do, so sometimes I feel like I'm on the "other" side of the fence with respect to him. But the man was robbed. This guy that pours his soul into this game was robbed of the sweet victory that he most certainly deserved.
I'm glad that TL openly acknowledges that it was a terrible mistake. I was headed straight to Nony-town, but I think that's just because I lacked faith in TL.
There is absolutely nothing anyone can ever do to give this back to Artosis. No one can ever give him what he deserves. I really feel terrible for him. Somehow this thread has become filled with hate (some even towards the victim! what the fuck is wrong with you people?). Slush will come to regret the decisions he made today, and no harm or ill that anyone wishes on him will do any worse than what he has set up for himself. People hating on Artosis... should seek mental help. Like a homeless person beaten, robbed, and butchered - and then the witnesses crowd around complaining about the stench his corpse makes.
|
My suggestion would be for teamliquid staff to act more professionally. Just because artosis throws a tantrum doesn't mean the admins should do the same. Kennigit coming into the thread and raging and name calling and telling people fuck you will doesnt help the situation. Props to Naz for being the better man and clarifying things with the official statement. Yes, it was a mistake, but going about things professionally will make tense situations like these go much smoother and will continue to allow TL events to maintain their credibility.
|
Baltimore, USA22251 Posts
On May 09 2010 13:29 dew wrote:
Slush's POV should be disregarded. He lost, and then manipulated a self-proclaimed newbie (who inexplicably got himself into a position to referee the game) into awarding him the regame, cheesing his way to the championship. If his title was stripped, I would fully support it, but I don't know if that's realistic or reasonable in any way.
As the "self-proclaimed" newbie here, I want to clarify where you are mistaken.
Slush did not manipulate a damn thing. Immediately after Artosis dropped, I talked to Slush. I simply needed to find out if he wished to concede (ie, feeling like he didn't have a chance), or wanted to put it in our hands. He felt at the time (obviously biased and without perfect information) that he still had a shot. He had units, and he had some minerals. At that point, it was in our hands.
That's the second part where you're incorrect - I did not award a regame by myself. In fact, seeking to be as objective as possible, we quickly uploaded the replay and had several veteran/staff members review the replay (all the while, Slush is waiting quietly, not 'manipulating us' into giving him a regame). We came to a group consensus that a regame was the best option.
Finally - It's not like allowing a regame completely discredits what Slush could do. Obviously, he beat two other very formidable opponents after the Artosis decision, so to say "cheesing his way to the championship" is doing him a severe disservice.
Did Slush genuinely feel like he had a chance? Or did he know he had lost but was simply trying to see if he could get a second chance? Only one person truly knows. But either way, there are some ridiculous attempts to demonize and discredit the guy that I find are completely unfounded.
|
advice for upcoming TL event players: if you think your losing or u get surprised by some cheese strat proxy or whatever, just disc on purpose.
If you're losing and you disc you get a loss. If you're winning and your opponent discs you get a win. If you're winning and you disc you get a regame unless you couldn't lose anymore. If you're losing and he discs you will get a regame unless you couldn't win anymore.
|
Well, under any circumstance i'm with Artosis, Slush should have shown some sportsmanship and admit that it was over.
|
People are saying slush had over 100 supply at the end of the game, how can that possibly mean no chance of comeback? Way too much artosis fanboyism around here.
edit: I also think its sad that nony thinks it would be OK to take the win away from slush retroactively. Then you'd have two victims of poor decisions instead of one.
|
Baltimore, USA22251 Posts
On May 09 2010 13:46 fiGGedyFliP wrote:
advice for upcoming TL event players: if you think your losing or u get surprised by some cheese strat proxy or whatever, just disc on purpose.
It looks like Nazgul already responded to you, but you severely missed the point here. Lets assume the positions were reversed and Slush had disconnected - We would have called the game an Artosis victory in mere seconds.
|
On May 09 2010 13:53 artanis2 wrote:
People are saying slush had over 100 supply at the end of the game, how can that possibly mean no chance of comeback? Way too much artosis fanboyism around here.
edit: I also think its sad that nony thinks it would be OK to take the win away from slush retroactively. Then you'd have two victims of poor decisions instead of one.
You kind of need to watch the replay to understand. I think they took the thread with the link down tho 
|
On May 09 2010 13:49 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
[
If you're losing and you disc you get a loss. If you're winning and your opponent discs you get a win. If you're winning and you disc you get a regame unless you couldn't lose anymore. If you're losing and he discs you will get a regame unless you couldn't win anymore.
you should make this a sticky thread in tournies forum
|
Can anyone say Flash vs. Jaedong?
But my honest opinion is that Slush can keep his damn 300 bucks (and have tons of people hate him), but that we open up a place for people to donate money (stopping @ 300 bucks) and give it to Artosis because he was robbed.
But before anyone thinks that i decided that Artosis was right and the admins fucked up, allow me to explain my point of view.
1. Artosis was right in his belief that he was robbed
2. Slush was wrong in his belief that he could have won
3. Slush (although, not bad mannered, because he did not technically do anything that was bad mannered, was an ass after that game and handled the situation as one)
4. The admins lost either way, if they said Artosis won, Slush would create this thread and say that he was jipped. On the other hand by giving the regame made it an unfair for Artosis.
5. I personally think that Artosis deserved the win and Slush is an ass.
:D
|
On May 09 2010 13:53 artanis2 wrote:
People are saying slush had over 100 supply at the end of the game, how can that possibly mean no chance of comeback? Way too much artosis fanboyism around here.
edit: I also think its sad that nony thinks it would be OK to take the win away from slush retroactively. Then you'd have two victims of poor decisions instead of one.
You're grossly oversimplifying the situation. He had no chance to comeback because his army was directly countered by his opponents and he had no means to produce a counter because he did not have enough hatcheries. The only way you could fool someone into believing 100 supply means he had a chance of comeback is if you actually believe 3-2 hydras can somehow be beaten by 1-0 mutas (hint: they can't, even if you go afk from your computer and your opponent attacks them while you aren't there, they'll still be decimated)
|
Most of this thread:
O HAI OMG TL MADE A MISTAKE RAGE RAGE RAGE
Shit happens guys, the nice thing about mistakes is you learn from them and when have you ever seen TL repeat a mistake? Why is everyone being so overly dramatic? It was a tight call either way the thing you have to keep in mind from an admin's perspective is you cannot account for decisions the player will make. It is possible that some mistake could have been make and Slush would get a chance to get back in the game given his mineral supply it's understandable why the decision that was made was made once you sit down and think about it.
It's the same concept as a jury, if you have any reasonable doubt in this situation that the player wasn't GOING to win then you can't award a win. Commentators myself included these days are partially at fault because the viewers want in depth analysis and want to know who is "winning" so sometimes commentators will stretch a situation where a player is way ahead to "oh well this game is just about over" when this is not true. Watch enough games and you'll see how often when you think "oh geeze this is over" that someone somehow manages to turn it around based on some great play. Micro and decision making are not things you can account for when making a decision on a disc case which makes it very tough to decide.
|
On May 09 2010 13:53 artanis2 wrote:
People are saying slush had over 100 supply at the end of the game, how can that possibly mean no chance of comeback? Way too much artosis fanboyism around here.
edit: I also think its sad that nony thinks it would be OK to take the win away from slush retroactively. Then you'd have two victims of poor decisions instead of one.
The win has already been "taken away" retroactively. It has been ever since this topic was written up by Nazgul. It's just a question of whether TL is content to simply award Slush a 1-2 victory, or if it's worth doing another regame with, by all accounts, the players who belonged there.
Maybe I was too harsh on some individuals in my earlier post, but my personal position stands. It would be an absolute mockery if TL comes out and says that Slush didn't win his Quarterfinal series, yet still has the championship. Either stick to your guns or regame the matches with the players who earned the spot. What TL seems to be trying to do is have it both ways.
Either stand by your call or don't, just don't say "the call was wrong but we're gonna say the guy who lost won anyway". It doesn't make any sense.
|
The reason he "had no chance" was because his 100 supply was tied up in 22 0/1 mutalisks, 9 roaches that were about to die, and a legion of drones that were also about to die because Artosis had his hydra army in Slush's last mining base.
Given Artosis's level of play, it is therefore believed that Slush could not have recovered and that it was the last battle of the game. Of course, if Artosis made some complete noob mistake like dancing his hydras around without attacking, Slush might've been able to recover, but many/most would feel that is beyond the realm of reasonable chance.
|
|
|
On Slush: Slush, in my opinion, behaved conservatively. He left the decision to the judges. Which is his right as a player. When Artosis was attacking him in chat, he didn't give in to the rage and attacked Artosis.
To some of the fans, the ideal situation would have been for Slush to concede defeat. That, I think, would have boosted his rep. But he didn't and I don't think there's anything wrong when players defer the ruling to the judges/umpires (just like in regular sports--even if sometimes bad calls are made).
Also, bear in mind that it's a different scenario when you're actually playing in a game and watching it as a detached observer (with a view of the entire match). There's also a lot of factors in the game. While I do think Artosis would have won if the game continued for 20 more seconds, the fact is, that didn't happen. Maybe Artosis would somehow mess up his army by splitting it (I don't think this would have happened BTW, but it is a possibility, even if it's as 1% chance). Maybe Artosis's tech problems would screw him more during the battle (which isn't Artosis fault but that's the conditions he's playing under, just like in an open field sports game, it might suddenly rain or the ground might be muddy). Hence the initial decision that Slush could have made a comeback.
On Team Liquid: There are usually two ways to make a ruling. One is to take a clear-cut universal approach. For example, if a player disconnects, that's the equivalent of forfeiture. It doesn't take into account the unique circumstances of the situation but on the upside, it's easy to determine who is at fault or not (it's binary--either it's a yes or a no). If there was a power outage at Battle.net for example, then this would have resulted in both players (Artosis and Slush) to have forfeited. (Now whether this is a tie or warrants a rematch is left to the judge, unless there is another universal ruling taking this into account.) This type of ruling was more or less in place, since it's the easiest way to adjucate a match and to clamp down on abuse.
The other way is to have a panel or a judge arbitrate the decision. This probably would have satisfied Artosis, and would have been awarded the win had this been the route taken. However, the reason why this method isn't usually chosen is that it consumes a lot of time and requires a certain level of expertise (the high level players that were absent which Kennigit admitted). This is the way the legal system works (hence the presence of a jury, the presence of experts, and the long time involved in court proceedings) but can also be impractical in some games. The problem with arbitration is that the rulings aren't as clear-cut, and because that's so, no matter what the judge's decision is, some players will always be dissatisfied with the decision.
In other sports, there's usually a concession between the two. There are clear-cut rules and there's some leeway for the referees/umpires to make a judgment call, such as whether an action is a technical fowl for example in basketball. Arguing with the referee's decision (even if they're in the wrong) takes some time and it's honestly impractical to halt a basketball game for 1 hour just to check whether the past 15 seconds was legal or not, hence the enforcement of leaving it up to the decision of the referee. Starcraft II however isn't basketball, and it can be argued whether there was enough time to assess the replay and determine who should have won that match, but the tourney organizers felt that they didn't have the time (and felt the pressure to come up with a decision), and so they made the best decision they could at the time.
|
On May 09 2010 14:03 Azarkon wrote:
The reason he "had no chance" was because his 100 supply was tied up in 22 0/1 mutalisks, 9 roaches that were about to die, and a legion of drones that were also about to die because Artosis had his hydra army in Slush's last mining base.
Given Artosis's level of play, it is therefore believed that Slush could not have recovered and that it was the last battle of the game. Of course, if Artosis made some complete noob mistake like dancing his hydras around without attacking, Slush might've been able to recover, but many/most would feel that is beyond the realm of reasonable chance.
This is what I'm talking about when you are deciding a disconnect case you cannot take into account the players you have to be neutral and say that anything could have happened at this point because realistically anything could have. SO his last mining base goes down there is a chance that Slush could catch him out of position and use his mineral surplus to remake drones. Personal feelings don't come into a decision like this which is why they're so difficult to make.
|
On May 09 2010 12:47 XtrEEmMaShEEN3k2 wrote:
A LOT of this debate occurred over what the rules regarding situations like this actually were, and no one could really prove the other was wrong because I don't think these written rules exist. And as a result, people just gave their subjective opinions on what should occur in a situation like this because no objective procedure had been established.
Well the problem, as you can see from this thread is that its not so much a matter of what the rules are, but relying on human judgment about the condition for those rules.
No one disputes the essential rule that if the game is not won 100% then it's supposed to be a regame. But it then comes down to a matter of judgment to determine whether the game was actually won 100%. By the strictest definition, the game was NOT won 100% (Slush still technically had a chance to win, however small) and yet I don't think any one could watch that replay and think that Slush would ever have won that game. So it comes down to a judgment call of whether that is really a 100% won game.
Is it fair to Slush that he didn't get a chance to finish out the game because his opponent DC'd? Shouldn't he get a chance to try to win? Is it fair to Artosis to force a regame? After all, it's his computer that failed, yet he had clearly outplayed Slush and had a decisive advantage that he could only have lost through the most monumental series of blunders, which we have no reason to think a player of his caliber would ever make under those circumstances.
You could try to take the judgment out of the ref's hands and just say "if you DC you lose" and be done with it, but then you're still allowing people to lose a game they're very likely to win, simply because of factors that may not be under their control.
|
On May 09 2010 11:43 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
If I were betting man, Artosis will eventually want to play Slush heads up in a showmatch.
Agreed, the time may come for episode 1 of TL's version of Revenge Match. Commentary by Chill, Day and DJWheat plz.
|
Originally I thought it was bad form on Slush's behalf for not conceding the game, but if he legitimately thought he still stood a chance - how can you fault that?
At the end of the day the tournament has been tainted but the results I think should stand, the results of a showmatch at this stage I think would be trivial anyway.
I think this just has to be a case of live and learn.
|
Honestly mistake or not, artosis was offered a regame its better than a loss. His comp screwed him over not his fault but his problem nonetheless. I dont think slush should have been stripped of the title he beat 2 other great players and won the title thats more than winning 1 match and he truly deserves the title. In order to fix things right now, offer artosis a showmatch with some money. If he doesnt take it, its his loss not TL's.
|
On May 09 2010 14:06 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 14:03 Azarkon wrote:
The reason he "had no chance" was because his 100 supply was tied up in 22 0/1 mutalisks, 9 roaches that were about to die, and a legion of drones that were also about to die because Artosis had his hydra army in Slush's last mining base.
Given Artosis's level of play, it is therefore believed that Slush could not have recovered and that it was the last battle of the game. Of course, if Artosis made some complete noob mistake like dancing his hydras around without attacking, Slush might've been able to recover, but many/most would feel that is beyond the realm of reasonable chance. This is what I'm talking about when you are deciding a disconnect case you cannot take into account the players you have to be neutral and say that anything could have happened at this point because realistically anything could have. SO his last mining base goes down there is a chance that Slush could catch him out of position and use his mineral surplus to remake drones. Personal feelings don't come into a decision like this which is why they're so difficult to make.
Problem is, the only scenarios that Artosis could have lost are not realistic at all. Scenarios where he intentionally moves his units instead of letting them attack, or where he intentionally throws the game.... are not realistic.
Even your most basic copper league player probably could have won the game at that point. So for a player at Artosis' level to make these "realistic" blunders is laughable.
|
On May 09 2010 14:10 Lazix wrote:
Originally I thought it was bad form on Slush's behalf for not conceding the game, but if he legitimately thought he still stood a chance - how can you fault that?
At the end of the day the tournament has been tainted but the results I think should stand, the results of a showmatch at this stage I think would be trivial anyway.
I think this just has to be a case of live and learn.
This is something I've covered before during casts, it's easy to trashtalk Slush for not giving in and saying that he lost but this is a high profile tournament for a pretty good prize amount. Many times players who have lost don't think they have yet and wind up playing it out longer because they DO think they have a chance. It's easy to sit from the outside perspective seeing both ends of the game and to say OH well obviously he lost. Yes he could watch the replay but the problem is that your preception of the game has already tainted your opinion. If the game ends and you thought OMG I was just getting back in the game, it won't matter if you watch the replay because that's the impression stuck in your head.
|
I can't understand why Artosis wouldn't want to play a show match to get his revenge, then again I would feel a lot of grief when I didn't advance in a big tournament because of some dumb sh@t. As far as he knows, Artosis could have one the whole darn thing, and now he will be left wondering forever...
|
Don't think you guys need to apologize for anything. Running a tournament is hard. I run a small weekly one and couldn't imagine doing what you guys pull off. Sometimes hard decisions need to be made and usually not everyone is perfectly happy. You guys ran a great tournament and have no reason to apologize even if a mistake happened. You guys handled the situation greatly and definitely don't deserve any of the crap some people have posted.
|
On May 09 2010 13:49 EvilTeletubby wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 13:29 dew wrote:
Slush's POV should be disregarded. He lost, and then manipulated a self-proclaimed newbie (who inexplicably got himself into a position to referee the game) into awarding him the regame, cheesing his way to the championship. If his title was stripped, I would fully support it, but I don't know if that's realistic or reasonable in any way. As the "self-proclaimed" newbie here, I want to clarify where you are mistaken. Slush did not manipulate a damn thing. Immediately after Artosis dropped, I talked to Slush. I simply needed to find out if he wished to concede (ie, feeling like he didn't have a chance), or wanted to put it in our hands. He felt at the time (obviously biased and without perfect information) that he still had a shot. He had units, and he had some minerals. At that point, it was in our hands. That's the second part where you're incorrect - I did not award a regame by myself. In fact, seeking to be as objective as possible, we quickly uploaded the replay and had several veteran/staff members review the replay (all the while, Slush is waiting quietly, not 'manipulating us' into giving him a regame). We came to a group consensus that a regame was the best option. Finally - It's not like allowing a regame completely discredits what Slush could do. Obviously, he beat two other very formidable opponents after the Artosis decision, so to say "cheesing his way to the championship" is doing him a severe disservice. Did Slush genuinely feel like he had a chance? Or did he know he had lost but was simply trying to see if he could get a second chance? Only one person truly knows. But either way, there are some ridiculous attempts to demonize and discredit the guy that I find are completely unfounded.[/
I feel bad that ET has to deal with posts like this -. -
1. People are being too hard on Slush (for the wrong reason). From what I'm hearing, Slush just expressed that he felt like he had a chance. If he said "decent" chance, he was either fooling himself or didn't know the situation at all. If he said there was a nonzero chance, there is nothing wrong with that since even objectively no one can say something will happen 100% of the time.
2. And people are being too hard on ET. If I did not know how weak 1-0 mutas are to 3-2 hydras in SC2, I would have said that Slush may have some chance since he had ~20 mutas. As for his being ref, he was offering his time for the community. I'm sure he could've done a better job, but no one was bent on screwing someone else over
3. It was weird that Slush did not want to discuss the situation with Artosis. If you had a stance, and you really believed in that stance, you shouldn't be shying away from expressing that stance to someone else. The fact that Slush told refs that he felt like he had a chance but avoided expressing this and his reasons to Artosis shows that Slush did have questionable motives. If he had really build that he had a chance, fine. If he really wanted refs to decide b/c of this, then fine. But he shouldn't have told Artosis it's not my decision, pretty much "I don't want to talk about this with you, let the refs handle it." This was unsportmanlike if anything
4. I don't think it's right to take away Slush's title and have the entire process redone. Even if everyone feels that it's wrong, it wouldn't make it any more right to make waste of the time that Slush put it, Cauthonluck, and other players have put in. Even though it puts most players in favorable position, imo that would make joke of this competition. Just have it as it is. And as many others suggested, have alternate matches to right the wrong done to Artosis.
5. NO ONE IS BENT TO SCREW SOMEONE. If anyone seriously thinks that someone wanted to "dick" a player, he's just being immature and irrational. Everyone involved in this tournament only wanted the best for the invitation. Some things are subjective, and under the stress and pressure, it's difficult to make the right decision (which might not even exist in many cases). Enough bad-mouthing has been done already, more than enough to shake off emotions. Now people should cool down and try to cooperate with the victims to make things right again to make as many people as possible satisfied.
|
On May 09 2010 14:06 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
This is what I'm talking about when you are deciding a disconnect case you cannot take into account the players you have to be neutral and say that anything could have happened at this point because realistically anything could have. SO his last mining base goes down there is a chance that Slush could catch him out of position and use his mineral surplus to remake drones. Personal feelings don't come into a decision like this which is why they're so difficult to make.
Having seen the replay, I can say that even a silver league player would have a hard time losing if they were in the position that Artosis had created for himself.
Also, it's not a matter of "Artosis is so good, so you should assume he'd win" it's more like he was playing so well in that game that you could not possibly expect him to have a sudden meltdown of the magnitude required to lose that game. It was still technically possible for him to lose in the same way that it's technically possible that I'll win the lottery this week. It happens some times, but there's no reasonable expectation that it would happen in this instance. Slush simply hadn't positioned himself to win the game, as he had no hatcheries, and by the time he could make enough hatches to matter, he'd have been cut off from any further resources.
|
On May 09 2010 14:01 dew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 13:53 artanis2 wrote:
People are saying slush had over 100 supply at the end of the game, how can that possibly mean no chance of comeback? Way too much artosis fanboyism around here.
edit: I also think its sad that nony thinks it would be OK to take the win away from slush retroactively. Then you'd have two victims of poor decisions instead of one. The win has already been "taken away" retroactively. It has been ever since this topic was written up by Nazgul. It's just a question of whether TL is content to simply award Slush a 1-2 victory, or if it's worth doing another regame with, by all accounts, the players who belonged there. Maybe I was too harsh on some individuals in my earlier post, but my personal position stands. It would be an absolute mockery if TL comes out and says that Slush didn't win his Quarterfinal series, yet still has the championship. Either stick to your guns or regame the matches with the players who earned the spot. What TL seems to be trying to do is have it both ways. Either stand by your call or don't, just don't say "the call was wrong but we're gonna say the guy who lost won anyway". It doesn't make any sense.
There is no 'both ways' about it. The regame was a terrible error. You wanna know how terrible? The decision we made erased Artosis' win. It's gone. Vanished. Never happened. Make no mistake, Slush won his series against Artosis. It's important to recognize this. The game where Artosis disconnected did not count. That's the ramification of our error. That's what regame means.
There is no having your cake and eating it too going on here. This is owning up and being responsible for what we did. If you've got a time-machine handy, lemme borrow it and we can fix the problem. Barring that possibility we'll just have to make amends some other way because we're not going to correct one mistake by making an even bigger one.
|
kudos to the tl staff for posting what is basically a news paper retraction. it doesn't change what happened, but it's still the right thing to do <3 tl.net
3. It was weird that Slush did not want to discuss the situation with Artosis. If you had a stance, and you really believed in that stance, you shouldn't be shying away from expressing that stance to someone else. The fact that Slush told refs that he felt like he had a chance but avoided expressing this and his reasons to Artosis shows that Slush did have questionable motives. If he had really build that he had a chance, fine. If he really wanted refs to decide b/c of this, then fine. But he shouldn't have told Artosis it's not my decision, pretty much "I don't want to talk about this with you, let the refs handle it." This was unsportmanlike if anything
uhh... so because he doesn't say anything that could be interpreted as flaming by Artosis he's bm? you're assuming way too much in this whole section. the whole paragraph is baseless assumptions.
he has questionable motives because they weren't questioned? or he didn't feel the need to justify them because they were (maybe, in his opinion) unquestionable? Anyone with league experience or tourney experience where decision trends tend to be in their favor, or similar situations that might be used as a basis for decision are assumed in your favor should understand that there's nothing to argue.
do you really think people would think more favorably on slush if he had argued his side? there's no way him arguing would have helped his situation or where things are now.
in my experience at tournaments if you know that generally what happened would default in a win for you or your team, there is no need for you to add fuel to flames. whenever admins are required to make decisions there are going to be people who are unsatisfied. that's why the admins are there in the first place. yes this time it was a mistake, but what you've said here in section 3 of your post... is directly contradicting what you say in section 5.
5. NO ONE IS BENT TO SCREW SOMEONE. If anyone seriously thinks that someone wanted to "dick" a player, he's just being immature and irrational. Everyone involved in this tournament only wanted the best for the invitation. Some things are subjective, and under the stress and pressure, it's difficult to make the right decision (which might not even exist in many cases). Enough bad-mouthing has been done already, more than enough to shake off emotions. Now people should cool down and try to cooperate with the victims to make things right again to make as many people as possible satisfied.
|
Slush did not do "what he thought was the right thing" IMO. He did what gave him the best possible chance of advancing. If he just took the loss like a gentelman (instead of saying "i could have won" like an ass) then he would have 0% chance of winning. By allowing the referee to decide he gained the extra advantage of having someone with a little less knowledge of the situation, and with fairness (in terms of Artosis disconnecting) in mind. He did the sleazy thing and looks like an ass to most, if not all, of the TL community. And he did not deserve the win and the $300 but that was not the fault of the admins.
Slush, as i have said many times in this and my last post, is an ass. The honorable thing to do now in his position is to offer 1/2 or all the money to Artosis OR maybe play a Bo3 for it, IDK.
Artosis, did nothing wrong in my opinion. He got the shitty end of the deal and e has a right to be mad. He lost out on an opportunity to get $300 because Slush is a douche bag and lied about thinking he could win.
I, already said i think Artosis deserves prize money as well and i believe if 300 people donated a dollar he could get it. 
|
where can we watch the replay of that game?
|
On May 09 2010 14:22 Ursad0n wrote:
He did what gave him the best possible chance of advancing. If he just took the loss like a gentelman (instead of saying "i could have won" like an ass) then he would have 0% chance of winning. By allowing the referee to decide he gained the extra advantage of having someone with a little less knowledge of the situation, and with fairness (in terms of Artosis disconnecting) in mind.
That's assuming you know that Slush thought he knew he had 0% chance of winning. Or that Slush had better insight to the game compared to the referees.
Which isn't necessarily the case.
Artosis, did nothing wrong in my opinion. He got the shitty end of the deal and e has a right to be mad. He lost out on an opportunity to get $300 because Slush is a douche bag and lied about thinking he could win.
Artosis might have a right to get mad (as in the emotion) but he didn't have to take it out on Slush or the referees.
|
People are actually bashing Slush because he thought he had a chance in the game with 100+ food and 3000 minerals in the bank?
Also, since so many people in this thread seem to have never witnessed a competitive sporting event of any kind before here's a little rundown on officiating. Referees are asked to do the incredibly difficult task of moderating the rules of the game. In SC2, at least, most of the rules are built into the game engine so refs rarely need to take action. However, when they do they have to make a judgment call, which implies that there are arguments in either direction. Furthermore because of need for clear results in games (goal or no goal, KO or no KO, W or L) there is no room for middle ground or ambiguity so a ref MUST make a decision and that decision MUST be final, because the game must go on. It's a reality of games, and I hope all of you who are going to continue spectating or competing in any kind of game get used to it, because it's not going away. It's an unfortunate situation, but it is what it is.
TL has gone above and beyond any obligation they had, in explaining that they believe they erred in their ruling in addition to offering the consolation of another match with a prize, which Artosis evidently turned down. At no point is any of this the fault of either player, they do not control the rules or the rulings, they only control their own actions. If anything could be improved for this situation in the future it is that the rules regarded disconnects et al. should be very clearly explained/available to all participants and referees, and that all referees should feel confident in their ability to fulfill that role.
|
How smart does Idra look for realizing that computer problems might make TLI2 not be the best tournament for him to play in?
On an only slightly unrelated subject, does anyone else feel that sc2 is going to make any sort of cross-continent play unnecessarily hard in the future?
|
On May 09 2010 14:16 Tadzio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 14:01 dew wrote:On May 09 2010 13:53 artanis2 wrote:
People are saying slush had over 100 supply at the end of the game, how can that possibly mean no chance of comeback? Way too much artosis fanboyism around here.
edit: I also think its sad that nony thinks it would be OK to take the win away from slush retroactively. Then you'd have two victims of poor decisions instead of one. The win has already been "taken away" retroactively. It has been ever since this topic was written up by Nazgul. It's just a question of whether TL is content to simply award Slush a 1-2 victory, or if it's worth doing another regame with, by all accounts, the players who belonged there. Maybe I was too harsh on some individuals in my earlier post, but my personal position stands. It would be an absolute mockery if TL comes out and says that Slush didn't win his Quarterfinal series, yet still has the championship. Either stick to your guns or regame the matches with the players who earned the spot. What TL seems to be trying to do is have it both ways. Either stand by your call or don't, just don't say "the call was wrong but we're gonna say the guy who lost won anyway". It doesn't make any sense. There is no 'both ways' about it. The regame was a terrible error. You wanna know how terrible? The decision we made erased Artosis' win. It's gone. Vanished. Never happened. Make no mistake, Slush won his series against Artosis. It's important to recognize this. The game where Artosis disconnected did not count. That's the ramification of our error. That's what regame means. There is no having your cake and eating it too going on here. This is owning up and being responsible for what we did. If you've got a time-machine handy, lemme borrow it and we can fix the problem. Barring that possibility we'll just have to make amends some other way because we're not going to correct one mistake by making an even bigger one.
I know that people will probably think that I am either insane or trolling or something, but from the way that people are treating the situation, I'd say that most of them probably don't understand metaphysics at all. I think Tadzio might actually understand metaphysics in just the correct way, which is why I quoted him while making this post. No one has a time machine, so trying to undo the past is just not possible. I actually personally believe that it is actually impossible to have a time machine because you can't undo the past, since that would result in a paradox, but that's a separate issue.
I think that the posts by Nony is pretty harsh, as it really does not seem to reflect the temporal order of the actual (and not hypothetical/counterfactual) events that occurred, which Tadzio has now explained. The complete erasure of Artosis's win is what needs to be taken into consideration here, and the fact that Slush won the final game of their matchup, not the fact that the last game never should have happened. While I understand the disagreement about the relevant facts, the very fact that disagreement is possible shows that the situation is complicated, and that attempting to change the past might not be the best of plans.
From a human (instead of Philosopher/Psychologist) perspective, I think that the last sentence of Tadzio's post is the most important one: "[The Team Liquid Staff is] not going to correct one mistake by making an even bigger one." I think that wrenching the last 3 hours of gaming out of everyone's hands, simply because of a bad call is just not tenable if you care about humans at all.
On a (mostly) unrelated note, I think that everyone is treating Slush WAY too harshly, and that this in turn makes the entire affair suspect from a PR/complaining perspective. Either the admins made an additional mistake of not being clear about how the decision process occurred, or people are (possibly un)intentionally misrepresenting the situation in order to punish someone who didn't even do anything wrong, other than making an error of fact (that he had a chance to win the game).
In closing, none of the Slush-bashing line of argumentation would even come close to standing up in a court of law, another sporting event, or in any intense argument you were having with your friends over a poker game. Judges made a call, it was wrong. If it is only realized this far after the fact that an incorrect decision was made, you cannot, as Tadzio makes clear, go back in your Delorian and change the past, which is what you would need to do in order to truly rectify the situation as most people seem to desire.
I hope I haven't made anyone too angry, or said anything too out of place or confusing, but I really think it is important to think about the situation in a very detached manner in order to discern what is the right thing to do.
|
On May 09 2010 14:35 sputnik.theory wrote:
How smart does Idra look for realizing that computer problems might make TSI2 not be the best tournament for him to play in?
On an only slightly unrelated subject, does anyone else feel that sc2 is going to make any sort of cross-continent play unnecessarily hard in the future?
isn't it already doing that?
|
On May 09 2010 14:35 sputnik.theory wrote:
On an only slightly unrelated subject, does anyone else feel that sc2 is going to make any sort of cross-continent play unnecessarily hard in the future?
If Blizzard was truly interested in being rid of the problem of disconnects in esports they would implement a save feature and also one that would basically export a save from a timeframe in a replay (just before a disconnect). Of course you would also have to block access to the full replay from the players so they don't both get full scouting reports.
|
As long as TL's decisions are transparent and players keep being good mannered and sponsors are not upset, everything's well you don't need to apologize.
|
oops posted in wrong thread LOL sorry >_<
|
On May 09 2010 14:16 Tadzio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 14:01 dew wrote:On May 09 2010 13:53 artanis2 wrote:
People are saying slush had over 100 supply at the end of the game, how can that possibly mean no chance of comeback? Way too much artosis fanboyism around here.
edit: I also think its sad that nony thinks it would be OK to take the win away from slush retroactively. Then you'd have two victims of poor decisions instead of one. The win has already been "taken away" retroactively. It has been ever since this topic was written up by Nazgul. It's just a question of whether TL is content to simply award Slush a 1-2 victory, or if it's worth doing another regame with, by all accounts, the players who belonged there. Maybe I was too harsh on some individuals in my earlier post, but my personal position stands. It would be an absolute mockery if TL comes out and says that Slush didn't win his Quarterfinal series, yet still has the championship. Either stick to your guns or regame the matches with the players who earned the spot. What TL seems to be trying to do is have it both ways. Either stand by your call or don't, just don't say "the call was wrong but we're gonna say the guy who lost won anyway". It doesn't make any sense. There is no 'both ways' about it. The regame was a terrible error. You wanna know how terrible? The decision we made erased Artosis' win. It's gone. Vanished. Never happened. Make no mistake, Slush won his series against Artosis. It's important to recognize this. The game where Artosis disconnected did not count. That's the ramification of our error. That's what regame means. There is no having your cake and eating it too going on here. This is owning up and being responsible for what we did. If you've got a time-machine handy, lemme borrow it and we can fix the problem. Barring that possibility we'll just have to make amends some other way because we're not going to correct one mistake by making an even bigger one.
It doesn't take a time machine to pick up where you left off. This is not a complicated scenario. We know who won the quarterfinal series. We know that Artosis should have played Louder. We know that the winner of that game should have played CauthonLuck. It does not take a time machine to make that happen. Is it reasonable to go back to Slush and say "those games you won didn't count"? That all depends on your point of view. Yet it is an easy solution and the most fair solution.
This isn't a situation where an umpire makes a bad call on a home run in the 7th inning. The game was literally over, and an umpire wrongfully sent it into OT where the wrong team won. It is a simple matter to rectify the mistake.
You're saying that the game didn't happen. That's incorrect. It happened, the result was misinterpreted, and it was determined that Artosis won. To ignore the result, after going out of your way to call out the mistake and apologize for it, is the definition of trying to have it both ways. The fair way to handle this situation is to make a decision, not to say "this should have happened, this did happen, but we're not going to do anything about it because losing wouldn't be fair to the guy who should have lost". Either stick to your guns or do something about the mistake in a situation like this where it's simply easy to regame tomorrow.
From a human (instead of Philosopher/Psychologist) perspective, I think that the last sentence of Tadzio's post is the most important one: "[The Team Liquid Staff is] not going to correct one mistake by making an even bigger one." I think that wrenching the last 3 hours of gaming out of everyone's hands, simply because of a bad call is just not tenable if you care about humans at all.
I agree that it could certainly be considered unreasonable to regame it. My biggest problem is that they're going out of their way to say "he never should have been given the regame, he should have lost, sorry bout that" without replaying it with the players who belonged there.
|
|
|
On May 09 2010 14:38 Bear4188 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 14:35 sputnik.theory wrote:
On an only slightly unrelated subject, does anyone else feel that sc2 is going to make any sort of cross-continent play unnecessarily hard in the future? If Blizzard was truly interested in being rid of the problem of disconnects in esports they would implement a save feature and also one that would basically export a save from a timeframe in a replay (just before a disconnect). Of course you would also have to block access to the full replay from the players so they don't both get full scouting reports.
once the game's released, only the lan tourneys will matter. still need a rule for power outages tho!
|
On May 09 2010 14:40 dew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 14:16 Tadzio wrote:On May 09 2010 14:01 dew wrote:On May 09 2010 13:53 artanis2 wrote:
People are saying slush had over 100 supply at the end of the game, how can that possibly mean no chance of comeback? Way too much artosis fanboyism around here.
edit: I also think its sad that nony thinks it would be OK to take the win away from slush retroactively. Then you'd have two victims of poor decisions instead of one. The win has already been "taken away" retroactively. It has been ever since this topic was written up by Nazgul. It's just a question of whether TL is content to simply award Slush a 1-2 victory, or if it's worth doing another regame with, by all accounts, the players who belonged there. Maybe I was too harsh on some individuals in my earlier post, but my personal position stands. It would be an absolute mockery if TL comes out and says that Slush didn't win his Quarterfinal series, yet still has the championship. Either stick to your guns or regame the matches with the players who earned the spot. What TL seems to be trying to do is have it both ways. Either stand by your call or don't, just don't say "the call was wrong but we're gonna say the guy who lost won anyway". It doesn't make any sense. There is no 'both ways' about it. The regame was a terrible error. You wanna know how terrible? The decision we made erased Artosis' win. It's gone. Vanished. Never happened. Make no mistake, Slush won his series against Artosis. It's important to recognize this. The game where Artosis disconnected did not count. That's the ramification of our error. That's what regame means. There is no having your cake and eating it too going on here. This is owning up and being responsible for what we did. If you've got a time-machine handy, lemme borrow it and we can fix the problem. Barring that possibility we'll just have to make amends some other way because we're not going to correct one mistake by making an even bigger one. It doesn't take a time machine to pick up where you left off. This is not a complicated scenario. We know who won the quarterfinal series. We know that Artosis should have played Louder. We know that the winner of that game should have played CauthonLuck. It does not take a time machine to make that happen. Is it reasonable to go back to Slush and say "those games you won didn't count"? That all depends on your point of view. Yet it is an easy solution and the most fair solution. This isn't a situation where an umpire makes a bad call on a home run in the 7th inning. The game was literally over, and an umpire wrongfully sent it into OT where the wrong team won. It is a simple matter to rectify the mistake. You're saying that the game didn't happen. That's incorrect. It happened, the result was misinterpreted, and it was determined that Artosis won. To ignore the result, after going out of your way to call out the mistake and apologize for it, is the definition of trying to have it both ways. The fair way to handle this situation is to make a decision, not to say "this should have happened, this did happen, but we're not going to do anything about it because losing wouldn't be fair to the guy who should have lost". Either stick to your guns or do something about the mistake in a situation like this where it's simply easy to regame tomorrow. Show nested quote +
From a human (instead of Philosopher/Psychologist) perspective, I think that the last sentence of Tadzio's post is the most important one: "[The Team Liquid Staff is] not going to correct one mistake by making an even bigger one." I think that wrenching the last 3 hours of gaming out of everyone's hands, simply because of a bad call is just not tenable if you care about humans at all.
I agree that it could certainly be considered unreasonable to regame it. My biggest problem is that they're going out of their way to say "he never should have been given the regame, he should have lost, sorry bout that" without replaying it with the players who belonged there.
it would be irresponsible if you were to print incorrect information in a respected news journal (because based on the sources you had it seemed reliable) and then later after you realized it was incorrect you didn't print a retraction. also, this sets precedent for future situations and they opened up the forum for suggestions on how they should handle them. (read the last line or two of nazgul's update to the first post)
|
On May 09 2010 14:40 dew wrote:
It doesn't take a time machine to pick up where you left off. This is not a complicated scenario. We know who won the quarterfinal series. We know that Artosis should have played Louder. We know that the winner of that game should have played CauthonLuck. It does not take a time machine to make that happen. Is it reasonable to go back to Slush and say "those games you won didn't count"? That all depends on your point of view. Yet it is an easy solution and the most fair solution.
Not that simple. It doesn't take into account the psychological advantage/disadvantage the players had at the time.
Also for Louder and CauthonLuck, it's going to be a complex state for them. They already played in this tournament and they have to repeat it? Granted, they could end up winning a higher slot, but why should they play again to make up for the mistake of someone else? And if they do win, how do they feel about that, that they won against Artosis but not the time-warped match against Slush?
|
Dew: You do realize that what you're suggesting is that we correct our error (1 regame) by replaying the entire top half of the bracket (potentially 13 regames: semi-finals, finals, and 3rd/4th match)? Right?
That is not a plausible solution, nor is it fair to any of the other gamers involved. Believe me, a 'redo' is not the best fix for this. Apologizing and making amends is.
|
Either one team won or the other team won. Nobody wants to see "one team should have won but we're saying the other team did win because we're too lazy to play a couple more games and don't want to hurt the should-be losers feelings after he "won".
The point that seemingly everybody supports is that Artosis had game 3 100% locked up and won. No doubt about it. There's simply no point in saying something like that if you have no intention of lifting a finger to resolve the problem. It's a problem with an easy yet controversial solution. Take it or leave it, I don't really care, it's the playing it both ways side that I have a problem with. Everybody whose seen the replay knows that a mistake was made, but backing off your initial decision and calling it a mistake invalidates the result of the entire tournament, because your so-called champion, by all accounts, 100% lost in the quarterfinals. He lost the game, and while they realize and apologize about it, it would be inconvenient and controversial to attempt to resolve it in a fair way.
|
It has nothing to do with laziness, and everything to do with fairness. Stop trolling. Now.
|
I don't see how that's trolling; he has a pretty good point. What TL is officially saying is that the winner of the tournament actually lost in the quarterfinals. And yet you're still giving him the first place prize and title...
|
|
|
No, what they're saying is that their ruling was in error, but the ruling stands because that's how sports are required to operate, otherwise every game would stagnate to 8 hours of deliberation. The only time you will ever see any kind of ruling overturned in any sport is in the case of cheating.
|
On May 09 2010 15:03 QuakerOats wrote:
I don't see how that's trolling; he has a pretty good point. What TL is officially saying is that the winner of the tournament actually lost in the quarterfinals. And yet you're still giving him the first place prize and title...
You've never seen unjustified penalties decide matches in soccer? :/
|
On May 09 2010 14:59 Tadzio wrote:
Dew: You do realize that what you're suggesting is that we correct our error (1 regame) by replaying the entire top half of the bracket (potentially 13 regames, semi-finals, finals, and 3rd/4th match)? Right?
That is not a plausible solution, nor is it fair to any of the other gamers involved. Believe me, a 'redo' is not the best fix for this. Apologizing and making amends is.
Yes. What I'm suggesting involves a best-of 3 and a best-of 5 series. Sure, you could include the 3rd/4th place match as well.
You don't think it's a plausible solution. It sounds perfectly plausible to me, but then again I play no part in orgalizing these things, so there's probably a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff that would make it trickier than it sounds. Nazgul has already expressed interest in playing additional games in the form of a showmatch, and while it may be trickier to arrange a redo I doubt it would be "implausible". It sounds perfectly fair to me, when players are given the ability to compete against the players who actually earned their way there.
Apologizing isn't the best fix. It's the easy fix and the lazy fix, assuming it fixes anything at all.
|
On May 09 2010 15:02 Tadzio wrote:
It has nothing to do with laziness, and everything to do with fairness. Stop trolling. Now.
How is it fair to award a guy who lost in the quarterfinals a championship?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 09 2010 11:45 Kishime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 11:37 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: We have offered Artosis a showmatch with the winner of TLI with prizes at stake. Unfortunately due to their 'personal differences' Artosis isn't interested in playing with Slush. That is absurd. He needs to grow up.
No, he feels like he was wronged (which he was), and slush had a chance to be a good sport (which Artosis pointed out in his conversation with slush), and slush didn't.
I think this is Artosis' way of holding his head up high, and if I were in his position I would refuse a showmatch as well.
|
On May 09 2010 15:06 dew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 14:59 Tadzio wrote:
Dew: You do realize that what you're suggesting is that we correct our error (1 regame) by replaying the entire top half of the bracket (potentially 13 regames, semi-finals, finals, and 3rd/4th match)? Right?
That is not a plausible solution, nor is it fair to any of the other gamers involved. Believe me, a 'redo' is not the best fix for this. Apologizing and making amends is. Yes. What I'm suggesting involves a best-of 3 and a best-of 5 series. Sure, you could include the 3rd/4th place match as well. You don't think it's a plausible solution. It sounds perfectly plausible to me, but then again I play no part in orgalizing these things, so there's probably a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff that would make it trickier than it sounds. Nazgul has already expressed interest in playing additional games in the form of a showmatch, and while it may be trickier to arrange a redo I doubt it would be "implausible". It sounds perfectly fair to me, when players are given the ability to compete against the players who actually earned their way there. Apologizing isn't the best fix. It's the easy fix and the lazy fix, assuming it fixes anything at all.
I have to agree with what dew is saying here. I'm not trying to be overly critical to the people who were running the tournament--everyone makes mistakes. But I think dew's idea is the only truly fair thing to do.
|
Apparently Dew knows better than 200 years of organized sports' way of doing things.
|
On May 09 2010 15:08 dew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 15:02 Tadzio wrote:
It has nothing to do with laziness, and everything to do with fairness. Stop trolling. Now. How is it fair to award a guy who lost in the quarterfinals a championship?
He didn't lose in the quarterfinals. He quite clearly won two games out of four.
|
On May 09 2010 14:19 dNo_O wrote:kudos to the tl staff for posting what is basically a news paper retraction. it doesn't change what happened, but it's still the right thing to do <3 tl.net Show nested quote +3. It was weird that Slush did not want to discuss the situation with Artosis. If you had a stance, and you really believed in that stance, you shouldn't be shying away from expressing that stance to someone else. The fact that Slush told refs that he felt like he had a chance but avoided expressing this and his reasons to Artosis shows that Slush did have questionable motives. If he had really build that he had a chance, fine. If he really wanted refs to decide b/c of this, then fine. But he shouldn't have told Artosis it's not my decision, pretty much "I don't want to talk about this with you, let the refs handle it." This was unsportmanlike if anything uhh... so because he doesn't say anything that could be interpreted as flaming by Artosis he's bm? you're assuming way too much in this whole section. the whole paragraph is baseless assumptions. he has questionable motives because they weren't questioned? or he didn't feel the need to justify them because they were (maybe, in his opinion) unquestionable? Anyone with league experience or tourney experience where decision trends tend to be in their favor, or similar situations that might be used as a basis for decision are assumed in your favor should understand that there's nothing to argue. do you really think people would think more favorably on slush if he had argued his side? there's no way him arguing would have helped his situation or where things are now.in my experience at tournaments if you know that generally what happened would default in a win for you or your team, there is no need for you to add fuel to flames. whenever admins are required to make decisions there are going to be people who are unsatisfied. that's why the admins are there in the first place. yes this time it was a mistake, but what you've said here in section 3 of your post... is directly contradicting what you say in section 5. Show nested quote +5. NO ONE IS BENT TO SCREW SOMEONE. If anyone seriously thinks that someone wanted to "dick" a player, he's just being immature and irrational. Everyone involved in this tournament only wanted the best for the invitation. Some things are subjective, and under the stress and pressure, it's difficult to make the right decision (which might not even exist in many cases). Enough bad-mouthing has been done already, more than enough to shake off emotions. Now people should cool down and try to cooperate with the victims to make things right again to make as many people as possible satisfied.
I'm saying that if Slush really believed that he had a chance, he wouldn't have avoided justifying his situation to Artosis.
The fact is that he told ref that he felt like he had a chance. But he wouldn't say it to Artosis. Why? Maybe b/c like you said, he felt like he didn't justify himself. But the truth is, he told Artosis: it's not my decision and it's not yours, I'm waiting for the decision from the refs. In actuality, Slush had the decision to say either "I have a chance, I want a regame" or "I lost the game" and he chose the latter (according to ET's explanations).
And Slush did not do anything to screw Artosis. If he behaved in a questionable manner, he did it b/c he wanted the best for himself, which unfortunately involved giving the better position to Slush in relation to Artosis.
|
On May 09 2010 15:06 dew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 14:59 Tadzio wrote:
Dew: You do realize that what you're suggesting is that we correct our error (1 regame) by replaying the entire top half of the bracket (potentially 13 regames, semi-finals, finals, and 3rd/4th match)? Right?
That is not a plausible solution, nor is it fair to any of the other gamers involved. Believe me, a 'redo' is not the best fix for this. Apologizing and making amends is. Yes. What I'm suggesting involves a best-of 3 and a best-of 5 series. Sure, you could include the 3rd/4th place match as well. You don't think it's a plausible solution. It sounds perfectly plausible to me, but then again I play no part in orgalizing these things, so there's probably a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff that would make it trickier than it sounds. Nazgul has already expressed interest in playing additional games in the form of a showmatch, and while it may be trickier to arrange a redo I doubt it would be "implausible". It sounds perfectly fair to me, when players are given the ability to compete against the players who actually earned their way there. Apologizing isn't the best fix. It's the easy fix and the lazy fix, assuming it fixes anything at all.
Naw, the lazy fix is to say we're infallible and telling all dissatisfied spectators to fuck off, which is what practically every professional sports organization would do in our position. We're manly men, though, and actually care about this community because we're a group of volunteers that're by and for the community, and your 27 post self should probably stop stirring things up.
edit: oh good.
|
Baltimore, USA22251 Posts
On May 09 2010 15:09 Radical wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 15:06 dew wrote:On May 09 2010 14:59 Tadzio wrote:
Dew: You do realize that what you're suggesting is that we correct our error (1 regame) by replaying the entire top half of the bracket (potentially 13 regames, semi-finals, finals, and 3rd/4th match)? Right?
That is not a plausible solution, nor is it fair to any of the other gamers involved. Believe me, a 'redo' is not the best fix for this. Apologizing and making amends is. Yes. What I'm suggesting involves a best-of 3 and a best-of 5 series. Sure, you could include the 3rd/4th place match as well. You don't think it's a plausible solution. It sounds perfectly plausible to me, but then again I play no part in orgalizing these things, so there's probably a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff that would make it trickier than it sounds. Nazgul has already expressed interest in playing additional games in the form of a showmatch, and while it may be trickier to arrange a redo I doubt it would be "implausible". It sounds perfectly fair to me, when players are given the ability to compete against the players who actually earned their way there. Apologizing isn't the best fix. It's the easy fix and the lazy fix, assuming it fixes anything at all. I have to agree with what dew is saying here. I'm not trying to be overly critical to the people who were running the tournament--everyone makes mistakes. But I think dew's idea is the only truly fair thing to do.
Again, I want to point out the best post on this subject:
On May 09 2010 14:59 Tadzio wrote:
Dew: You do realize that what you're suggesting is that we correct our error (1 regame) by replaying the entire top half of the bracket (potentially 13 regames: semi-finals, finals, and 3rd/4th match)? Right?
That is not a plausible solution, nor is it fair to any of the other gamers involved. Believe me, a 'redo' is not the best fix for this. Apologizing and making amends is.
|
On May 09 2010 15:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 15:03 QuakerOats wrote:
I don't see how that's trolling; he has a pretty good point. What TL is officially saying is that the winner of the tournament actually lost in the quarterfinals. And yet you're still giving him the first place prize and title... You've never seen unjustified penalties decide matches in soccer? :/
Yeah, but that's different, because in that case you can't say that the other side FOR SURE won without the penalty. But here you're saying that the winner actually lost. I know replaying the whole thing isn't really a good option either, but this is a crappy situation all around that's not quite the same as France going through because of a handball, for instance.
|
You can't do anything about it. Decision was made and it's over and done. Do boxers get their win when the judges clearly need glasses and seem to miss the whole fight? Welcome to the world. It is run by people who are in fact imperfect. The TL team did a wonderful job and let people know they see that and in turn tried to do the right thing. All of you simple minded people wanting your Utopia need to grow up or maybe be out in the real world on your own for a while.
|
I don't anything should happen with TLI#2 from here on but to just move on, close this thread and set sight towards future event. What's done is done. Sadly no one is walking away happy from this and re-gaming the quarter finals matches will not fix the damage that has been done. Admins can only learn from their "mistake" (not everyone sees it as a mistake) so that they don't have this problem in the future. If all tournaments (esports and regular sport) would do a regame after a bad call was found after a game then tournaments will never end and would have to be replayed over and over again till everything was done flawless. We are all humans and we make mistake. Ohh and for some of you "Welcome to Esports"
|
On May 09 2010 15:12 EvilTeletubby wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 15:09 Radical wrote:On May 09 2010 15:06 dew wrote:On May 09 2010 14:59 Tadzio wrote:
Dew: You do realize that what you're suggesting is that we correct our error (1 regame) by replaying the entire top half of the bracket (potentially 13 regames, semi-finals, finals, and 3rd/4th match)? Right?
That is not a plausible solution, nor is it fair to any of the other gamers involved. Believe me, a 'redo' is not the best fix for this. Apologizing and making amends is. Yes. What I'm suggesting involves a best-of 3 and a best-of 5 series. Sure, you could include the 3rd/4th place match as well. You don't think it's a plausible solution. It sounds perfectly plausible to me, but then again I play no part in orgalizing these things, so there's probably a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff that would make it trickier than it sounds. Nazgul has already expressed interest in playing additional games in the form of a showmatch, and while it may be trickier to arrange a redo I doubt it would be "implausible". It sounds perfectly fair to me, when players are given the ability to compete against the players who actually earned their way there. Apologizing isn't the best fix. It's the easy fix and the lazy fix, assuming it fixes anything at all. I have to agree with what dew is saying here. I'm not trying to be overly critical to the people who were running the tournament--everyone makes mistakes. But I think dew's idea is the only truly fair thing to do. Again, I want to point out the best post on this subject: Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 14:59 Tadzio wrote:
Dew: You do realize that what you're suggesting is that we correct our error (1 regame) by replaying the entire top half of the bracket (potentially 13 regames: semi-finals, finals, and 3rd/4th match)? Right?
That is not a plausible solution, nor is it fair to any of the other gamers involved. Believe me, a 'redo' is not the best fix for this. Apologizing and making amends is.
Well I still disagree, but I have to say that you've handled this situation (after the regame) pretty well regardless. I can see how your way of looking at it would seem to be the right way, and I can see how dew's way of looking at it seems to be the right way. Sometimes there is no perfect solution I guess.
|
As for Artosis's reaction, I think one thing hasn't been brought up: his return to a competitive gaming team may have made him want this win more than in the past when he wasn't as active of a progamer, even if BW was his job. I think there's a bit more pressure on him to perform. I can't blame him for wanting the win, even if this was just for pride and not even for money. Sucks to work that hard on something and have it taken away from you.
I'll back up most of the posters: good manner, Naz and ET. You're making the best of a tough situation here.
|
United States22883 Posts
I'm really sorry for Artosis. It's really unfortunate, but at this point you just have to move on.
I don't think the hate on Slush is very fair. It's not as simple as being "honorable." You can't watch your own replay in the middle of a series and judge what your chances are. That's why you defer to admins and the rules that were set out before hand.
Sorry for the flack the TL admins are getting, but overall you ran a good tourney and I'm completely impressed with your response, Nazgul/TL. Human error is always going to happen, regardless of what checks are in place and what kind of experts you use (see the NBA thread if you don't think it happens in other sports), so I think what's most important is identifying the errors and correcting them. This statement is the first part of that, and it was a very thoughtful response.
|
On May 09 2010 14:05 charlesatan wrote:
On Slush: Slush, in my opinion, behaved conservatively. He left the decision to the judges. Which is his right as a player. When Artosis was attacking him in chat, he didn't give in to the rage and attacked Artosis.
To some of the fans, the ideal situation would have been for Slush to concede defeat. That, I think, would have boosted his rep. But he didn't and I don't think there's anything wrong when players defer the ruling to the judges/umpires (just like in regular sports--even if sometimes bad calls are made).
That's because he knew that he had lost, and in a way you could say he was provoking artosis by saying things like "you only have 3/2 hydras, I was about to win, NOT you."
He acted in such because he knew he had a good chance of getting a regame if he didn't do anything rash. Morally, it's a dick move, which is what Artosis pointed out. It's understandable Artosis was and is extremely upset.
I've played Magic: The Gathering at the highest tiers of play... When a player is hands down beat and the only chance they have is some kind of rules thing or technicality, they act in the exact same manner slush did. Again, it's a dick move, but it's a way to win so you can't really blame him for that.
Character vs. Winning
tough call. (no sarcasm).
|
This post isn't so much a contribution as it is a reflection of the TL staff. You guys must be fucking STRESSED out about this. I'm sorry it had to turn out this way. Best of luck to all involved, including Artosis and Slush.
|
Baltimore, USA22251 Posts
On May 09 2010 15:21 Broodwich wrote:
As for Artosis's reaction, I think one thing hasn't been brought up: his return to a competitive gaming team may have made him want this win more than in the past when he wasn't as active of a progamer, even if BW was his job. I think there's a bit more pressure on him to perform. I can't blame him for wanting the win, even if this was just for pride and not even for money.
That's where I hope Artosis takes some of this to heart... more important than the results IMO to his new team is how he handled himself here, which lacked a lot of class and professionalism, even if it was mostly justified.
As I said earlier, I would hate to see this incident taint his reputation as a hard working, very skilled gaming. I had the pleasure of watching him play first hand many years ago at a WCG prelim, and even then his dedication was top notch. I want to see his professionalism reflect, as I know he has shown in the past.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 09 2010 15:34 Jugan wrote:
I've played Magic: The Gathering at the highest tiers of play... When a player is hands down beat and the only chance they have is some kind of rules thing or technicality, they act in the exact same manner slush did. Again, it's a dick move, but it's a way to win so you can't really blame him for that.
Character vs. Winning
tough call. (no sarcasm).
Agreed completely.
|
This whole situation illustrates the need for blizzard to include a 'replay resume' function in sc2 where you can pick up a game from any timesnap in a replay...
|
This is an extremely difficult situation. Throughout the post a lot of people have displayed their dislike of Slush's conduct and that Artosis has been 'wronged'.
Apparently Artosis made a huge fuss about the regame. I am intrigued to why he eventually gave in? Just like people see him as childish for not accepting a grude match type scenario, he clearly would of acted differently if he won the regame? The original post would never of been made and there would of been absolutely no complaints, he probably would have laughed it off.
It's very naive for everyone to question how each player really should of acted in this situation. If Artosis felt so strongly about what happened surely he should of not played in protest? Its just as bad mannered to pick up the arguement when its most beneficial to you, just like Slush clearly kept quiet in his interest of winning. Can you blame them?
|
On May 09 2010 15:48 GiveMeFace wrote:
This is an extremely difficult situation. Throughout the post a lot of people have displayed their dislike of Slush's conduct and that Artosis has been 'wronged'.
Apparently Artosis made a huge fuss about the regame. I am intrigued to why he eventually gave in? Just like people see him as childish for not accepting a grude match type scenario, he clearly would of acted differently if he won the regame? The original post would never of been made and there would of been absolutely no complaints, he probably would have laughed it off.
It's very naive for everyone to question how each player really should of acted in this situation. If Artosis felt so strongly about what happened surely he should of not played in protest? Its just as bad mannered to pick up the arguement when its most beneficial to you, just like Slush clearly kept quiet in his interest of winning. Can you blame them?
I don't think he played the regame, didn't he get DQ'd before even replaying?
|
Its early and I read a lot of posts in the thread. Pretty sure I remember a line about him going for a fast expansion and losing. 'Winning 2 out of 4 games'. So yes must have.
|
On May 09 2010 15:48 GiveMeFace wrote:
This is an extremely difficult situation. Throughout the post a lot of people have displayed their dislike of Slush's conduct and that Artosis has been 'wronged'.
A lot of people stand on the other side of the fence too
On May 09 2010 15:48 GiveMeFace wrote:
Apparently Artosis made a huge fuss about the regame. I am intrigued to why he eventually gave in? Just like people see him as childish for not accepting a grude match type scenario, he clearly would of acted differently if he won the regame? The original post would never of been made and there would of been absolutely no complaints, he probably would have laughed it off.
If you had just played your guts out in an intense game and were 20 seconds away from your opponent typing out "GG" and an unfortunate series of events unfolded where you had to play again... WOULD YOU NOT BE UPSET?
He gave in to the regame because he was going to be DQ'd if he didn't. Obviously he would have acted differently had he won the regame, but I assure you that he would still be upset, albeit not as much a fuss would have been made for it.
On May 09 2010 15:48 GiveMeFace wrote:
It's very naive for everyone to question how each player really should of acted in this situation. If Artosis felt so strongly about what happened surely he should of not played in protest?
So you're also saying that Flash, despite being severely shaken mentally, and EXTREMELY upset, made a poor decision like artosis (as you claim), and should have just not played in protest of the ruling? (reference to the last MSL finals, the "blackout incident")
|
Guys saying what slush should do
please stop, he is not at fault. He Showed up, he played his games, he was advanced by the tourney admins.
Artosis was the one who Disconnected, it is his computer malfunctions that are at fault. If you do not want to DC and have this risk, then go for a short walk in a country supposedly FILLED with pc bongs and play on one of those.
When you DC in a situation as described , multiple bases vs multiple bases, with 3k minerals saved up. I would almost always go with regame for the simple fact it was was the person with the lead at fault in DCing + he had some chance at comeback. There are many many times where a person can win if they attack at that moment, but fail to hit this timing window and the opponent comes back.
Also creating a thread and directing people's anger at Slush is far worse than the initial decision. This is really a huge mistake in creating this thread, maybe create the post, lock it and move on. Now you are directing peoples attention at the players and saying Slush should have been a better admin for YOUR tournament.
Please leave the players out of this and direct the blame at the admins, if anywhere, they made the decision. If you want to put in the rules : TEamliquid tournament Rule #5 You will be responsible for admin decisions, if you fail to make a good decision while PLAYING in the tournament we will make a big thread about it and have Nony come in and talk about your "low character" for believing in your starcraft abilities.
Also nony attacking Slush's character for being given a regame by tournament admins?
|
On May 09 2010 15:53 selboN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 15:48 GiveMeFace wrote:
This is an extremely difficult situation. Throughout the post a lot of people have displayed their dislike of Slush's conduct and that Artosis has been 'wronged'.
Apparently Artosis made a huge fuss about the regame. I am intrigued to why he eventually gave in? Just like people see him as childish for not accepting a grude match type scenario, he clearly would of acted differently if he won the regame? The original post would never of been made and there would of been absolutely no complaints, he probably would have laughed it off.
It's very naive for everyone to question how each player really should of acted in this situation. If Artosis felt so strongly about what happened surely he should of not played in protest? Its just as bad mannered to pick up the arguement when its most beneficial to you, just like Slush clearly kept quiet in his interest of winning. Can you blame them? I don't think he played the regame, didn't he get DQ'd before even replaying?
No. He played it.
|
On May 09 2010 15:57 dacthehork wrote:
Also nony attacking Slush's character for being given a regame by tournament admins?
Because Slush knew that he had lost, and was saying things like "My mutas will beat your 3/2 hydras". He is criticizing Slush's choice to put winning above doing the right thing (in his eyes).
|
On May 09 2010 15:34 Jugan wrote:
That's because he knew that he had lost, and in a way you could say he was provoking artosis by saying things like "you only have 3/2 hydras, I was about to win, NOT you."
He acted in such because he knew he had a good chance of getting a regame if he didn't do anything rash. Morally, it's a dick move, which is what Artosis pointed out. It's understandable Artosis was and is extremely upset.
I've played Magic: The Gathering at the highest tiers of play... When a player is hands down beat and the only chance they have is some kind of rules thing or technicality, they act in the exact same manner slush did. Again, it's a dick move, but it's a way to win so you can't really blame him for that.
Or maybe he said "you only have 3/2 hydras" because he thought he genuinely had a winning chance.
The fact is, Slush obviously had a biased view of the game, so the best call to make is to let an unbiased observer (the referee) make the call. Obviously, we don't want it to descend into a Slush vs. Artosis debate where each one claiming "I would have won it" (and in this case, it rightfully goes to Artosis).
The problem with your Magic: The Gathering example is not you didn't give a concrete example. Is it a case of the winning player not "tapping their land to gain mana" before casting their game-winning spell? Talented and skilled players have lost because of this technicality but it's the rules. Is this the kind of rules lawyering you're talking about?
But a better analogy would be a best of three match. Let's say the winning player takes a bathroom break during his 60-minute alloted time for the match, and while in the bathroom, gets ambushed by thieves and knocks him out. Winning player recovers after the allotted time (say at 61 minutes). It was a situation out of his hands yet by the rules, the losing player would have won because the winning player didn't return to the game in time. Sure, the losing player can concede that the winning player would have won the match, but the winning player didn't show up, so by the rules, the losing player won.
|
Hate to see these situations happen. Thank you TL and Nazgul for making this post.
|
Well my last sentence is 'can you blame them?'. All I am stating is both players acted in aid of their agenda and were comparable. I read everything and most people stated 'bad manners' by Slush. Maybe I am being selective.
Of course he is going to be upset. From what I read from the conversation transcripts, if your going to be a martyr you have to die for the cause. What I can't agree with is agreeing to the regame then afterwards creating a huge aftermath after accepting the conditions after disconnect. This is just as conceited as Slush's silent tactics to have a chance of winning the game.
|
On May 09 2010 15:59 Jugan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 15:57 dacthehork wrote:
Also nony attacking Slush's character for being given a regame by tournament admins? Because Slush knew that he had lost, and was saying things like "My mutas will beat your 3/2 hydras". He is criticizing Slush's choice to put winning above doing the right thing (in his eyes).
you are assuming Slush thought he had lost, he hadn't GGed yet, also it seems the ADMINS of the tournament agreed and gave him a re game. Huk vs Idra Game 3 of gosucoaching, there was a point where HuK took off from his base to attack Idra, this attack would have worked easily. If he dropped at the point the army was en route, and was awarded the win because his army would easily have crushed the 10 lings, it would be a mistake.
On the way to attack he kept moving back and forth and did not take advantage of the window and lost.
Having an advantage, and being able to win if you A move into the enemy base is not enough criteria for (he would 100% win). If so he better A move right then and there. The thing is the players DO NOT have 100% information, you are assuming the players make 0 mistakes which HAPPEN.
Yes 10 zealots will beat 8 zealots. UNLESS mistakes happen, micro miracles, etc. These do happen a lot, people blow leads, people come back with hidden expos. If you don't believe in this stuff simply have the admins call the game and get rid of the GG system.
Even in MMA, if a fighter who is winning knees the opponent (something illegal). They sometimes call the fight and award a win to a participant who really had barely any chance of winning.
See Bones Jones vs Matt Hamill
This whole idea of judges deciding who wins should be AVOIDED at all costs, unless it seems the loser is abusing DCs to get free wins.
|
I wonder how this would be handled it if was reversed, Slush the one who disced yet was clearly winning the game, but the refs told them to rematch anyways and Artosis won..
It would probably be a non-issue/never spoke of again.
The point is; Slush just did what the refs told him, which at the time was to replay the game. If they said Artosis won in the first place, there wouldnt be a problem. Dont get mad a slush, get mad at the refs.
It just seems like Artosis is trying to play his "im Artosis" card, and get Slush to concede the match, yet Slush did NOT think he was dead yet. AND THE REFS SAID TO REMATCH~~~ That is KEY to this situation, if the refs said Artosis won, Slush would of dropped it, but since they decided to rematch, Its not Slush's fault he went with what they said. Hes not going to simply roll over because hes playing Artosis.
|
On May 09 2010 16:05 dacthehork wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 15:59 Jugan wrote:On May 09 2010 15:57 dacthehork wrote:
Also nony attacking Slush's character for being given a regame by tournament admins? Because Slush knew that he had lost, and was saying things like "My mutas will beat your 3/2 hydras". He is criticizing Slush's choice to put winning above doing the right thing (in his eyes). you are assuming Slush thought he had lost, he hadn't GGed yet, also it seems the ADMINS of the tournament agreed and gave him a re game. Huk vs Idra Game 3 of gosucoaching, there was a point where HuK took off from his base to attack Idra, this attack would have worked easily. If he dropped at the point the army was en route, and was awarded the win because his army would easily have crushed the 10 lings, it would be a mistake. On the way to attack he kept moving back and forth and did not take advantage of the window and lost. Having an advantage, and being able to win if you A move into the enemy base is not enough criteria for (he would 100% win). If so he better A move right then and there. The thing is the players DO NOT have 100% information, you are assuming the players make 0 mistakes which HAPPEN. Yes 10 zealots will beat 8 zealots. UNLESS mistakes happen, micro miracles, etc. These do happen a lot, people blow leads, people come back with hidden expos. If you don't believe in this stuff simply have the admins call the game and get rid of the GG system. Even in MMA, if a fighter who is winning knees the opponent (something illegal). They sometimes call the fight and award a win to a participant who really had barely any chance of winning. See Bones Jones vs Matt Hamill This whole idea of judges deciding who wins should be AVOIDED at all costs, unless it seems the loser is abusing DCs to get free wins.
You should really watch the replay. TL already said there was 0% chance Slush could have won, I don't know who you are trying to argue with.
People are hating on Slush cause he refused to look at any replays during this hour break and his "reasons" that he gave to support his claim or chance are ridiculous
|
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?
|
Really respect TL. Even after making a mistake, a lot of tournament organizers wouldn't even admit it.
|
Why didn't Slush refuse to continue in the tournament and admit defeat? That would of been the right thing to do. Artosis is a good player so I hope to see a showmatch of him ..
The issue has nothing to do with Artosis's prestige in the community, it has to do with fairness.. so stop bringing up things that are irrelevant.
This kind of thing happens in sports occassionally.. there was this one year where a fan grabbed a baseball out of the mit of an outfielder and the play was ruled a homerun, where it would of been an out. That decided the game and the winning team went to the world series
|
On May 09 2010 16:20 cartoon]x wrote:
Why didn't Slush refuse to continue in the tournament and admit defeat? That would of been the right thing to do. Artosis is a good player so I hope to see a showmatch of him ..
Because the admins of the tournament also agreed he deserved a regame. Artosis is the one who DCed. In a tournament it is up the admins, that is their job, to decide what happens.
I can look back on some decisions I made during TST cups, such as DQing Catz for DCing in multiple games, or deciding regame in a close but advantageous situation where the player DCed. There is NO responsibility on the players to make admin decisions.
Artosis had DCed earlier in the tournament too, it is just a risk he has to accept if his computer is unstable. It's unfair to take away other players chances/ability to stage comebacks imo. It should almost never be decided by judges, unless it is a clear losing player that DCs. If he had such a sure advantage then why is he not destroying Slush and making him GG?
|
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?
Two different matches in two different games in two different tournaments, probably neither of which you've seen the replays for.
|
On May 09 2010 16:26 dacthehork wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 16:20 cartoon]x wrote:
Why didn't Slush refuse to continue in the tournament and admit defeat? That would of been the right thing to do. Artosis is a good player so I hope to see a showmatch of him .. Because the admins of the tournament also agreed he deserved a regame. Artosis is the one who DCed. In a tournament it is up the admins, that is their job, to decide what happens. I can look back on some decisions I made during TST cups, such as DQing Catz for DCing in multiple games, or deciding regame in a close but advantageous situation where the player DCed. There is NO responsibility on the players to make admin decisions. Artosis had DCed earlier in the tournament too, it is just a risk he has to accept if his computer is unstable. It's unfair to take away other players chances/ability to stage comebacks imo. It should almost never be decided by judges, unless it is a clear losing player that DCs. If he had such a sure advantage then why is he not destroying Slush and making him GG?
There may be no bureaucratic responsibility on Slush to concede, but I know if I had clearly lost a game and the opponent D/C'd I would drop out of the tournament. Good players know when a game is lost, and I know Slush knew he had no chance of coming back.
|
I've watched a decent amount of Artosis's livestreams and I'm a pretty big fan of his, and I understand it sucks to get disconnected and everything...
But honestly, I'm pretty shocked at Artosis's words and his level of anger. Sure, it's considered good manners to "gg" and leave when you consider yourself dead, but it's not Slush's fault that Artosis's computer disconnected before Artosis beat Slush.
I understand that it was a crappy situation for everyone involved, but I don't think Artosis handled it the way the awesome Artosis should have handled it :-/ Kinda let me down, as a fan.
|
I like how you fail to realize that slush watched the replay and still tried to claim that he was going to beat an entire hydra army with a handful of mutas with what was about to be 1 hatch vs 6.
|
TL you play this well, I applaud your professionalism.
|
in any case there are tons more tournaments for artosis to play in the years to come
|
People sure have a lot to say about this issue...
I tried to read the posts you all made but I'm afraid there's way too many and not much variation between them. Let me put this into perspective for you peoeple.
In just about every sport there are referees. And in these sports, you will be able to find a history of bad calls by these refs. Now you may not feel that e-sports should be included into sports so how about we broaden this to competitions? You will be able to find referees everywhere and again, you will be able to find bad calls. In most cases, an appology is given. In some cases not even that.
I don't see why this is an exception. We treat this as a serious competition but cannot deal with the calls by the refs. I'm not sure what more people expect other than having them recognize their faults, admitting to them and appologizing for them.
|
unlucky for artosis, cant go back into the past so it needs to be just left there
well down by tl to handle the situation at hand the best they possibly could
|
On May 09 2010 16:02 charlesatan wrote:
The problem with your Magic: The Gathering example is not you didn't give a concrete example. Is it a case of the winning player not "tapping their land to gain mana" before casting their game-winning spell? Talented and skilled players have lost because of this technicality but it's the rules. Is this the kind of rules lawyering you're talking about?
No, your statement shows that you don't even understand tournament rules in Magic. The absurd scenario you attempted to describe is an impossibility, it's impossible to
1) attempt to make a play without tapping land
2) given a game loss to do so.
However, more to the point. There are many examples in Magic, but I will give you a simple one. There are a set of cards called "pacts". These pacts are cards you can play for free. However, on your next time, if you do not pay a set cost for the pact at the beginning of your turn (before you draw a card), then you lose the game. However, it is also in the rules that the opponent of the player who played the pact must also remind the player who cast the pact to pay for it at the beginning of their turn (stop them from drawing a card for an autoloss). However, a lot of players intentionally let their opponent draw a card without paying for the pact. Upon investigation, the player who "forgot" to remind their opponent just feigns ignorance or claims they forgot too and they simply get off with a warning.
A famous player named Kenji Tsumura is known as a guy of extremely good character - He would always stop his opponents and remind them to pay for their pact even if it meant he would lose the game.
Well, while I'm at it, one more example. In magic, there is a time limit for each round. There are many rules against this, but it doesn't deter it - "Slow play". A player, who feels they have no chance to win or the odds are against them, will attempt to deliberately play slow in order to get a draw. For example, even if they are beat, they will take the maximum amount of time they can without getting warned for it just so they can get a draw. There have been a lot of famous examples where it's obvious to everyone that player X has lost the game, but kept playing to suck up time instead of conceding. When asked why they didn't just concede, they simply said "I think I still had a chance to win" when it was obvious that they didn't. Additionally, many players will win their first game (since matches are best out of 3), and intentionally play slow in the 2nd game to eat up time (if the second game is a draw, whoever wins the first game wins the match in a time dispute). Also, there is a period where players can modify their decks between games and you must also shuffle your deck and your opponents. Some players will intentionally shuffle and sideboard longer in order to eat up time.
Yes, the example does apply. Character vs. winning.
|
There was no 'chance' of slush coming back. 1 million jaedongs, each controlling only 1 unit, would lose in that situation. Your argument is that he could have come back when the simple fact of the matter is that there was no chance. You like to say there "even if there is a 1% chance" but what if the chance is less than 1? What if the only chance of him coming back is Artosis literally having a heart attack?
This is still not an apology and I think a formal one should be written to artosis by the judges of the tournament.
|
Slush acted like a deviant slime. Artosis's reaction was completely justified and IMO not drastic enough. I would like to of seen him regame Slush and put the hurt on..
|
On May 09 2010 16:49 BluApex wrote:
1 million jaedongs, each controlling only 1 unit, would lose in that situation.
Hey now, let's not be hasty!
jk ;-)
|
1 million jaedogs controlling only a few mutas? That would crash the game for sure
|
Netherlands4511 Posts
On May 09 2010 11:49 skYfiVe wrote:
There isn't a much better way to put it then TL just did, and there is no right or wrong. Sure Slush probably knew he was going to lose, but who is going to admit to that when money is on the line?
To me this is the only thing to take from this. I can't believe a player who's been invited to a tournament for the beta of a game would try to get a regame when he is skilled enough to know that he had lost the game beyond a shadow of doubt.
Mistakes happen, it was not TL's intention at all to do anything but the right thing here. And a showmatch with Artosis seems like a great way to fix this. But man...Slush...how badly do you need money? :S
|
On May 09 2010 16:53 cartoon]x wrote:
1 million jaedogs controlling only a few mutas? That would crash the game for sure
I don't think he was being literal
|
I applaud TL for coming out and apologizing about this situation. Yes, Artosis did win the game and should've moved on, but nothing in life goes as planned either. The staff shouldn't be blamed, they dedicated a lot of time to run this event, so we as spectators can enjoy. I hope they can make it up to Artosis somehow. But thanks TL for running these tournaments!
|
I say we all storm slush's house as a mob and string up his mouse and keyboard, and hold a public decimation
|
![[image loading]](http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/749/slushartosis.png)
I think the most important thing is to improve the policy so this doesn't happen in a bigger tournament on a bigger stage. TL already said they will get a couple of high level players to be available to judge a replay in the future, so that is a positive we can all take from this.
|
On May 09 2010 16:58 zerglingsfolife wrote:I think the most important thing is to improve the policy so this doesn't happen in a bigger tournament on a bigger stage. TL already said they will get a couple of high level players to be available to judge a replay in the future, so that is a positive we can all take from this.
I LOL'd
|
I took time away because I was getting really heated on the matter earlier. I'm glad Artosis got his apology, and with how good of a guy he is I'm sure that will be enough for him (all he's ever done is give to this community in spite of what the trolls jumping on the Artosis hate bandwagon will say).
That being said, mistakes happen. I'm disappointed in Slush and I have to agree with Ret when he says how badly did you need the money Slush?
Finally, I'd like to say that my faith in TL is restored, and I'm happy we can all be civil once again.
|
On May 09 2010 13:26 jax1492 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:37 NukeGoesKABOOM wrote:On May 09 2010 12:35 JassyP wrote:
I feel people need to stop bashing Artosis, yea his temper got the best of him....but on the real tip...if you felt someone was going to snatch 300 dollars out of your hands you would get angry too. He flipped out over a video game dude. This is what Artosis devotes his life and career too.... its more than a game to him. but ya i think he could have handled him self a bit better, but as you see he was right about the situation. i would like to see a show match when things blow over, i think it would be a great game.
If Artosis has devoted his whole life and career to SC and SC2, he should invest in a better computer that doesn't crash. If you're a pro bungee jumper and your bungee cable snaps because you decided you didn't want to invest in a professional quality set-up, it's your own fault. If Artosis is truly serious about professional gaming he should invest in a gaming rig with enough power and stability to run the game properly. Instead, Artosis would rather play on a crappy setup and use it as an excuse for any loss (saying that his terrible loss against daynine was because of a mysterious page pool error that somehow magically cause his computer to lag without effecting his opponent as well [which is impossible without having some sort of synch error in an RTS game, btw]).
Artosis has been unsportsmanlike and whiny since the second match of the tournament vs day. Constant excuses and complaining about computer and connection issues. Anyone that watched the stream could even read the bs that artosis was spewing in the chat.
What I want to know is, why did this 'mistake' happen in the first place..? Obviously the judges didn't feel that Artosis had the game 100% finished when they originally reviewed the replay... So what profound event happened between then and now that made them change their minds so unanimously...? Seems like everyone is too busy d**k-riding artosis and trying to make him feel better now that he is super salty about the tournament and posting ridiculous tweets about the huge injustice of a tournament that follows it's own precidented rules.
Hey artosis, want to know how to avoid embarrassing losses? Invest in some quality computer parts and equipment and a nice stable internet connection. If gaming is your hobby, career and life, then you should at least be able to support yourself enough to afford the basic necessities of PC gaming.
All this sodium isn't good for your blood pressure man.
|
^Artosis lives in korea. You could own a 10,000 $ computer and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. You know that cable traveling from the blinky box into your computer? That's where the internet comes from. That little blinky box - that's called a modem.
On May 09 2010 13:08 XtrEEmMaShEEN3k2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 13:07 shinosai wrote:On May 09 2010 13:01 Thamoo wrote:
If I'm evantually in the final of a tournament and I'm way ahead, I'll intentionally lose my connection to be certain that I won't make a big mistake under all that stress.
Bad manner? prove it now. Good luck proving that there's no way your opponent could lose. Cause if you were in a situation to 100% win I've really got to question why you'd be so dense as to d/c... since there's considerably less than a 99% chance that the admins will agree with you. His whole point would be that there would be no way to prove whether he d/c'd intentionally or because of a game error. Much like it is in this situation.
How dumb are you? There is not a player in the world who would d/c when they were anywhere near 100 percent winning. What the hell would that do for you? What on earth could it possibly accomplish? Seriously - are you retarded? I want to know. Holy crap..
|
On May 09 2010 15:57 dacthehork wrote:
Guys saying what slush should do
please stop, he is not at fault. He Showed up, he played his games, he was advanced by the tourney admins.
Artosis was the one who Disconnected, it is his computer malfunctions that are at fault. If you do not want to DC and have this risk, then go for a short walk in a country supposedly FILLED with pc bongs and play on one of those.
I agree with this that technically he is not at fault but it leaves a really bad taste in everyone's mouth because it was clear he lost. Other games have unwritten rules that people follow even though they don't have to. Golf, poker, and someone gave a really good magic the gathering example even though I never really played. I can only speak for myself but I really liked slush before this and now I don't really care to even see his games now. I don't know much about him but hopefully he just made a mistake because he's young and this was kind of a unique situation and he learns from it. . . or maybe not whatever.
|
I think the whole thing is a headache. If Slush really wasn't able to recover, and he asked for a rematch, that's low. The problem is compounded by the fact that Artosis has a bit of a diva complex regarding this game, so regardless of the actual state of the game, he, in his mind, was going to win. + Show Spoiler +Remember, the only reason Day9 won a match against him is because of a computer glitch.
Regardless, I commend the TL staff for looking as deeply into this as they have. It shows that they care about their community.
|
If Slush won the tournament, then I guess they picked the right ruling
|
On May 09 2010 17:08 KatanaSwordfish wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 13:26 jax1492 wrote:On May 09 2010 12:37 NukeGoesKABOOM wrote:On May 09 2010 12:35 JassyP wrote:
I feel people need to stop bashing Artosis, yea his temper got the best of him....but on the real tip...if you felt someone was going to snatch 300 dollars out of your hands you would get angry too. He flipped out over a video game dude. This is what Artosis devotes his life and career too.... its more than a game to him. but ya i think he could have handled him self a bit better, but as you see he was right about the situation. i would like to see a show match when things blow over, i think it would be a great game. If Artosis has devoted his whole life and career to SC and SC2, he should invest in a better computer that doesn't crash. If you're a pro bungee jumper and your bungee cable snaps because you decided you didn't want to invest in a professional quality set-up, it's your own fault. If Artosis is truly serious about professional gaming he should invest in a gaming rig with enough power and stability to run the game properly. Instead, Artosis would rather play on a crappy setup and use it as an excuse for any loss (saying that his terrible loss against daynine was because of a mysterious page pool error that somehow magically cause his computer to lag without effecting his opponent as well [which is impossible without having some sort of synch error in an RTS game, btw]). Artosis has been unsportsmanlike and whiny since the second match of the tournament vs day. Constant excuses and complaining about computer and connection issues. Anyone that watched the stream could even read the bs that artosis was spewing in the chat. What I want to know is, why did this 'mistake' happen in the first place..? Obviously the judges didn't feel that Artosis had the game 100% finished when they originally reviewed the replay... So what profound event happened between then and now that made them change their minds so unanimously...? Seems like everyone is too busy d**k-riding artosis and trying to make him feel better now that he is super salty about the tournament and posting ridiculous tweets about the huge injustice of a tournament that follows it's own precidented rules. Hey artosis, want to know how to avoid embarrassing losses? Invest in some quality computer parts and equipment and a nice stable internet connection. If gaming is your hobby, career and life, then you should at least be able to support yourself enough to afford the basic necessities of PC gaming. All this sodium isn't good for your blood pressure man.
Says the guy that has two posts
|
I certainly understand TL over this matter. I’ve been in leadership positions before when I was under pressure and made the wrong call. And it just feels like crap when that happens, but you have to live with it.
And I believe it shows great responsibility and professionalism that TL apologized.
It’s still a pity that Artosis had to be knocked out of the tournament in this fashion. (Though he obviously had a shot at advancing in the tournament. It just gave Slush the chance he needed.) And I hope he doesn’t hold any animosity towards TL. Still, perhaps from this incident Teamliquids future events will only be strengthened from the learning experience.
All things considered TL runs their events amazingly well, and as they have more tournaments and such they’ll only gain experience and thus their events will become even better.
Thanks for the great event TL. It was good, bar this little happening.
Best wishes all
|
On May 09 2010 17:25 DrTossRulezz wrote:
If Slush won the tournament, then I guess they picked the right ruling
Or perhaps you could argue that it was, in fact, a more egregious error.
|
On May 09 2010 17:33 Jugan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 17:25 DrTossRulezz wrote:
If Slush won the tournament, then I guess they picked the right ruling Or perhaps you could argue that it was, in fact, a more egregious error.
I don't even think that Artosis would have won.
|
The only part of this that gripes me is the fact that one of the admins overseeing the match asked Slush if he felt he had a chance to win the game.
That right there is your mistake. Why do you even have referees if you are going to ask the players who are playing a tournament for money for their opinion of the game?
I'm not saying that Slush should be disqualified or anything brash like that but honestly I feel that the admins perhaps, were incapable not only in knowing about Starcraft II but apparently general sports (or eSports) rules that offer neutral judgements.
|
On May 09 2010 17:34 DrTossRulezz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 17:33 Jugan wrote:On May 09 2010 17:25 DrTossRulezz wrote:
If Slush won the tournament, then I guess they picked the right ruling Or perhaps you could argue that it was, in fact, a more egregious error. I don't even think that Artosis would have won.
And there are those who think that Artosis had won the game, and should have been given the chance to win the tournament. Which is different than offering him a showmatch in compensation (Not trying to bash here).
|
On May 09 2010 17:34 DrTossRulezz wrote:
I don't even think that Artosis would have won.
obv troll is obv
|
On May 09 2010 17:37 milkywaywu wrote:
The only part of this that gripes me is the fact that one of the admins overseeing the match asked Slush if he felt he had a chance to win the game.
That right there is your mistake. Why do you even have referees if you are going to ask the players who are playing a tournament for money for their opinion of the game?
I'm not saying that Slush should be disqualified or anything brash like that but honestly I feel that the admins perhaps, were incapable not only in knowing about Starcraft II but apparently general sports (or eSports) rules that offer neutral judgements.
They asked him because if slush said that he would admit defeat, then they wouldn't even have to review the case in the first place.
It was not done to get his opinion on how the case should be handled.
|
On May 09 2010 17:25 MorningMusume11 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 17:08 KatanaSwordfish wrote:On May 09 2010 13:26 jax1492 wrote:On May 09 2010 12:37 NukeGoesKABOOM wrote:On May 09 2010 12:35 JassyP wrote:
I feel people need to stop bashing Artosis, yea his temper got the best of him....but on the real tip...if you felt someone was going to snatch 300 dollars out of your hands you would get angry too. He flipped out over a video game dude. This is what Artosis devotes his life and career too.... its more than a game to him. but ya i think he could have handled him self a bit better, but as you see he was right about the situation. i would like to see a show match when things blow over, i think it would be a great game. If Artosis has devoted his whole life and career to SC and SC2, he should invest in a better computer that doesn't crash. If you're a pro bungee jumper and your bungee cable snaps because you decided you didn't want to invest in a professional quality set-up, it's your own fault. If Artosis is truly serious about professional gaming he should invest in a gaming rig with enough power and stability to run the game properly. Instead, Artosis would rather play on a crappy setup and use it as an excuse for any loss (saying that his terrible loss against daynine was because of a mysterious page pool error that somehow magically cause his computer to lag without effecting his opponent as well [which is impossible without having some sort of synch error in an RTS game, btw]). Artosis has been unsportsmanlike and whiny since the second match of the tournament vs day. Constant excuses and complaining about computer and connection issues. Anyone that watched the stream could even read the bs that artosis was spewing in the chat. What I want to know is, why did this 'mistake' happen in the first place..? Obviously the judges didn't feel that Artosis had the game 100% finished when they originally reviewed the replay... So what profound event happened between then and now that made them change their minds so unanimously...? Seems like everyone is too busy d**k-riding artosis and trying to make him feel better now that he is super salty about the tournament and posting ridiculous tweets about the huge injustice of a tournament that follows it's own precidented rules. Hey artosis, want to know how to avoid embarrassing losses? Invest in some quality computer parts and equipment and a nice stable internet connection. If gaming is your hobby, career and life, then you should at least be able to support yourself enough to afford the basic necessities of PC gaming. All this sodium isn't good for your blood pressure man. Says the guy that has two posts
His account was also created in July of 2008 and not today like you're trying to suggest. But none of that matters since it doesn't make his opinion any more/less valid. Guess what, post count equals nothing more than post count. Refute his idea/opinion with one of your own and not some idiotic statement.
|
On May 09 2010 17:42 kyophan wrote:
It was not done to get his opinion on how the case should be handled.
Yet his "opinion" made all the difference in how the case was handled. Which is the bottom line/point for many in this thread.
|
[b]+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 17:42 kyophan wrote:On May 09 2010 17:37 milkywaywu wrote:
The only part of this that gripes me is the fact that one of the admins overseeing the match asked Slush if he felt he had a chance to win the game.
That right there is your mistake. Why do you even have referees if you are going to ask the players who are playing a tournament for money for their opinion of the game?
I'm not saying that Slush should be disqualified or anything brash like that but honestly I feel that the admins perhaps, were incapable not only in knowing about Starcraft II but apparently general sports (or eSports) rules that offer neutral judgements. They asked him because if slush said that he would admit defeat, then they wouldn't even have to review the case in the first place. It was not done to get his opinion on how the case should be handled.
But the fact of the matter is they shouldn't have asked him that in the first place. The thing I can agree with is the fact that the referees made a decision and it was wrong.
Great; fine; nothing we can do about it; do better next time.
But if they asked Slush and took his opinion into account? That is not alright. That is not right at all. Referees must be neutral and the fact that they let Slush have a say in what should happen in the admin's tournament just doesn't sit right with me.
|
Thanks for the tournament TL, I enjoyed the live stream. It is too bad an error was made but you are taking the best course of action, as is expected of you. Commercial entities dealing with the common sports would not be expected to behave as civil, but you have the balls to do it right. Let's look forward to the next tournament, where a solution for these circumstances will be present.
As for a solution for Artosis, a showmatch is always nice It is impossible to give something as satisfying as a possible tournament victory over 15 other players without involving 15 other players. A Ro4 seed into a possible future tournament would perhaps be a good equivalent of a lost opportunity?
|
On May 09 2010 17:25 MorningMusume11 wrote:
Says the guy that has two posts
Indeed. Perhaps he ought to hold off on making comments like that until he has 2241 posts' worth of serious Starcraft discu![[image loading]](http://i43.tinypic.com/vqptua.jpg)
|
is awesome32271 Posts
On May 09 2010 17:56 gngfn wrote:Indeed. Perhaps he ought to hold off on making comments like that until he has 2241 posts' worth of serious Starcraft discu
loooooooooool
|
epic find, how the hell is that even possible
|
Austin10831 Posts
|
Have you guys never done a search on TL before, or what?
|
Someone get help quick! MorningMusume11 just fell off his high horse!
|
Austin10831 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.
|
Lots of tournaments have a dc = loss rule so that he can even re play the game when HE dced should be good enuff...
Dont blaim others for your crap internet connection.
|
Baah, i wanted Artosis to win tls so badly
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.
|
Baa?21242 Posts
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 ____"
|
Does anyone have the replay?
|
Austin10831 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.
|
On May 09 2010 18:16 Longshank wrote:
Does anyone have the replay?
Yeah it can be found here [url blocked]
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
Austin10831 Posts
You wouldn't blacklist a soccer player who didn't report his own handball, would you? Or a football player who didn't report his own facemask penalty?
|
Baa?21242 Posts
On May 09 2010 18:18 BroOd wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
Austin10831 Posts
edit: actually nevermind, i can't really think about this situation anymore it's too tedious
|
If you can't show up with a decently setup computer and internet connection, you shouldn't show up at all. It's nobody's fault but Artosis' for his own equipment, imagine if he would have got the win from that. He was complaining before hand about the error he was having in the match against Day9, he potentially had to play two more matches if he would have won the tournament, and I know that the problem wouldn't have gone away by itself. So he would have plagued the whole tournament with his poorly setup computer and potential disconnects, bringing up who knows how many more discussions like this one.
In my opinion the admins took the right decision.
|
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
|
*exasperated sigh*
after i get a slight advantage woo
[url blocked]
Watch it plz.
|
|
|
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.
|
United States42258 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?
|
TL has it under control. Thanks guys.
|
Wait what? I don't follow Sc2 beta.
|
On May 09 2010 17:58 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 17:56 gngfn wrote:On May 09 2010 17:25 MorningMusume11 wrote:
Says the guy that has two posts Indeed. Perhaps he ought to hold off on making comments like that until he has 2241 posts' worth of serious Starcraft discu loooooooooool
LOL Funny pictures that make you laugh thread please.
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.
Whether or not he could have possibly disconnected in an imaginary scenario (one that did not take place) should hold no relevance to what happened in reality.
|
OMG drama again...
There is no good call in such situation: it is unfair to take away win from Artosis because he had higher chances to win and at the same time it would be unfair to take away this tiny chance of win from Slush just because his opponent's PC failed.
Seriously if you play tournament to get money you make sure that you maximise your chances of victory right? And having proper hardware is also a requirement to be able to win (as we just saw). If you want to earn money you have to invest first
TL made a call and they shouldn't regret it because there was no good decision here
|
On May 09 2010 18:25 BroOd wrote:
You wouldn't blacklist a soccer player who didn't report his own handball, would you? Or a football player who didn't report his own facemask penalty?
Entirely different situation my friend.
If I stand to gain something by not speaking up then why would I ever speak up?
However in this situation not only do I stand to gain, but another stands to lose by my inaction. Is it fair that because of my selfishness, greed, and lack of morals that I would cause another who should rightfully gain something to lose it?
I just cannot understand the people who feel as if slush did nothing wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_(criminal_law)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
|
It's very big of you that you admit your fault. Yesterday's tournament was awesome besides this episode, and we know you guys do the best you can to make everyone happy. <3 Mistakes happen and it's awesome to know you learn from them. Cudos!
|
On May 09 2010 16:54 ret wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 11:49 skYfiVe wrote:
There isn't a much better way to put it then TL just did, and there is no right or wrong. Sure Slush probably knew he was going to lose, but who is going to admit to that when money is on the line?
To me this is the only thing to take from this. I can't believe a player who's been invited to a tournament for the beta of a game would try to get a regame when he is skilled enough to know that he had lost the game beyond a shadow of doubt. Mistakes happen, it was not TL's intention at all to do anything but the right thing here. And a showmatch with Artosis seems like a great way to fix this. But man...Slush...how badly do you need money? :S
Yeah i cant belive it too....
hopping for a showmatch
|
maybe he thought he could win still? maybe he thought he could kill that attack with drones + muta + corruptors+ roaches, and artosis really had no other units, and he wouldve had 2 expos up. I know that artosis had a huge advantage, but im sure that 99% of u in slush's position would not just say " ok u win "
|
Austin10831 Posts
On May 09 2010 19:09 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 18:25 BroOd wrote:
You wouldn't blacklist a soccer player who didn't report his own handball, would you? Or a football player who didn't report his own facemask penalty? Entirely different situation my friend. If I stand to gain something by not speaking up then why would I ever speak up? However in this situation not only do I stand to gain, but another stands to lose by my inaction. Is it fair that because of my selfishness, greed, and lack of morals that I would cause another who should rightfully gain something to lose it? I just cannot understand the people who feel as if slush did nothing wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_(criminal_law)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
How is that different exactly? In Ireland vs France World Cup qualifiers, Thierry Henry handballed a goal that put France in the World Cup and left Ireland out. Should he have reported himself to the referee?
|
I just watched the replay - the match wasn't over... yes Artosis was winning - but it wasn't a gg situation yet... how is it Slush's fault that his opponent got DC'ed.
What if all matches would be like this - and if you DCed you would still get the win because you were having some kind of an advantage. You would see them pull the plug every other match.
Its not Slush's fault - and the decision was CORRECT!
You DC - and you have an advantage - you REMATCH buddy - thats it!
You DC - and you are loosing - you loose!
Simple as that... This was a big mistake by Nazgul! Throwing the blame on Slush because they are not men enough to support the consequences of their decisions.
|
On May 09 2010 19:21 El_Cid wrote:
I just watched the replay - the match wasn't over... yes Artosis was winning - but it wasn't a gg situation yet... how is it Slush's fault that his opponent got DC'ed.
What if all matches would be like this - and if you DCed you would still get the win because you were having some kind of an advantage. You would see them pull the plug every other match.
Its not Slush's fault - and the decision was CORRECT!
You DC - and you have an advantage - you REMATCH buddy - thats it!
You DC - and you are loosing - you loose!
Simple as that... This was a big mistake by Nazgul! Throwing the blame on Slush because they are not men enough to support the consequences of their decisions.
i agree... game was definitely not over yet
|
On May 09 2010 19:19 BroOd wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 19:09 dogabutila wrote:On May 09 2010 18:25 BroOd wrote:
You wouldn't blacklist a soccer player who didn't report his own handball, would you? Or a football player who didn't report his own facemask penalty? Entirely different situation my friend. If I stand to gain something by not speaking up then why would I ever speak up? However in this situation not only do I stand to gain, but another stands to lose by my inaction. Is it fair that because of my selfishness, greed, and lack of morals that I would cause another who should rightfully gain something to lose it? I just cannot understand the people who feel as if slush did nothing wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_(criminal_law)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue How is that different exactly? In Ireland vs France World Cup qualifiers, Thierry Henry handballed a goal that put France in the World Cup and left Ireland out. Should he have reported himself to the referee?
In fairness of the sport yes. Yes he should have.
Was it something you can blame the guy for? Not really.
It's never alright to do unfair things to get ahead. That is what we as people want to believe and want to achieve as mankind evolves.
In no way am I bashing Slush as I believe it was really an officiating error that spawned from inproper protocol taken by the referees (asking for Slush's take on the matter).
|
On May 09 2010 19:28 drewbie.root wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 19:21 El_Cid wrote:
I just watched the replay - the match wasn't over... yes Artosis was winning - but it wasn't a gg situation yet... how is it Slush's fault that his opponent got DC'ed.
What if all matches would be like this - and if you DCed you would still get the win because you were having some kind of an advantage. You would see them pull the plug every other match.
Its not Slush's fault - and the decision was CORRECT!
You DC - and you have an advantage - you REMATCH buddy - thats it!
You DC - and you are loosing - you loose!
Simple as that... This was a big mistake by Nazgul! Throwing the blame on Slush because they are not men enough to support the consequences of their decisions.
i agree... game was definitely not over yet
Lol, boggles my mind how a player of your skill evel can agree with that bullshit post
|
On May 09 2010 11 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 09 2010 11 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:48 Jascle wrote:
Really glad Nazgul owned it. Now there won't be any lingering awkwardness going forward.
$10k Artosis v Slush grudge match inc?
No more awkwardness? TL have caved to Artosis and have not mentioned his child's tantrum in this statement nor have they apologised to Slush for implying his win of the tournament is invalid.
|
slush is good he won tour after that game
|
United States42258 Posts
On May 09 2010 19:29 milkywaywu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 19:19 BroOd wrote:On May 09 2010 19:09 dogabutila wrote:On May 09 2010 18:25 BroOd wrote:
You wouldn't blacklist a soccer player who didn't report his own handball, would you? Or a football player who didn't report his own facemask penalty? Entirely different situation my friend. If I stand to gain something by not speaking up then why would I ever speak up? However in this situation not only do I stand to gain, but another stands to lose by my inaction. Is it fair that because of my selfishness, greed, and lack of morals that I would cause another who should rightfully gain something to lose it? I just cannot understand the people who feel as if slush did nothing wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_(criminal_law)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue How is that different exactly? In Ireland vs France World Cup qualifiers, Thierry Henry handballed a goal that put France in the World Cup and left Ireland out. Should he have reported himself to the referee? In fairness of the sport yes. Yes he should have. Was it something you can blame the guy for? Not really. It's never alright to do unfair things to get ahead. That is what we as people want to believe and want to achieve as mankind evolves. In no way am I bashing Slush as I believe it was really an officiating error that spawned from inproper protocol taken by the referees (asking for Slush's take on the matter).
I don't believe an error was made.
The rules used were fairly simple. If a player disconnects while winning then it's a regame. If a player disconnects while losing it's a loss. Artosis disconnects while winning therefore it's a regame. Asking Slush if he thought he was so far behind Artosis that Artosis should get the freewin was a gesture towards fairness and if anything helped Artosis because it could have given him the freewin.
|
On May 09 2010 19:33 Full.tilt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 11 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 09 2010 11 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:48 Jascle wrote:
Really glad Nazgul owned it. Now there won't be any lingering awkwardness going forward.
$10k Artosis v Slush grudge match inc? No more awkwardness? TL have caved to Artosis and have not mentioned his child's tantrum in this statement nor have they apologised to Slush for implying his win of the tournament is invalid.
lol are you for rela? Apologise to Slush?
Nazgul in his statement just stated facts.
Artosis has already apologised to ETT for his behaviour and if anyone is left to apologise it should be Slush apologising to Artosis, if he didnt lie, for not realising it was completely over.
|
tour its over and slush is a champ. accept that
|
On May 09 2010 19:19 drewbie.root wrote:
maybe he thought he could win still? maybe he thought he could kill that attack with drones + muta + corruptors+ roaches, and artosis really had no other units, and he wouldve had 2 expos up. I know that artosis had a huge advantage, but im sure that 99% of u in slush's position would not just say " ok u win "
read ret's post. slush would have had 0 mining bases, 1 hatch, vs the half of the map that artosis owns, IF slush somehow managed to kill a horde of 3/2 hydras with 0/1 mutas. gl with that.
|
The decision that was made was the correct one. You should never award a win to a player that disconnect unless his opponent has either said gg, or there isn't even a theoretical chance for him to win. This just wasn't the case in Slush vs Artosis.
It's sad to see Teamliquid backpedaling on their decision just because they are receiving some heat for their decision, and because it involves a "famous" community member.
I'm sorry Nazgul, but you are pretty much throwing Kennigit under the bus whether you want it or not, and it will undermine the authority of the TL admins in future tournaments.
|
Owning up mistakes is nice and well but TL,with this statement, not only shadowed Slush's victory over Artosis, but also all the success of Slush during the tournament, who did nothing but follow ref's decision.
|
Good post. Hope it goes some way to relieving tensions.
|
On May 09 2010 19:09 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 18:25 BroOd wrote:
You wouldn't blacklist a soccer player who didn't report his own handball, would you? Or a football player who didn't report his own facemask penalty? Entirely different situation my friend. If I stand to gain something by not speaking up then why would I ever speak up? However in this situation not only do I stand to gain, but another stands to lose by my inaction. Is it fair that because of my selfishness, greed, and lack of morals that I would cause another who should rightfully gain something to lose it?
You state it is entirely different then go on to argue through reasoning which would apply to both situations.
Although it is different, as I would assume it was Slush's objections which led to the need for a referee descision.
At most though I think he can be criticised for being very selfish and unsportsmanlike, but not to the extent where he ought to be punished.
I remember lots of clanwar situations in BW where people would object over the most idiotic things. One was a situation very similar where I had 100% won the game, but disconnected at the end. Person refused to watch the replay as did the people in his clan, kept saying it had to be a regame and got all rude and irritable. Then obv admin gives descision that it is clearly my win and opponent can't actually form a coherent argument against it, but goes into sulky "wronged" mode.
But anyway here is an example where there was nothing to gain beyond simple a clanleague game win, but if people can have this selfish reaction to such things it's no suprise that in a tournament with money, where a referee actually makes a descision in your favour that you will go along with it (or that many people would).
|
On May 09 2010 19:09 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 18:25 BroOd wrote:
You wouldn't blacklist a soccer player who didn't report his own handball, would you? Or a football player who didn't report his own facemask penalty? Entirely different situation my friend. If I stand to gain something by not speaking up then why would I ever speak up? However in this situation not only do I stand to gain, but another stands to lose by my inaction. Is it fair that because of my selfishness, greed, and lack of morals that I would cause another who should rightfully gain something to lose it? I just cannot understand the people who feel as if slush did nothing wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_(criminal_law)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
This is hardly a matter of criminal law, if it was then just about every sportsperson ever would be in jail.
And how can you say it's different, in competition there's always someone that stands to lose and someone that stands to gain from this kind of thing.
More often than not with sportsmanship it's just about what is generally accepted in that particular game/sport and what isn't, for example a tennis player would never voluntarily give his opponent a point even though he may know the linesman made a wrong call and he benefited from it. Sometimes this changes over time, in cricket 30 years ago if someone was out and didn't walk it was considered bad manners, nowadays it's accepted that even if you're clearly out you wait for the umpires call.
Now this particular situation is a pretty unique situation that rarely comes up in Starcraft tournaments so how the hell is Slush to know what is acceptable and what isn't, that's even assuming that he didn't think he had a chance of winning, which in all probability he probably did at the time. I can't blame him for defaulting to the refs decision.
|
Very good decisions, Nazgul. Respect
|
Even if Artosis was ahead in the game - you have to respect the Admins decision (no matter what) during the tournament. If you feel unfairly treated - make your point after the tournament and take the official way. Anything else is unprofessional.
|
Why are so many people blaming Slush? He didn't break any rules, he merely let refs decide, which is his right. Congrats to Slush, he played really well throughout the tournament.
|
I think everyone needs to step back and take a look at what happened here.
A mistake was made by the refs. A very reasonable mistake under teh circumstances. A player gets robbed of the chance of advancing in and possibly winning the entire tournament.
TL looks at this and says: Hey guys I think we made a mistake. Let's put something in place to ensure that never happens again. Voila, we have the "expert panels".
This is a great idea that will set a new standard for how to run tournaments. TL has once again raised the bar for how to do things in the community.
|
Expert panels can just create a new set of problems though, including bias or the decision needing to be unaminous, if it comes down to a vote within the expert panel then the result is obviously not as clear cut as people assume and people will always be left wondering 'What if?'. Regame would then be the fairest option in almost every situation.
Hard and fast rules should be the order of the day during a livestream tournament with 8k+ people watching. You disconnect you lose, or regame the entire match so if it's 2-2 and someone disconnects due to a bug or hardware failure then start off at 0-0. Which obviously leads back to the good old; you disconnect you lose, to save time and a lot of hassle.
|
On May 09 2010 19:47 Ghazwan wrote:
Owning up mistakes is nice and well but TL,with this statement, not only shadowed Slush's victory over Artosis, but also all the success of Slush during the tournament, who did nothing but follow ref's decision.
That is nonsense. You can read it like that if you want, but that is your personal slant then. TL's only implication with the statement regarding Slush is that Slush should not have advanced, but Artosis. Artosis did not play in the Ro4 or finals, Slush did. Slush' performance there is undeniable. Playing the what-if game makes no sense and is better left to day dreamers.
|
On May 09 2010 19:47 Ghazwan wrote:
Owning up mistakes is nice and well but TL,with this statement, not only shadowed Slush's victory over Artosis, but also all the success of Slush during the tournament, who did nothing but follow ref's decision.
The shadow is warranted. When you play a guy who's playing from Korea and you're going to sustain a 100% loss - you don't you "omg YEEES!!! he DCd!" and send the ruling off to the judges. That's the sort of ladder attitude we don't need in tournaments.
When TL admins later conclude that it wasn't a 98% or even 99% certainty that Artosis would win, but a 100% certainty after a >25minute game - you concede that win, you don't compromise your own morality over the chance of a lucky break.
You do what's right and win fair - or you do stuff like this and your win gets scuffed at. Simple facts of the matter.
|
damn, i wasn't home last night, sounds like some serious drama was going on o_0
this is all so confusing
|
I think we need to step back and accept that everyone involved in this is human and make mistakes.
From watching the lead up to the last day9 game v Artosis. Artosis was already heated and swearing about he delay because of the page pool error. Being angry before his game with slush wouldnt have helped matters. But if he can take anything from this that its better to remain well mannered and polite because people are more likely to respond favourably to that than being ranted and sworn at. They will just dig their heels in. Day9's vod on dealing with losing analyses this very well and gives suggestions to how to deal with it and calm yourself.
I can understand why Slush would go with the referees. I would trust them to make the right decision and if someone bad mouthed me in whatever sport or competition, I would hardly be more likely to change my mind. I expect he did the same.
Finally the referees, in whatever sport esport or game it has to be that their decision is final. Its never a nice job to be the adjudicator and some respect needs to be shown to them because decisions wont always go your way and without them there would be no tournament. You can review things afterwards but otherwise people could still be arguing decisions for 2-3 hours and by then you've lost your audience. I cant think of one esport where a disconnect is an advantage for anyone, at best you get a regame or recover from recent save at worst teams have one less player for a while or default a loss.
|
On May 09 2010 19:42 Eury wrote:
The decision that was made was the correct one. You should never award a win to a player that disconnect unless his opponent has either said gg, or there isn't even a theoretical chance for him to win. This just wasn't the case in Slush vs Artosis.
It's sad to see Teamliquid backpedaling on their decision just because they are receiving some heat for their decision, and because it involves a "famous" community member.
I'm sorry Nazgul, but you are pretty much throwing Kennigit under the bus whether you want it or not, and it will undermine the authority of the TL admins in future tournaments.
are you serious.....?
There were no way slush could win that won what so ever. and even though slush at the time " before watching the replay " thought " he still had a chance he should have looked over the replay in the break and admitt defeat instead of being all like " oh im gonna be 100% passive now and let the judges call because then i might have a chance of a regame *.* "
TL didnt do any backpedaling because Artosis is a " famous " community member they did it because they knew that they have made a mistake, they made the wrong call at the given time.
That being said, people shouldnt rage on Teamliquid for their decision, shit happens when the wheels are rolling and you need to keep them spinning, they did an awesome job with the tournament besides that 1 call.
" now they know that they need to look at it differently next time, "
TL <3
|
@ Thrill: 100% loss? Afaik, the score when Artosis d/ced was 1-1, showing clearly that Slush is capable of beating Artosis. And, there was a re-game where Slush beated Artosis again. Not to mention the guy won all his other match-ups in the tournament showing a great performance.
@Badjas: I am not the one doing the 'what-if's. For me, Slush won the tournament fair and square. But, everyone else is doing the 'what-if's about who would have won the tourney now that it is out on the open that refs might have made a mistake.
The result is irrevertible. What's done is done and the winner is Slush. Perhaps the apology should have been kept private. What does this publicity bring other than some praises from the community, lotsa drama and undermining of Slush's success who didn't cheat nor stepped out of refs' orders?
|
On May 09 2010 17:25 MorningMusume11 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 17:08 KatanaSwordfish wrote:On May 09 2010 13:26 jax1492 wrote:On May 09 2010 12:37 NukeGoesKABOOM wrote:On May 09 2010 12:35 JassyP wrote:
I feel people need to stop bashing Artosis, yea his temper got the best of him....but on the real tip...if you felt someone was going to snatch 300 dollars out of your hands you would get angry too. He flipped out over a video game dude. This is what Artosis devotes his life and career too.... its more than a game to him. but ya i think he could have handled him self a bit better, but as you see he was right about the situation. i would like to see a show match when things blow over, i think it would be a great game. If Artosis has devoted his whole life and career to SC and SC2, he should invest in a better computer that doesn't crash. If you're a pro bungee jumper and your bungee cable snaps because you decided you didn't want to invest in a professional quality set-up, it's your own fault. If Artosis is truly serious about professional gaming he should invest in a gaming rig with enough power and stability to run the game properly. Instead, Artosis would rather play on a crappy setup and use it as an excuse for any loss (saying that his terrible loss against daynine was because of a mysterious page pool error that somehow magically cause his computer to lag without effecting his opponent as well [which is impossible without having some sort of synch error in an RTS game, btw]). Artosis has been unsportsmanlike and whiny since the second match of the tournament vs day. Constant excuses and complaining about computer and connection issues. Anyone that watched the stream could even read the bs that artosis was spewing in the chat. What I want to know is, why did this 'mistake' happen in the first place..? Obviously the judges didn't feel that Artosis had the game 100% finished when they originally reviewed the replay... So what profound event happened between then and now that made them change their minds so unanimously...? Seems like everyone is too busy d**k-riding artosis and trying to make him feel better now that he is super salty about the tournament and posting ridiculous tweets about the huge injustice of a tournament that follows it's own precidented rules. Hey artosis, want to know how to avoid embarrassing losses? Invest in some quality computer parts and equipment and a nice stable internet connection. If gaming is your hobby, career and life, then you should at least be able to support yourself enough to afford the basic necessities of PC gaming. All this sodium isn't good for your blood pressure man. Says the guy that has two posts
Yeah but hes completely right. The guy is in fucking MYM now. Things you shouldn't do when you are in a professional team: Have a computer that cannot stably run the game; whine like fuck to everyone possible and insult people on your twitter.
Tasteless didn't play because of computer issues. That's the correct decision to make and what Artosis should have done in the first place.
On May 09 2010 18:26 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
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.
Its not beyond his control though its completely within his control. It wasn't an unexpected random disconnect hes been having it happen all the time.
|
Hm, was absent from rts gaming for 3 years but back in the days u were happy to get a regame after _you_ disced....cause if u disc its not your opponents fault...i mean seriously.
Artosis BMing the Admins is a nice sidekick thou, kids BM all day or what.
|
8748 Posts
On May 09 2010 19:19 BroOd wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 19:09 dogabutila wrote:On May 09 2010 18:25 BroOd wrote:
You wouldn't blacklist a soccer player who didn't report his own handball, would you? Or a football player who didn't report his own facemask penalty? Entirely different situation my friend. If I stand to gain something by not speaking up then why would I ever speak up? However in this situation not only do I stand to gain, but another stands to lose by my inaction. Is it fair that because of my selfishness, greed, and lack of morals that I would cause another who should rightfully gain something to lose it? I just cannot understand the people who feel as if slush did nothing wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_(criminal_law)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue How is that different exactly? In Ireland vs France World Cup qualifiers, Thierry Henry handballed a goal that put France in the World Cup and left Ireland out. Should he have reported himself to the referee?
Ideally, yes. That's a given to me.
If you want an example of a sport where players regularly self-report, it's Ultimate Frisbee. But I don't like the reliance on "analogous" situations to determine what's reasonable. I think knowledge of just this particular event + knowledge of justice/fairness/fair play/sportsmanship + reasoning should be enough.
|
Just popping in to say that Artosis makes it very hard for himself for new people like me to the scene to like him. In the match vs Day9 where he lost on Steppes of War he whines like an idiot in the lobby before the next game, boldly stating that he would have won if he didnt get an error during the game.
Really? What is that for a thing to say. You lose and the QQ in the gamelobby that you would have won had XYZ occured. Its such a low thing to do, not only undermining your own character, but also the ability of ur opponent. Especially after being behind after a rush->expand by day9.
Day9 were in a rather huge lead, which is obvious to anyone who actually watched the game.
Artosis bitching about every single thing really makes it easy to look down on him. And justifiable so, in many cases.
|
On May 09 2010 21:13 vvvVec wrote:
Just popping in to say that Artosis makes it very hard for himself for new people like me to the scene to like him. In the match vs Day9 where he lost on Steppes of War he whines like an idiot in the lobby before the next game, boldly stating that he would have won if he didnt get an error during the game.
Really? What is that for a thing to say. You lose and the QQ in the gamelobby that you would have won had XYZ occured. Its such a low thing to do, not only undermining your own character, but also the ability of ur opponent. Especially after being behind after a rush->expand by day9.
Day9 were in a rather huge lead, which is obvious to anyone who actually watched the game.
Artosis bitching about every single thing really makes it easy to look down on him. And justifiable so, in many cases.
Welcome to the real world. Top players are humans and when speaking with other top players who they know well, they might even be honest instead of feigning being 100% perfect mannered like goddamn koreans. I'm glad the foreign scene has great players like nony, idra and artosis who aren't afraid to speak their mind on things involving other people & their own games.
|
On May 09 2010 21:13 vvvVec wrote:
Just popping in to say that Artosis makes it very hard for himself for new people like me to the scene to like him. In the match vs Day9 where he lost on Steppes of War he whines like an idiot in the lobby before the next game, boldly stating that he would have won if he didnt get an error during the game.
Really? What is that for a thing to say. You lose and the QQ in the gamelobby that you would have won had XYZ occured. Its such a low thing to do, not only undermining your own character, but also the ability of ur opponent. Especially after being behind after a rush->expand by day9.
Day9 were in a rather huge lead, which is obvious to anyone who actually watched the game.
Artosis bitching about every single thing really makes it easy to look down on him. And justifiable so, in many cases.
I agree and I'm pretty sure had Day9 Dc'd, Artosis would've wanted a rematch =)
|
Either way slush won 50% of his matches against artosis, and it was Artosis who is responsible for his computer working. HuK might have won his matches if his computer could actually run SC2 decently, instead he can't micro at all in mid and late game battles. Is this fair? No, but it's his computer and his responsibility. I think personally the judges should avoid at all costs avoid awarding wins to players that DC in the lead. Having judges decide who wins is a really bad precedent, if you DC in the lead, regame, if you dc while losing, loss. Rewarding players who DC? can lead down a bad road.
Artosis should man up and take the showmatch, fix his computer and play in a series against Slush, he will get the opportunity to make money and recognition, the whole "personal" grudge is stupid. He criticized other organizers in the past for not allowing Idra for the same reasons.
|
I dont think people are realising that artosis had to get up at like 2am for this tourney, he had every right to be "cranky".
|
Welcome to the real world. Top players are humans and when speaking with other top players who they know well, they might even be honest instead of feigning being 100% perfect mannered like goddamn koreans. I'm glad the foreign scene has great players like nony, idra and artosis who aren't afraid to speak their mind on things involving other people & their own games.
Its funny how no matter what idra/artosis says its "speaking their mind" and not bad manner.
How is artosis whining like a bitch that he could have won that game under XYZ circumstances not a lame thing to do?
There is nothing valiant or brave about someone who constantly whines, even tho you are so quick to say that "oh, he is just speaking his mind".
How would you feel if we did a 1v1 and u fairly win, with me stating after the game that pfff ur victory was lucky, i could have won if only i did X.
Everyone has their bad beat story, except we dont need to whine 24/7 about them.
|
On May 09 2010 21:21 bmml wrote:
I dont think people are realising that artosis had to get up at like 2am for this tourney, he had every right to be "cranky".
That's a huge cop out, you are always responsible for your actions, don't blame them on something else. Same people who say "I was drunk" and use it as an excuse, it's a willful choice and he should have been thankful to be invited in the first place.
The admins offered him recourse and he declined. There is nothing to pity here. Slush won the tournament it's over. He should also not get any blame.
Artosis refusing any offers from teamliquid of things to make it right such as a showmatch with money on the line already shows he just wants to complain and stir up trouble.
|
United States42258 Posts
On May 09 2010 21:21 bmml wrote:
I dont think people are realising that artosis had to get up at like 2am for this tourney, he had every right to be "cranky".
Understandably cranky =/= rightfully cranky
|
Can someone link to the thread where Artosis expressed his "disappointment" ?
I know that both parties have cooled down, and expressed their apologies and all is somewhat well and good again, but i'd like to read what actually happened.
Can't find the thread though :D
|
On May 09 2010 21:13 vvvVec wrote:
Just popping in to say that Artosis makes it very hard for himself for new people like me to the scene to like him. In the match vs Day9 where he lost on Steppes of War he whines like an idiot in the lobby before the next game, boldly stating that he would have won if he didnt get an error during the game.
Really? What is that for a thing to say. You lose and the QQ in the gamelobby that you would have won had XYZ occured. Its such a low thing to do, not only undermining your own character, but also the ability of ur opponent. Especially after being behind after a rush->expand by day9.
Day9 were in a rather huge lead, which is obvious to anyone who actually watched the game.
Artosis bitching about every single thing really makes it easy to look down on him. And justifiable so, in many cases.
It's like morality has only the purpose to badmouth people...
Let him be. Have you never got angry?
|
On May 09 2010 21:24 vvvVec wrote:Show nested quote +Welcome to the real world. Top players are humans and when speaking with other top players who they know well, they might even be honest instead of feigning being 100% perfect mannered like goddamn koreans. I'm glad the foreign scene has great players like nony, idra and artosis who aren't afraid to speak their mind on things involving other people & their own games. Its funny how no matter what idra/artosis says its "speaking their mind" and not bad manner. How is artosis whining like a bitch that he could have won that game under XYZ circumstances not a lame thing to do? There is nothing valiant or brave about someone who constantly whines, even tho you are so quick to say that "oh, he is just speaking his mind". How would you feel if we did a 1v1 and u fairly win, with me stating after the game that pfff ur victory was lucky, i could have won if only i did X. Everyone has their bad beat story, except we dont need to whine 24/7 about them.
I'm talking as a real person, not a robot who sees any transgression at all as "Bad Manner". If you don't act so ridiculously & fakely nice (you really think all the painfully "good manner" players mean everything they say?), you're "BM". Apparently, being "BM" is the ultimate sin. Instead of saying "I totally had that game, that's bullshit", you should be "Good Mannered" by saying "Damn man, I might've had that game if I didn't dc XD " with maybe 15 more smiley faces, when in reality you're feeling the exact same way as the guy who said the former quote.
What's the difference? Who cares?
|
On May 09 2010 21:21 bmml wrote:
I dont think people are realising that artosis had to get up at like 2am for this tourney, he had every right to be "cranky".
That is not a valid excue imho, if he couldn't play well because of his local time, he should have declined the invitation. It's not like he was forced to play.
On topic, i was originally for a regame and honnestly, a regame or not won't change that tl admins have done a very good-hard work for many years and some replies in thoses topics are very disrespectful towards them.
You, tl admins, took a position, and i'am noone (especially cause i did not watch this game) to judge if it's the right or not, and will be more prepared in the future if a situation like this happen again, that's the important things. All the BM gravitating aroud this case is just ridiculous, and people tend to overeact a lot.
|
On May 09 2010 21:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 21:21 bmml wrote:
I dont think people are realising that artosis had to get up at like 2am for this tourney, he had every right to be "cranky". Understandably cranky =/= rightfully cranky
![[image loading]](http://i43.tinypic.com/2utpzrs.jpg)
|
Listen, i'm not out to get Artosis and im not saying im the citadel of perfection when it comes to manners.
The point i'm trying to make is that everyone has their unlucky streaks, their bad beats. Everyone faces shit. Some of us constantly whines about it. Some of us dont.
I think its unbelivable tactless to say that i would have won (if only X) after a game is complete. All that he accomplishes with that statement is to make day9 feel less good about his victory and simultaneously implying that day9 didnt play well (enough).
If he would have won, then win. Dont whine after the game(s).
|
I'm talking as a real person, not a robot who sees any transgression at all as "Bad Manner". If you don't act so ridiculously & fakely nice (you really think all the painfully "good manner" players mean everything they say?), you're "BM". Apparently, being "BM" is the ultimate sin. Instead of saying "I totally had that game, that's bullshit", you should be "Good Mannered" by saying "Damn man, I might've had that game if I didn't dc XD " with maybe 15 more smiley faces, when in reality you're feeling the exact same way as the guy who said the former quote. What's the difference? Who cares?
Talk is cheap. If he would have won, then win.
Like i've said so many times now, everyone has their would have won-games. There is nothing special or admirable about artosis whining when he experiences his.
|
On May 09 2010 11:46 Dionyseus wrote:
The way I see it I agree that Artosis had the game won and the ref made a bad call. Some people are saying Slush is bm for not admitting the game was over but that's not his fault, it's the ref's job to make that decision and the ref failed here. Artosis eventually agreed to do a regame and Slush won it fair and square.
Well Im pretty sure if he had said: "Ok guys i admit i lost.. GG" the refs would have considered it in their decision.
|
On May 09 2010 21:21 bmml wrote:
I dont think people are realising that artosis had to get up at like 2am for this tourney, he had every right to be "cranky".
He could just have not played that tourney if the time was that bad for him. It's not like he would have lost anything.
|
Nice statement Nazghul, Don't even think you guys made a mistake even though Artosis was winning badly buuut , as 99/1 policy would apply to this situation, its not like slush only had a few buildings left, he had a income (ke was small but he had it ) and had a decent army, ofcourse I think it wouldnt be enough either buut if giving it 1% is not a bad call, anyway sad for artosis he deserved more ;() but hating on slush is a bit to much as well, seems a very good player nevertheless
|
On May 09 2010 17:56 gngfn wrote:Indeed. Perhaps he ought to hold off on making comments like that until he has 2241 posts' worth of serious Starcraft discu
WOW I have been laughing for about 15 minutes over this so far at that screenshot.
Seriously though, as much as I wanted to see cath v. artosis finals, I'm more happy to see the tournament rules properly enforced by refs who had to make a tough call. Disconnecting with an advantage earning you a rematch is a MUCH more generous policy (and personally desirable) than giving you an automatic loss for the DC. Frankly if I saw a tournament official disregard the rules of their own tournament, it would be the last time I watched anything hosted by them, this isn't the fucking WWF, and if they just wanted to stage some bullshit fixed matches then that's what it becomes.
Some of the people here really need to go back and make a distinction if they are upset because they think the rules aren't fair, if the rules aren't being enforced fairly, or if they' just didn't get what they wanted this time around.
|
Shouldnt this thread be closed by now? People have been arguing the same thing for 10 pages, this will only led to more discussions, stupid ones as i see.
|
|
|
Tadzio expressed the most relevant points on this matter. It would be highly unprofessional and defying all sense of rules if TL retroactively changed ANYTHING that has happened in this tournament. That is because in the situation Slush was in he didn't do anything wrong concerning the rules, he "abused" them by not speaking up, he was bad manner, yes, but based on the (poorly developed) admin decision he was still on the safe side.
Rules are only as good as the people carrying them out. In this case an "expert" admin decision would have been necessary, but as has been stated by Naz there was no one available at that time. So the admins in charge carried out the rules as they saw fit and made a mistake (not from their point of view). It has now been identified that the merit of the rule (which I think is a good rule) to give someone the win should he disc after his opponent should already have typed "GG" is highly dependent on the game sense of the admin judging the situation. And that's what Naz said would be secured for such future TL events - that there is always a top player / expert like Naz, Chill, Day[9], Drone who may appropriately judge what's the best decision.
In my eyes that's the only mistake one can learn from in this and the only adjustement one can make afterwards.
Artosis vs Cauthonluck showmatch would indeed be a good make up (if the handsomenerd agrees). I would even suggest a system of "If Artosis wins he gets 200$, if Cauthonluck wins he gets 75$ (Artosis lose: 50$, CL lose: Nothing)" because Artosis has clearly been robbed of his further advancement in the tournament which one can't say about Cauthonluck, so it would be kind of unfair to have him invited for a showmatch with money prize where he didn't need to fight his way up (on top of his 2nd place in the TLI).
|
how could you say that slush had no chance to recover.. thats pure nonsense.. slush had 3800 minerals, compared to 800 from artosis, both of them had just about 1 -2 base mining, cuz mutas killed of all workers artosis had, just before crash, artosis hydras were on attack, but im 90% sure they would lost to mutas + roaches ( if they won, and then crashed.. yes game is over.. but if mutas won , slush not only could recovered , he could easily won.. )
i dont see how there was 99% chance of no comeback..
all this topic suggest is whine and flame a lot.. and you will accomplish this..
|
On May 09 2010 22:01 Smikis wrote:
how could you say that slush had no chance to recover.. thats pure nonsense.. slush had 3800 minerals, compared to 800 from artosis, both of them had just about 1 -2 base mining, cuz mutas killed of all workers artosis had, just before crash, artosis hydras were on attack, but im 90% sure they would lost to mutas + roaches ( if they won, and then crashed.. yes game is over.. but if mutas won , slush not only could recovered , he could easily won.. )
i dont see how there was 99% chance of no comeback..
all this topic suggest is whine and flame a lot.. and you will accomplish this..
duo hehehe i think you got it wrong, there was " NO way slushs army comp could have won vs artosis' and yes he had 3k mins but he had 2 bases mining from 1 which would go down after artosis won the fight, artosis had more drones and 6 hatcherys
no way.
|
On May 09 2010 20:47 UbiNax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 19:42 Eury wrote:
The decision that was made was the correct one. You should never award a win to a player that disconnect unless his opponent has either said gg, or there isn't even a theoretical chance for him to win. This just wasn't the case in Slush vs Artosis.
It's sad to see Teamliquid backpedaling on their decision just because they are receiving some heat for their decision, and because it involves a "famous" community member.
I'm sorry Nazgul, but you are pretty much throwing Kennigit under the bus whether you want it or not, and it will undermine the authority of the TL admins in future tournaments. are you serious.....? There were no way slush could win that won what so ever. and even though slush at the time " before watching the replay " thought " he still had a chance he should have looked over the replay in the break and admitt defeat instead of being all like " oh im gonna be 100% passive now and let the judges call because then i might have a chance of a regame *.* " TL didnt do any backpedaling because Artosis is a " famous " community member they did it because they knew that they have made a mistake, they made the wrong call at the given time. That being said, people shouldnt rage on Teamliquid for their decision, shit happens when the wheels are rolling and you need to keep them spinning, they did an awesome job with the tournament besides that 1 call. " now they know that they need to look at it differently next time, " TL <3
Next time maybe it would be better for both the admins and the players to examine the last moment of the replay together and before the admins have the final word on the matter they should here out the players opinions first . If it's a clear win the player who lost should admit defeat if he has any dignity in him . If he still thinks he has any chances of winning he should at least point them out considering his situation and the fact that he is playing a top player as himself .
That or have 3 top players as judges for this kind of situations who obviously aren't biased so then no one will question their decisions and knowledge of the game if a situation like that appeared .
|
On May 09 2010 12:41 EvilTeletubby wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:07 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:On May 09 2010 12:06 Xeris wrote:This really should have not happened in the first place , a reasoned decision should have been made from the get-go. If the tournament admins don't know the game enough to make a reasoned decision, other people should have been consulted. Naz is great for trying to rectify a situation that shouldn't have even happened in the first place. Artosis got dicked and that SUCKS Responses like this are EXACTLY what I'm talking about I'm coming from 2 years on iCCup and 3 seasons on PGTour as my listed experience in this matter. This is much much easier said than done especially when the players have already talked about and argued about it so that you're being pressured even more to make hte "right" decision. Reinforcing what Raelcun just said to be true. I was the ref in this game. To be up front, I'm absolutely not the most well versed player on SC2 game flow. While I can confidently say I'd be able to make an accurate judgement call in BW 99+% of the time, I'm definitely not that confident that I could make a similar call in SC2. So why would they allow me to ref a game if that's the case? To be honest, we were simply very short on available staff members and I had nothing going on today. I didn't even think I was going to be needed, but I was sitting in the channel at 2pm, they realized they needed another person, and I raised my hand to keep the tournament moving. So, fast forward to the end of the first game #3. The drop screen pops up and counts down, both Slush and myself even left it up for another full minute or two just incase, but ultimately, yeah, Artosis had dropped. While the drop screen was up, I surveyed the situation asap - Artosis was up about 35 supply (both were still over 100), up a couple bases (although some weren't online with workers just yet), and had a better upgraded army. Slush still had standing units, and had 3k minerals in the bank. No one anywhere could dispute Artosis was ahead, but was it enough to award Artosis the win, and deny Slush his chance to comeback? I didn't know. Second opinions were necessary, and several staff and veteran members quickly surveyed the situation and reviewed the replay. Keep in mind we had the pressure of a live cast going on with nothing casting at the moment; Not an excuse but a reality. From the people there at the time, no one felt 100% confident that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Slush to come back. Incredibly unlikely, but we were not absolutely certain. Given the information we had right then, in the middle of a live cast, we made what we thought was the best, most fair option at the time. Something I will gladly defend and justify, even if it ultimately turned out to be incorrect. Keep in mind our #1 concern is to maintain fairness as much as possible for all players involved. In a situation like this, NO MATTER WHAT DECISION WE MAKE, someone will be unhappy(Go see the MSL finals if you don't know what I'm talking about). It's a bad situation for everyone to be in. Immediately after the game, Slush felt as if he still had a chance, even if a small one, to win. We had to examine that chance and at the time we felt that Artosis's advantage wasn't overwhelming enough to deny Slush that chance. A re-game was the fairest option. As some of you saw in the chat logs and game chat, Artosis was definitely not happy with the decision, and reacted less than professionally, something that belies his ability and true character. For what it's worth, Artosis has already apologized to me personally for the way he acted after we informed him of the decision. Did he react excessively? Yes, most definitely. Do I blame him? No, not at all. I thought he had every right to be upset given the circumstances. The only thing we can do now is learn from the experience and move forward. Better preperation could have definitely helped. Having more experts readily available to weigh in would have helped. Having more time to review the game and explore all possible scenarios could have helped. But we didn't have those this time around. We will next time, we owe that much to our players and to our spectators. You guys are the best, and I appreciate the understanding and level-headedness that most people have shown during this.
Much Respect Brah!
|
I respect that TL staff wants to make things right, but I believe that the best solution is to let the decision for the rematch stand (which means Slush>Artosis).
Mistakes happen.
Having a showmatch or the entire rerun of half of the tournament seems to be unfair as well.
1. Showmatch between Slush vs Artosis - Sure Artosis won against Slush but does he deserve to win the tournament if he wins the showmatch? He could have lost to Louder or Cauthon? Witch would be unfair to these 2 players.
2. To rerun half od the tournament doesnt make sense either, as some of the staff members already said.
Sometimes its just better, to let it go.
FIFA does it all the time for a reason. Anybody who watches soccer knows what I mean. So maybe Naz should fallow FIFA as well.
Unfair for Artosis? Sure, but still perhaps the best solution. Just my 2 cents.
|
United States42258 Posts
On May 09 2010 22:00 Ghardo wrote:
Rules are only as good as the people carrying them out. In this case an "expert" admin decision would have been necessary, but as has been stated by Naz there was no one available at that time. So the admins in charge carried out the rules as they saw fit and made a mistake (not from their point of view). It has now been identified that the merit of the rule (which I think is a good rule) to give someone the win should he disc after his opponent should already have typed "GG" is highly dependent on the game sense of the admin judging the situation. And that's what Naz said would be secured for such future TL events - that there is always a top player / expert like Naz, Chill, Day[9], Drone who may appropriately judge what's the best decision.
Naz incorrectly describes the situation. This probably isn't deliberate because he simply wasn't there but to characterise the ref team as ignorant of the situation because they're not good enough at sc2 to understand it is wrong. Several refs, myself included, are good at sc2. The subject was hotly debated by refs and the opinion of every ref who had seen the replay was taken into account (for the record my vote was that Artosis should be awarded the win). There was no misunderstanding about what happens with 3-2 hydralisks take on 1-0 mutalisks, I was very clear about that in the IRC channel.
The conclusion was that the rules were clear and that a disconnect while ahead was a regame. If Slush felt the game was over then he could concede but he said he felt he still had a chance and it wasn't the place of the referees to deny him that chance.
This apology by Naz makes very little sense to me because I made damn sure that everyone in the ref IRC knew that in my (good at sc2) opinion the game was over. Other players like Demuslim and Nony saying the same thing aren't adding anything refs didn't know at the time. If the criteria used to judge whether it's a regame or not have changed because of last night then just say that, saying they made a mistake when they didn't is wrong.
|
Happy to see this official statement. It's a shame that Artosis didn't get the win at the time of the tournament because I still think that regardless of what the admins had decided on, Slush should've given him the win. Either way, what's done is done. The good thing is that I'm sure situations like these will be reviewed more carefully next time.
|
On May 09 2010 22:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 22:00 Ghardo wrote:
Rules are only as good as the people carrying them out. In this case an "expert" admin decision would have been necessary, but as has been stated by Naz there was no one available at that time. So the admins in charge carried out the rules as they saw fit and made a mistake (not from their point of view). It has now been identified that the merit of the rule (which I think is a good rule) to give someone the win should he disc after his opponent should already have typed "GG" is highly dependent on the game sense of the admin judging the situation. And that's what Naz said would be secured for such future TL events - that there is always a top player / expert like Naz, Chill, Day[9], Drone who may appropriately judge what's the best decision. Naz incorrectly describes the situation. This probably isn't deliberate because he simply wasn't there but to characterise the ref team as ignorant of the situation because they're not good enough at sc2 to understand it is wrong. Several refs, myself included, are good at sc2. The subject was hotly debated by refs and the opinion of every ref who had seen the replay was taken into account (for the record my vote was that Artosis should be awarded the win). There was no misunderstanding about what happens with 3-2 hydralisks take on 1-0 mutalisks, I was very clear about that in the IRC channel. The conclusion that was the rules were clear and that a disconnect while ahead was a regame. If Slush felt the game was over then he could concede but he said he felt he still had a chance and it wasn't the place of the referees to deny him that chance. This apology by Naz makes very little sense to me because I made damn sure that everyone in the ref IRC knew that in my (good at sc2) opinion the game was over. Other players like Demuslim and Nony saying the same thing aren't adding anything refs didn't know at the time. If the criteria used to judge whether it's a regame or not have changed because of last night then just say that, saying they made a mistake when they didn't is wrong.
totally agree, also the rules are the rules, and ref have final decision, mistakes are taken ever in sports... i dont like the reaction from both players, especially artosis, i think they need to be more sportmanship and gm, a lose would ever transform in a brilliant triumph with a good attitude,
|
lol @ ppl saying Artosis needs new ram or some shit.
Afaik, the memory error is happening because of the game, not the ram itself.
He's not only one with this problem.
|
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.
Because Artosis DC'd, not Slush, or the ref. It wasn't a Bnet issue, it was an Artosis issue. Why should he benefit, or rather, why should his opponent lose out on any opportunity, because of a failure that was fully within the control of Artosis, at least to the extent that it was within any one's control?
He can say that Slush was being BM, but the typical response of good mannered players in the past has been to withdraw from the tourney if they are having bad issues, because it's bad manners to force your opponent(s) to suffer because your hardware or connection isn't working right.
|
@KwarK I can't believe you didn't do more if you were the ref in that situation to protect what we value as fair play. Seems to me that you were the most knowledgeable ref in terms of game play at the time and you allowed someone to hide inside the rules to evade fair play. The very same rules in which we implement to protect the very same fair play. If the rules that designed to protect fair play is being abuse to prevent fair play, then the rules in this particular case has lost all its meaning. The difference between a wise judge and a tough judge is that the wise judge will recognize this relationship between the rules and will choose to protect the idea the rules seek to protect. Not blindly protect the rules themselves.
At very least you can take the replay and give it to day9 or Chill.
@Slush Look at nony as an example of what fair play is.
PS. go watch red belt slush, it's a good movie.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
How can anyone be even considering disqualifying Slush? o_O What the hell did he do wrong? How did he cheat or misbehave? He beat Artosis in a legitimate game and then beat everyone else. Re-game was not his decision, neither was he responsible for the disconnect. He absolutely didn't have to concede. Bad luck for Artosis, but he should not get any preferential treatment. If anyone else was in his place, I guess this would have not even been an issue.
|
On May 09 2010 21:21 bmml wrote:
I dont think people are realising that artosis had to get up at like 2am for this tourney, he had every right to be "cranky".
Not really. Day9 played Tasteless in the HDH Invitational when Day9 had to play at 2 AM... and lost to his brother after building the wrong add-on on his barracks ( x.x ), and he still didn't cry.
You almost* never have a good excuse to be bm.
Yeah, Artosis would have gotten the win IF HIS COMPUTER HADN'T DISCONNECTED (bad luck sucks)... but he whined about the officials' decision and blew up, and as a fan of his, that really turned me off.
*unless you're playing Idra.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 11:37 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
So as you are well aware of by now a disc occurred in game 3 of Slush vs Artosis. Artosis disced while he was ahead. Our regular policy for tournaments is that if you disc you can't get a win by just being ahead. If you are a 99/1 favorite to win the game we will not hand out a loss to the non-discing player. It's not his fault his chances to come back were taken away and he is completely innocent in the situation. However we also have the policy that if in the rare occasion a game is 100% won but the opponent didn't gg yet (weird as it may sound this does happen every now and then) we award the win to the player that had the game in the bag. Whoever disced.
Today we saw one of those games.
When the disc happened the staff that was working on the tournament reviewed the game and judged that there was still a chance, albeit small, that Slush could come back. This was a mistake, a serious mistake, for which we apologize. Running events is a stressful job. Working under pressure hours before it starts barely ever having a moment to breath trying to get everything to run smoothly. A situation like today is an organizers nightmare. Not just because of the disc but because the pressure on trying to continue the show is something always in the back of your head. Whenever making decisions they will be rushed and have to be taken quickly in order to keep the production quality at a high level. When this is the norm under which you have to work it is very hard to take a step back and assess a situation as so serious that you might need an hour - hours, to find the right solution. That was the case today. Even though the decision was made in an hour which is a good amount of time it was not enough to come to the right conclusion. The conclusion that Artosis had this game 100% won.
Hosting tournaments is a hard job and we don't claim to be perfect. We only claim to be willing to learn from our mistakes and that's what we will do today. We're going to try to keep high level players closer involved in the decision making regarding disconnects (unfortunately I was playing the Benelux tournament myself today so I couldn't be here during the time Artosis was playing Slush). Working with a panel of high level players as disconnect referees having to find consensus on who was winning and by how much before the tournament admins make a decision.
What happens after today? We want to do everything we can to make this right. We have offered Artosis a showmatch with the winner of TLI with prizes at stake. Unfortunately due to their 'personal differences' Artosis isn't interested in playing with Slush. Regardless we'll try to keep looking for options to make this right. If you have any suggestions you are more than welcome to post them here.
Signed,
TL Staff
I love Liquid`Nazgul, or whoever wrote this (if Naz just posted it). Very good-mannered, very humble. We need to see more of this :-)
|
"admins are the rules". I don't see why the TL-admins should say sorry for anything, it is their tournament, it was their decision. Although i do like Artosis, in this case however i think he should just stop whining, gg, and get on with it. Stop the bitching, bitches.
|
On May 09 2010 22:56 Doso wrote:
"admins are the rules". I don't see why the TL-admins should say sorry for anything, it is their tournament, it was their decision. Although i do like Artosis, in this case however i think he should just stop whining, gg, and get on with it. Stop the bitching, bitches.
Rules are created to protect fair play. when the very same rules designed to protect fair play ending up preventing fair play. The rules lose their purpose. Have you seen the matrix? what happens when a program in the matrix has no purpose? They get deleted!
|
If it were Slush that DC'd, would there still be a re-game?
|
How on earth can Artosis can expect a player to go against the referee decision in his disadvantage. 'due to personnal differences' made me laugh so hard.
|
On May 09 2010 19:19 BroOd wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 19:09 dogabutila wrote:On May 09 2010 18:25 BroOd wrote:
You wouldn't blacklist a soccer player who didn't report his own handball, would you? Or a football player who didn't report his own facemask penalty? Entirely different situation my friend. If I stand to gain something by not speaking up then why would I ever speak up? However in this situation not only do I stand to gain, but another stands to lose by my inaction. Is it fair that because of my selfishness, greed, and lack of morals that I would cause another who should rightfully gain something to lose it? I just cannot understand the people who feel as if slush did nothing wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_(criminal_law)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue How is that different exactly? In Ireland vs France World Cup qualifiers, Thierry Henry handballed a goal that put France in the World Cup and left Ireland out. Should he have reported himself to the referee?
There is a biiiiiig biiiiig difference.
theoretically he should have but of course people wont do that, because there are like 20 other team members+ coaching staff etc. and many many million fans you are gonna fuck over by doing that.
Slush on the other hand is only responsible for himself.
|
Slush vs Artosis in a bo9.
I'm sure everyone would like to see that after what happened and considering the number of people that will watch this. I'm sure TL can put a decent amount of money for the winner.
|
On May 09 2010 23:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:
How on earth can Artosis can expect a player to go against the referee decision in his disadvantage. 'due to personnal differences' made me laugh so hard.
Artosis expects fair play, nazgul expects fair play, everybody plays and watches on this sc2 tournament that is put together by this community expects fair play.
This is only a big deal because fair play had been violated. The rules design to protect the idea of fair play is not the idea itself. You need to distinguish between the rules and the idea these rules are trying to protect.
|
On May 09 2010 23:11 Beatus wrote:
Slush vs Artosis in a bo9.
I'm sure everyone would like to see that after what happened and considering the number of people that will watch this. I'm sure TL can put a decent amount of money for the winner.
artosis already declined an offer to do a showmatch vs slush.
I for one would be really happy about a Artosis vs CauthonLuck showmatch
|
On May 09 2010 22:03 UbiNax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 22:01 Smikis wrote:
how could you say that slush had no chance to recover.. thats pure nonsense.. slush had 3800 minerals, compared to 800 from artosis, both of them had just about 1 -2 base mining, cuz mutas killed of all workers artosis had, just before crash, artosis hydras were on attack, but im 90% sure they would lost to mutas + roaches ( if they won, and then crashed.. yes game is over.. but if mutas won , slush not only could recovered , he could easily won.. )
i dont see how there was 99% chance of no comeback..
all this topic suggest is whine and flame a lot.. and you will accomplish this.. duo hehehe i think you got it wrong, there was " NO way slushs army comp could have won vs artosis' and yes he had 3k mins but he had 2 bases mining from 1 which would go down after artosis won the fight, artosis had more drones and 6 hatcherys no way.
dont underestimate mutas, in high numbers they obliterate everything , you talk like having 5 bases, with no incone, vs having 2 bases, vs huge ammount of money is different.. artosis needed to remake drones.. and army.. with no money.. slush needed to remake hatches and army, with plenty of money he had.. and if he had won with mutas, he could kept harassing..
all artosis did was suicide 20+ roaches, to kill few hatcheries..
so next time ill send my army to die.. for 350 minerals building, then i just dc, claiming i won.. cuz i have more bases? lmao..
not to mention food was almost equal, slush had 118? and artosis 130? ( half of those 130 probably was hatching, so in reality he didnt had that much of army.. nor any money.. )
why dont you guys test, who wins in that last battle, hydras or mutas + roaches..
if artosis dced 30s latter, aka after that battle, game would been different.. he either won, or lost the game.. obviously, who would give him a loss, if he lost all his army, had no money.. and he had 20+ mutas harassing him.. obviously noone would give him loss.. he would get rematch.
but game would been clearly over for him by then
so why should slush get a loss cuz he lost 3 hatches, and artosis saced all army just to do it?
|
United States42258 Posts
On May 09 2010 22:49 rei wrote:
@KwarK I can't believe you didn't do more if you were the ref in that situation to protect what we value as fair play. Seems to me that you were the most knowledgeable ref in terms of game play at the time and you allowed someone to hide inside the rules to evade fair play. The very same rules in which we implement to protect the very same fair play. If the rules that designed to protect fair play is being abuse to prevent fair play, then the rules in this particular case has lost all its meaning. The difference between a wise judge and a tough judge is that the wise judge will recognize this relationship between the rules and will choose to protect the idea the rules seek to protect. Not blindly protect the rules themselves.
At very least you can take the replay and give it to day9 or Chill.
@Slush Look at nony as an example of what fair play is.
PS. go watch red belt slush, it's a good movie.
What I'm criticising here is the suggestion that the refs made an uninformed or hasty decision because it was neither, despite the suggestions of Artosis to the contrary. The ref decision was not to make an exception to the rules of the tournament in this situation because Slush felt he still had a chance. This was made after taking into consideration both Artosis' opinion that he had the game won and my opinion that Artosis should be awarded the win. The conclusion that the refs came to in the end was to follow the rules and that was a legitimate decision in the circumstances. It wasn't the decision I would have made but it was certainly a valid one.
I just dislike the implication that the refs weren't good enough at sc2 to understand the situation when it was factors external to the game (that it was Artosis who dced and that Slush felt he still had a chance) that swung the decision. As much as Artosis insisted that everyone else was bad last night (lolchatlogs) that was him simply refusing to listen to what we were saying.
|
On May 09 2010 Beatus wrote:
Slush vs Artosis in a bo9.
I'm sure everyone would like to see that after what happened and considering the number of people that will watch this. I'm sure TL can put a decent amount of money for the winner.
What's the point? They already regamed, Slush won.
|
United States42258 Posts
On May 09 2010 23:02 odder wrote:
If it were Slush that DC'd, would there still be a re-game?
Losing player DCs, winning player wins.
|
On May 09 2010 11:45 Kishime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 11:37 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: We have offered Artosis a showmatch with the winner of TLI with prizes at stake. Unfortunately due to their 'personal differences' Artosis isn't interested in playing with Slush. That is absurd. He needs to grow up.
Wasn't that obvious by the shitstorm he raised?
Refs in any sport, real or esport, are going to make mistakes. You've just gotta move past it, go out, and win anyways. Any professional athlete will tell you that.
|
Maybe "we" should donate Artosis 100-200$? We can't know what would've happened, if win was given to Artosis, but it could also serve as "prize" of getting esports ahead... (sorry bad english =S)
edit: I am also wondering why everyone are flaming Slush. I haven't seen replay, but if I think I have even slight chance I would stay in the game. It would be very mannered to give win to Artosis after he DC'ed, but I think very few people would give win to opponent, after someone announces that you've awarded with win.
|
On May 09 2010 23:14 KwarK wrote:
What I'm criticising here is the suggestion that the refs made an uninformed or hasty decision because it was neither, despite the suggestions of Artosis to the contrary. The ref decision was not to make an exception to the rules of the tournament in this situation because Slush felt he still had a chance. This was made after taking into consideration both Artosis' opinion that he had the game won and my opinion that Artosis should be awarded the win. The conclusion that the refs came to in the end was to follow the rules and that was a legitimate decision in the circumstances. It wasn't the decision I would have made but it was certainly a valid one.
I just dislike the implication that the refs weren't good enough at sc2 to understand the situation when it was factors external to the game (that it was Artosis who dced and that Slush felt he still had a chance) that swung the decision. As much as Artosis insisted that everyone else was bad last night (lolchatlogs) that was him simply refusing to listen to what we were saying.
This.
|
On May 09 2010 23:13 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 23:11 Beatus wrote:
Slush vs Artosis in a bo9.
I'm sure everyone would like to see that after what happened and considering the number of people that will watch this. I'm sure TL can put a decent amount of money for the winner. artosis already declined an offer to do a showmatch vs slush. I for one would be really happy about a Artosis vs CauthonLuck showmatch
Well he was probably still mad about the whole thing, maybe in a few days he will realise that it is the fair thing to do because I don't think giving him a showmatch against CanthonLuck is really fair.
"Hey we made a mistake, sorry for that, there is your free ticket for the final, glhf"
Dosen't sounds really fair to me.
|
Anyone arguing that Slush was still in this game is a clueless newbie.
It's over.. lets move on.
|
Just watched the replay. At the end when he is about to lose his last mining base and get his mutas obliterated by Artosis' hydras Slush says something along the lines"What do we do?" or "Whats gonna happen." Seriously dude? My respect for him as a player dropped to 0 at that point. Both players knew the game was officially GG in about 15 seconds. Don't play dumb and hope for a regame on a technicality... man(ner) up and take the loss.
|
@kwark
We all love the emotional out burst of idra and artosis. I fully support how TL handle the situation from the initial decision to nazgul's post on this thread. TL is showing the community they value fair play. but i just feel that if chill and day9 was bought into the decision, this could have been a better situation. Pretty sure artosis is not ganna call day9 not good enough if day9 happened to favor a rematch.
|
On May 09 2010 12:09 Tone_ wrote:
Seems like it was a heated response from Artosis towards TL and apologies from both are necessary.
I think it was up to sLush to concede graciously and it is actually there that the issue lies.
Why? He's not required to concede because of some misguided honor.
Do football players concede even if they win because of a bad call?
|
On May 09 2010 21:05 Liquid`NonY wrote:
If you want an example of a sport where players regularly self-report, it's Ultimate Frisbee.
Oh man. This post sums up exactly how nerdy Starcraft players are.
When you have to use Ultimate Frisbee as an example, you're probably better off just not posting anything.
|
I didn't see the game in quesiton, but I'm amazed at the suggestions of "Disqualify Slush"...
Is it his fault the game ended? No. He did nothing wrong. He left it up to the refs, whose job it is to make that call, and that decision to leave it to the refs is perfectly justified if he had imperfect information (as posted by ETT). I then saw him earn several more uncontroversial wins, including the rematch with Artosis, all the way to the crown. He earned that prize money and didn't "cheese" his way there at all.
I know Artosis is cool and well loved in the community, but the root cause of the whole problem lies with his equipment. If his equipment/connection is that bad, why'd he accept the invite in the first place if he wasn't willing to recognize the potential and/or likely problems?
I don't blame either of the contestants. Based on ETT's posts, Slush did absolutely nothing wrong. Artosis also did nothing wrong in game. TL admins publicly admit to a mistake and try to make amends as best as they can, which is commendable. If anything, I'm kind disappointed in Artosis' refusal of a revenge showmatch with prize money on the line. Ok, so it doesn't give him a shot at the crown but it does give him a shot at the money (and honestly, 10 years from now, no one's going to remember who won in any of the Beta tourneys...)
The character attacks by many posters are unnecessary, though.
|
people keep saying, "refs in all sports make bad decisions and the players just deal with it" and while it may be true that that is the case, is it something we -want- to be the case?
to be honest, i would rather have my authorative body of judges like this, who admit when they have been wrong when they have, and who try to rectify the situation, rather than just sit high and mighty on their chair an pretend to be beyond reproach.
gj tl, and gj naz for sticking to your guns during the tournament (which is essential) but at the same time, being able to look back in hindsight, and correct mistakes that were made.
|
When you have to use Ultimate Frisbee as an example, you're probably better off just not posting anything.
Shh. Ultimate Frisbee can be used as an example for anything.
His example was actually relevant, as self-reporting is existent in certain activities.
|
On May 09 2010 23:14 KwarK wrote:
As much as Artosis insisted that everyone else was bad last night (lolchatlogs) that was him simply refusing to listen to what we were saying.
honestly when I read the chat logs Brood posted I felt more like you (ETT or who it was Artosis was talking to) were refusing to do what he wanted, which was to discuss the game more thoroughly.
I dont really get why there is still so much discussion, Nazgul made such a good OP...
|
On May 09 2010 12:49 nath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 12:41 Eury wrote:
You don't seem to understand what 100% means. That would mean that it was theoretical impossible for Slush to win, which just isn't the case. That would mean that even if you played the game trillion after trillion of times, Slush would never ever win the match. I have seen bigger comebacks than that in Starcraft before, and there have been way less than a trillion games played in the history of Starcraft..
This isnt a mathematics lecture. Leave the technicalities and semantics at the door please. Practically speaking, Artosis had the game won, 100%. If the game was played trillions of times, slush might have won a few. If the game was played a million times, he probably would not have. Have you even seen the replay? There haven't been many (if any) comebacks from a position as bad as that which Slush found himself in...
I've seen progamers lose after being further ahead. Unlikely? Yeah. Impossible? Nah, its not like Artosis was destroying the last few buildings when he DCed.
and hell, what about the Louder/Huk game later? Didn't everyone think the game was basically over after Huk lost his warp prism with 2 immortals?
|
On May 09 2010 12:57 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I'd like to take a moment to apologize to TL.net staff about the way I responded to this issue. My stance on it polarized me against them and when I didn't gain any ground with somewhat civil discussion, I dropped all civility.
My suggestions:
(1) Artosis vs Cauthonluck showmatch. Call it the TLI finals in an alternate reality.*
(2) Disqualify Slush and bump everyone else up one place. If virtually everyone agrees that Artosis won that game, then virtually everyone agrees that Slush was in fact eliminated at the conclusion of that game. What actually happened is more important than what the ref called. I understand that there are good reasons to not continue to ref the match so long after its conclusion, but given the strong consensus that Artosis won, or more relevantly that Slush lost, I think it's worth considering.
*sorry Louder please don't take offense to this =]
You can't fucking just take back the tournament and say sorry SLush, you get fucking nothing because we fucked up after playing the entire rest of the tourney.
That would be a bigger fucking bullshit flipflop than what originally happened to Artosis.
|
Congratulations to slush for winning and playing excellent games, I wish artosis hadn't acted so childish and immature over a regame, it kinda detracts from Slush's hard earned win and sours what should have been a fun tournament.
Lets be honest, had artosis truly been confident in his ability to beat slush he wouldn't have been so up in arms over a simple regame and he certainly wouldn't be this scared for a showmatch to determine who is really the best player.
In my opinion he should EITHER play this showmatch OR stop trash talking slush. I've never seen anyone throw this big a tantrum over something like this before
|
On May 09 2010 13:12 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 13:04 Tadzio wrote:On May 09 2010 12:57 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I'd like to take a moment to apologize to TL.net staff about the way I responded to this issue. My stance on it polarized me against them and when I didn't gain any ground with somewhat civil discussion, I dropped all civility.
My suggestions:
(1) Artosis vs Cauthonluck showmatch. Call it the TLI finals in an alternate reality.*
(2) Disqualify Slush and bump everyone else up one place. If virtually everyone agrees that Artosis won that game, then virtually everyone agrees that Slush was in fact eliminated at the conclusion of that game.
*sorry Louder please don't take offense to this =] Retroactive disqualification is something that should be reserved for cheaters, imo. In athletic sports refs that make obvious mistakes don't necessarily apologize, and they definitely don't reverse their decision after an event is over. But they do make up for it, often by making ticky-tac calls that benefit the player/team they 'wronged.' Because of the nature of e-sports, we can't do that. But we can apologize, and we can make up for it in other ways. I like your first suggestion. I know that following the precedent of similar organizations/events often produces the best results, but it should never be the strongest reason for doing something. I think it would be best to first consider what the most just outcome is, considering only the details of this particular event. If you feel that it is more just to keep Slush as your champion than to disqualify him, then it's perfectly good to solidify your initial conclusion by seeing that it agrees with precedents. But if you think it might be more just to disqualify him, I think it's a mistake to overrule that thinking with precedents.
The reason other sports do that is because if they go back and redo a game well after the outcome because of a mistake, then every game starts getting called into question and asked for a re-do because you can find questionable calls everywhere. There are less ref decisions in Starcraft, obviously, but it will still be an administrative headache.
|
Great response, TL. You guys on the staff continue to comport yourselves with remarkable professionalism, I'm proud for this site and community. As for Artosis, while he obviously has the right to turn down a showmatch, the fact that he had to indicate that it was because of 'differences' with Slush is pathetic. It's a shame to see someone you previously respected and admired act like that, I've lost a lot if not all of my respect for him as an individual.
|
On May 09 2010 23:42 See.Blue wrote:
Great response, TL. You guys on the staff continue to comport yourselves with remarkable professionalism, I'm proud for this site and community. As for Artosis, while he obviously has the right to turn down a showmatch, the fact that he had to indicate that it was because of 'differences' with Slush is pathetic. It's a shame to see someone you previously respected and admired act like that, I've lost a lot if not all of my respect for him as an individual.
Watch the replay. I was thinking the same thing as you until I did.
|
United States42258 Posts
On May 09 2010 23:34 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 23:14 KwarK wrote:
As much as Artosis insisted that everyone else was bad last night (lolchatlogs) that was him simply refusing to listen to what we were saying. honestly when I read the chat logs Brood posted I felt more like you (ETT or who it was Artosis was talking to) were refusing to do what he wanted, which was to discuss the game more thoroughly. I dont really get why there is still so much discussion, Nazgul made such a good OP...
For reference.
+ Show Spoiler +KwarK Artosis i was a ref, i watched the rep and i consider myself a decent player KwarK Artosis and i thought you won it KwarK Artosis and i made that recommendation Artosis KwarK ok so Artosis KwarK who overruled Artosis KwarK ? KwarK Artosis the problem is that it was you who disced KwarK Artosis rather than a neutral disc KwarK Artosis refs put a huge amount of debate into it KwarK Artosis and that has to be respected Artosis KwarK no KwarK Artosis it wasn't just an ignorance thing Artosis KwarK why would i respect that dude Artosis KwarK yeah it was KwarK Artosis we noticed the hydra were 3-2 Artosis KwarK every single player Artosis KwarK of ANY skill KwarK Artosis whereas the muta were 1-0 Artosis KwarK will say i won 100% Artosis KwarK yes Artosis KwarK it wAS OVER Artosis KwarK HE CANT STOP THOSE HYDRAS Artosis KwarK 100% KwarK Artosis yes KwarK Artosis i kno KwarK Artosis w Artosis KwarK ONE HUNDRED FUCKING PERCENT KwarK Artosis which is why i made the recommendation i did Artosis KwarK who overruled Artosis KwarK tell me pls Artosis KwarK ive been robbed Artosis KwarK of 300$ Artosis KwarK and fame Artosis KwarK fucking easy tournament Artosis KwarK i get fucked out of KwarK Artosis question is whether the refs are willing to ever award a win to a player who disconnected KwarK Artosis the answer is no KwarK Artosis apparently Artosis KwarK they are retarded KwarK Artosis regardless of how over it was Artosis KwarK + wrong KwarK Artosis they're still the refs Artosis KwarK dont fucking care man Artosis KwarK wow Artosis KwarK lol Artosis KwarK u flamed me in the thread Artosis KwarK ur a fuckin newb huh? KwarK Artosis lol KwarK Artosis you delayed it for ages Artosis KwarK ur retarded KwarK Artosis ref has the final word KwarK Artosis lol Artosis KwarK thats retarded too Artosis KwarK who made that fucking retarded rule KwarK Artosis the refs Artosis KwarK not 1 good player had a say Artosis KwarK in what happened Artosis KwarK they are fucking newbies KwarK Artosis lol Artosis KwarK thats like having me decide a soccer match Artosis KwarK as if i know a fucking thing about soccer KwarK Artosis i'm comparable to several players in this tournament KwarK Artosis and it's not like refs didn't understand your hydra were gonna win Artosis KwarK so then they are even more faggoty KwarK Artosis slippery slopes are combatted by absolute rules KwarK Artosis if you'll give a win for 99% over you'll give one for 98 etc Artosis KwarK no Artosis KwarK its bullshit KwarK Artosis whereas "never benefit from a disconnect" is simple Artosis KwarK its bullshit and ur arguement isnt valid Artosis KwarK nope Artosis KwarK fuck that Artosis KwarK its not my fault KwarK Artosis it wasn't my argument Artosis KwarK sc2 beta is BUGGY KwarK Artosis i said you should get the win KwarK Artosis but their decision wasn't stupid, it's just they had different priorities KwarK Artosis they were aware you were going to win, they just didn't care Artosis KwarK stop talking to me kwark Artosis KwarK ur not a player Artosis KwarK if u were ud side with me KwarK Artosis lol KwarK Artosis i did Artosis KwarK then dont fucking argue with me Artosis KwarK go flame them for being stupid
|
The sad thing is that i have a bad feeling that Slush are gonna get flamed and hated in the future because of this situation, and that is even more unfair. I really really REALLY hope that people will avoid making him the big bad wolf and hate on him
I can already see him being in TSL and people jumping the bandwagon and never let this issue go. Would love to have a statement from him and/or Artosis so we could move on
|
On May 09 2010 23:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +When you have to use Ultimate Frisbee as an example, you're probably better off just not posting anything.
Shh. Ultimate Frisbee can be used as an example for anything. His example was actually relevant, as self-reporting is existent in certain activities.
golf only~~~~~
|
I have a few thoughts.
1. Anyone who thinks Slush had a 0% chance of winning does not know what 0% means. If he attacked Artosis' units head on, he would not win, but perhaps if he went after one of Artosis' other bases he could make Artosis panic and slip up. Would Artosis slip up most of the time? No. Would Artosis slip up atleast 1% of the time? Yes. Although Artosis' play can be as boring as a robot, (No rush 22 minutes!) he still makes human mistakes.
2. If someone insults you and says you played like garbage, do you really think you would concede the game to them even if they were favored? There's a pretty low chance anyone is going to concede a game with a monetary prize in the first place, but if the other person is hounding you like a baby and saying that they clearly won, there is an even LESS chance you're going to concede.
3. I'm curious to see what everyone would do in this situation. I anticipate a lot of people saying they would concede when they would actually take the rematch if it came down to it.
Poll: Given the situation, if you were Slush would you have conceded?No (146) 55% Yes (87) 33% I honestly don't know (31) 12% 264 total votes Your vote: Given the situation, if you were Slush would you have conceded? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): I honestly don't know
|
On May 09 2010 23:46 leetchaos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 23:42 See.Blue wrote:
Great response, TL. You guys on the staff continue to comport yourselves with remarkable professionalism, I'm proud for this site and community. As for Artosis, while he obviously has the right to turn down a showmatch, the fact that he had to indicate that it was because of 'differences' with Slush is pathetic. It's a shame to see someone you previously respected and admired act like that, I've lost a lot if not all of my respect for him as an individual. Watch the replay. I was thinking the same thing as you until I did.
It's more a matter of reading the chat logs floating around. I don't care how much he had it in the bag, I have no respect for anyone who behaves like that, irrespective of how talented they may be. There are something like 3 logs now floating around, one on this page, of Artosis having temper tantrums at other people who are completely composed but just telling him things he doesn't like to hear. That's not how winners act, full stop.
|
On May 09 2010 23:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 23:34 7mk wrote:On May 09 2010 23:14 KwarK wrote:
As much as Artosis insisted that everyone else was bad last night (lolchatlogs) that was him simply refusing to listen to what we were saying. honestly when I read the chat logs Brood posted I felt more like you (ETT or who it was Artosis was talking to) were refusing to do what he wanted, which was to discuss the game more thoroughly. I dont really get why there is still so much discussion, Nazgul made such a good OP... For reference. + Show Spoiler +KwarK Artosis i was a ref, i watched the rep and i consider myself a decent player KwarK Artosis and i thought you won it KwarK Artosis and i made that recommendation Artosis KwarK ok so Artosis KwarK who overruled Artosis KwarK ? KwarK Artosis the problem is that it was you who disced KwarK Artosis rather than a neutral disc KwarK Artosis refs put a huge amount of debate into it KwarK Artosis and that has to be respected Artosis KwarK no KwarK Artosis it wasn't just an ignorance thing Artosis KwarK why would i respect that dude Artosis KwarK yeah it was KwarK Artosis we noticed the hydra were 3-2 Artosis KwarK every single player Artosis KwarK of ANY skill KwarK Artosis whereas the muta were 1-0 Artosis KwarK will say i won 100% Artosis KwarK yes Artosis KwarK it wAS OVER Artosis KwarK HE CANT STOP THOSE HYDRAS Artosis KwarK 100% KwarK Artosis yes KwarK Artosis i kno KwarK Artosis w Artosis KwarK ONE HUNDRED FUCKING PERCENT KwarK Artosis which is why i made the recommendation i did Artosis KwarK who overruled Artosis KwarK tell me pls Artosis KwarK ive been robbed Artosis KwarK of 300$ Artosis KwarK and fame Artosis KwarK fucking easy tournament Artosis KwarK i get fucked out of KwarK Artosis question is whether the refs are willing to ever award a win to a player who disconnected KwarK Artosis the answer is no KwarK Artosis apparently Artosis KwarK they are retarded KwarK Artosis regardless of how over it was Artosis KwarK + wrong KwarK Artosis they're still the refs Artosis KwarK dont fucking care man Artosis KwarK wow Artosis KwarK lol Artosis KwarK u flamed me in the thread Artosis KwarK ur a fuckin newb huh? KwarK Artosis lol KwarK Artosis you delayed it for ages Artosis KwarK ur retarded KwarK Artosis ref has the final word KwarK Artosis lol Artosis KwarK thats retarded too Artosis KwarK who made that fucking retarded rule KwarK Artosis the refs Artosis KwarK not 1 good player had a say Artosis KwarK in what happened Artosis KwarK they are fucking newbies KwarK Artosis lol Artosis KwarK thats like having me decide a soccer match Artosis KwarK as if i know a fucking thing about soccer KwarK Artosis i'm comparable to several players in this tournament KwarK Artosis and it's not like refs didn't understand your hydra were gonna win Artosis KwarK so then they are even more faggoty KwarK Artosis slippery slopes are combatted by absolute rules KwarK Artosis if you'll give a win for 99% over you'll give one for 98 etc Artosis KwarK no Artosis KwarK its bullshit KwarK Artosis whereas "never benefit from a disconnect" is simple Artosis KwarK its bullshit and ur arguement isnt valid Artosis KwarK nope Artosis KwarK fuck that Artosis KwarK its not my fault KwarK Artosis it wasn't my argument Artosis KwarK sc2 beta is BUGGY KwarK Artosis i said you should get the win KwarK Artosis but their decision wasn't stupid, it's just they had different priorities KwarK Artosis they were aware you were going to win, they just didn't care Artosis KwarK stop talking to me kwark Artosis KwarK ur not a player Artosis KwarK if u were ud side with me KwarK Artosis lol KwarK Artosis i did Artosis KwarK then dont fucking argue with me Artosis KwarK go flame them for being stupid
Ok, he certainly goes a step further in this conversation.
But that doesnt mean hes wrong and I think we should indeed keep in mind that this is a beta after all. Who's to say that this didnt simply happen because its a bugged beta, I got disconnected several times, especially post patch 11 without no freakin reason whatsoever and I disagree that the person who disconnects should never get the win.
Again I simply agree 100% with everything Nazgul said in the OP.
Artosis handled himself poorly because he puts his whole heart into this game, that doesnt mean hes wrong, although I can see how it must have been difficult dealing with him
|
On May 10 2010 00:02 See.Blue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 23:46 leetchaos wrote:On May 09 2010 23:42 See.Blue wrote:
Great response, TL. You guys on the staff continue to comport yourselves with remarkable professionalism, I'm proud for this site and community. As for Artosis, while he obviously has the right to turn down a showmatch, the fact that he had to indicate that it was because of 'differences' with Slush is pathetic. It's a shame to see someone you previously respected and admired act like that, I've lost a lot if not all of my respect for him as an individual. Watch the replay. I was thinking the same thing as you until I did. It's more a matter of reading the chat logs floating around. I don't care how much he had it in the bag, I have no respect for anyone who behaves like that, irrespective of how talented they may be. There are something like 3 logs now floating around, one on this page, showing Artosis having temper tantrums. That's not how winners act, full stop.
Exactly that. Artosis wants to be a professional gamer. That was not professional just childish nerd rage.
Everybody has to deal with questionable decisions once in a while. Gotta take em like a man.
|
Can't we just leave as it is?
It happened, get over it. Teamliquid has apologized and said that they will take measures so that this doesn't happen again in the future.
Yes, artosis could have handled it better, but in such situations, sometimes emotions just overrule your logical thinking and you start saying things that you normally wouldn't do.
I honestly have no idea what more has to be said about this, because as I see it it just ends up in some artosis or tournament admin bashing.
|
Poll: Given the situation, if you were Slush would you have conceded?No (146) 55% Yes (87) 33% I honestly don't know (31) 12% 264 total votes Your vote: Given the situation, if you were Slush would you have conceded? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): I honestly don't know
Well, that's that. lol
|
It would be completely unacceptable to revise the results of a played out tournament where nobody cheated. Slush abided by the the ruling of the admin so he can't be blamed for anything. You can't punish a player because of admin mistakes, that would be incredibly unprofessional and against the spirit of fair play.
|
On May 10 2010 00:04 7mk wrote:
Artosis handled himself poorly because he puts his whole heart into this game, that doesnt mean hes wrong
He doesn't have to be wrong for his behavior to have been atrocious and unacceptable for someone of his age. Don't confuse in-game correctness with standards for real-world behavior. You can be as right as you want, it doesn't allow you to be a spoiled brat.
|
On May 10 2010 00:02 See.Blue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 23:46 leetchaos wrote:On May 09 2010 23:42 See.Blue wrote:
Great response, TL. You guys on the staff continue to comport yourselves with remarkable professionalism, I'm proud for this site and community. As for Artosis, while he obviously has the right to turn down a showmatch, the fact that he had to indicate that it was because of 'differences' with Slush is pathetic. It's a shame to see someone you previously respected and admired act like that, I've lost a lot if not all of my respect for him as an individual. Watch the replay. I was thinking the same thing as you until I did. It's more a matter of reading the chat logs floating around. I don't care how much he had it in the bag, I have no respect for anyone who behaves like that, irrespective of how talented they may be. There are something like 3 logs now floating around, one on this page, of Artosis having temper tantrums at other people who are completely composed but just telling him things he doesn't like to hear. That's not how winners act, full stop.
Flipping out about someone being extremely slimy is much more tolerable in my book than actually being extremely slimy... Yeah obviously he flipped out and that was pretty lame. But forcing a regame on a game you know you lost is way worse imho.
1. Getting mad you lost a tournament because of a DC = uncool but I have some empathy
2. Forcing a regame of a game you lost in all ways but in technicality = super duper uncool, no sympathy, no respect
|
On May 09 2010 22:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 22:00 Ghardo wrote:
Rules are only as good as the people carrying them out. In this case an "expert" admin decision would have been necessary, but as has been stated by Naz there was no one available at that time. So the admins in charge carried out the rules as they saw fit and made a mistake (not from their point of view). It has now been identified that the merit of the rule (which I think is a good rule) to give someone the win should he disc after his opponent should already have typed "GG" is highly dependent on the game sense of the admin judging the situation. And that's what Naz said would be secured for such future TL events - that there is always a top player / expert like Naz, Chill, Day[9], Drone who may appropriately judge what's the best decision. This apology by Naz makes very little sense to me because I made damn sure that everyone in the ref IRC knew that in my (good at sc2) opinion the game was over. Other players like Demuslim and Nony saying the same thing aren't adding anything refs didn't know at the time. If the criteria used to judge whether it's a regame or not have changed because of last night then just say that, saying they made a mistake when they didn't is wrong.
how should i know. my post referred to the way naz described it and i imagined it would have been refs on their own who don't play as actively / on the level of you or nony or naz.
and how have the criteria changed? the rule has been in place before this debacle happened as well as the criteria to decide whether it's a regame or not. only that it depends on the admin who judges if the right criteria have been met or not and in this case the final decision was a mistake, or wasn't it?
to me it seems to have been a "chain of command problem" if the opinions of the top players with more expertise are overruled by other admins. so whoever made the final decision made a mistake, that's got nothing to do with criteria to appropriately judge the situation which do not change - either artosis had already won the game at the time he disced or he didn't.
|
On May 10 2010 00:09 See.Blue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 00:04 7mk wrote:
Artosis handled himself poorly because he puts his whole heart into this game, that doesnt mean hes wrong He doesn't have to be wrong for his behavior to have been atrocious and unacceptable for someone of his age. Don't confuse in-game correctness with standards for real-world behavior. You can be as right as you want, it doesn't allow you to be a spoiled brat.
the line between real world and in game is really not that big at all when you are in Artosis' position, someone who lives in korea because of esports, someone who wants to do this as his job, someone who got up at 3 am just to play this tournament.
Plus he knows most TL admins in real life.
He apologised already, I really dont know what more you could want from him?
|
On May 10 2010 00:06 Cade)Flayer wrote:
It would be completely unacceptable to revise the results of a played out tournament where nobody cheated. Slush abided by the the ruling of the admin so he can't be blamed for anything. You can't punish a player because of admin mistakes, that would be incredibly unprofessional and against the spirit of fair play.
This
And remember that the staff didnt award Slush with a win! There was a rematch in which Artosis lost.
|
On May 09 2010 14:01 dew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 13:53 artanis2 wrote:
People are saying slush had over 100 supply at the end of the game, how can that possibly mean no chance of comeback? Way too much artosis fanboyism around here.
edit: I also think its sad that nony thinks it would be OK to take the win away from slush retroactively. Then you'd have two victims of poor decisions instead of one. The win has already been "taken away" retroactively. It has been ever since this topic was written up by Nazgul. It's just a question of whether TL is content to simply award Slush a 1-2 victory, or if it's worth doing another regame with, by all accounts, the players who belonged there. Maybe I was too harsh on some individuals in my earlier post, but my personal position stands. It would be an absolute mockery if TL comes out and says that Slush didn't win his Quarterfinal series, yet still has the championship. Either stick to your guns or regame the matches with the players who earned the spot. What TL seems to be trying to do is have it both ways. Either stand by your call or don't, just don't say "the call was wrong but we're gonna say the guy who lost won anyway". It doesn't make any sense.
its an absolute joke to go out and replay all the tournament games after they've already happened now. The mistake happened, it sucks, but we all have to move on
|
On May 10 2010 00:13 Geval wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 00:06 Cade)Flayer wrote:
It would be completely unacceptable to revise the results of a played out tournament where nobody cheated. Slush abided by the the ruling of the admin so he can't be blamed for anything. You can't punish a player because of admin mistakes, that would be incredibly unprofessional and against the spirit of fair play. This And remember that the staff didnt award Slush with a win! There was a rematch in which Artosis lost.
GG!!!!
|
On May 09 2010 14:13 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 14:06 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:On May 09 2010 14:03 Azarkon wrote:
The reason he "had no chance" was because his 100 supply was tied up in 22 0/1 mutalisks, 9 roaches that were about to die, and a legion of drones that were also about to die because Artosis had his hydra army in Slush's last mining base.
Given Artosis's level of play, it is therefore believed that Slush could not have recovered and that it was the last battle of the game. Of course, if Artosis made some complete noob mistake like dancing his hydras around without attacking, Slush might've been able to recover, but many/most would feel that is beyond the realm of reasonable chance. This is what I'm talking about when you are deciding a disconnect case you cannot take into account the players you have to be neutral and say that anything could have happened at this point because realistically anything could have. SO his last mining base goes down there is a chance that Slush could catch him out of position and use his mineral surplus to remake drones. Personal feelings don't come into a decision like this which is why they're so difficult to make. Problem is, the only scenarios that Artosis could have lost are not realistic at all. Scenarios where he intentionally moves his units instead of letting them attack, or where he intentionally throws the game.... are not realistic. Even your most basic copper league player probably could have won the game at that point. So for a player at Artosis' level to make these "realistic" blunders is laughable.
Watch that Boxer/Joyo game, did you think there was any way Joyo would have lost that game? He had that game as locked up as Artosis did...and lost.
|
Can you guys really blame Artosis for being angry? Imagine you were in his situation. You've just wrapped up the deciding game and your opponent is about to gg. Due to a computer error (one which Artosis repeatedly warned us about, so you can't say that this will apply a dangerous precedent unless people start claiming computer problems in every tournament) your game crashes. Then the refs don't even watch the game and force you to rematch, while your opponent who has to know he's lost happily takes the rematch claiming ignorance.
Would you not be pissed? Everyone saying in the poll that they would not have conceded (which kinda makes me lose faith in the TL community) would surely have flipped out as well if they were in Artosis's position.
------------------------------------------------
User was temporarily banned for this post. Do not state untruths that are malicious in a serious discussion.
|
On May 09 2010 14:22 Ursad0n wrote:Slush did not do "what he thought was the right thing" IMO. He did what gave him the best possible chance of advancing. If he just took the loss like a gentelman (instead of saying "i could have won" like an ass) then he would have 0% chance of winning. By allowing the referee to decide he gained the extra advantage of having someone with a little less knowledge of the situation, and with fairness (in terms of Artosis disconnecting) in mind. He did the sleazy thing and looks like an ass to most, if not all, of the TL community. And he did not deserve the win and the $300 but that was not the fault of the admins. Slush, as i have said many times in this and my last post, is an ass. The honorable thing to do now in his position is to offer 1/2 or all the money to Artosis OR maybe play a Bo3 for it, IDK. Artosis, did nothing wrong in my opinion. He got the shitty end of the deal and e has a right to be mad. He lost out on an opportunity to get $300 because Slush is a douche bag and lied about thinking he could win. I, already said i think Artosis deserves prize money as well and i believe if 300 people donated a dollar he could get it.
Why the fuck does Artosis deserve the prize money? Did I miss the games where he beat Louder and CauthonLuck, or did he disconnect out of those too?
|
On May 09 2010 23:13 Smikis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 22:03 UbiNax wrote:On May 09 2010 22:01 Smikis wrote:
how could you say that slush had no chance to recover.. thats pure nonsense.. slush had 3800 minerals, compared to 800 from artosis, both of them had just about 1 -2 base mining, cuz mutas killed of all workers artosis had, just before crash, artosis hydras were on attack, but im 90% sure they would lost to mutas + roaches ( if they won, and then crashed.. yes game is over.. but if mutas won , slush not only could recovered , he could easily won.. )
i dont see how there was 99% chance of no comeback..
all this topic suggest is whine and flame a lot.. and you will accomplish this.. duo hehehe i think you got it wrong, there was " NO way slushs army comp could have won vs artosis' and yes he had 3k mins but he had 2 bases mining from 1 which would go down after artosis won the fight, artosis had more drones and 6 hatcherys no way. dont underestimate mutas, in high numbers they obliterate everything , you talk like having 5 bases, with no incone, vs having 2 bases, vs huge ammount of money is different.. artosis needed to remake drones.. and army.. with no money.. slush needed to remake hatches and army, with plenty of money he had.. and if he had won with mutas, he could kept harassing.. all artosis did was suicide 20+ roaches, to kill few hatcheries.. so next time ill send my army to die.. for 350 minerals building, then i just dc, claiming i won.. cuz i have more bases? lmao.. not to mention food was almost equal, slush had 118? and artosis 130? ( half of those 130 probably was hatching, so in reality he didnt had that much of army.. nor any money.. ) why dont you guys test, who wins in that last battle, hydras or mutas + roaches.. if artosis dced 30s latter, aka after that battle, game would been different.. he either won, or lost the game.. obviously, who would give him a loss, if he lost all his army, had no money.. and he had 20+ mutas harassing him.. obviously noone would give him loss.. he would get rematch. but game would been clearly over for him by then so why should slush get a loss cuz he lost 3 hatches, and artosis saced all army just to do it?
riiight those few roaches and the mutas would have taken out the 33 hydras and 9 corruptors ^^ get real
and artosis did have more drones than slush + he was mining from the gold minerals and he still had 800 minerals
And slush didnt have any gas
|
United States42258 Posts
On May 10 2010 00:20 QuakerOats wrote:
Can you guys really blame Artosis for being angry? Imagine you were in his situation. You've just wrapped up the deciding game and your opponent is about to gg. Due to a computer error (one which Artosis repeatedly warned us about, so you can't say that this will apply a dangerous precedent unless people start claiming computer problems in every tournament) your game crashes. Then the refs don't even watch the game and force you to rematch, while your opponent who has to know he's lost happily takes the rematch claiming ignorance.
Would you not be pissed? Everyone saying in the poll that they would not have conceded (which kinda makes me lose faith in the TL community) would surely have flipped out as well if they were in Artosis's position.
The refs didn't even bother to watch the game? Then what was I doing last night during that hour of rep watching and ref debating.
|
On May 09 2010 15:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 15:03 QuakerOats wrote:
I don't see how that's trolling; he has a pretty good point. What TL is officially saying is that the winner of the tournament actually lost in the quarterfinals. And yet you're still giving him the first place prize and title... You've never seen unjustified penalties decide matches in soccer? :/
I'm pretty sure that the people who are asking to re-game the entire fucking top half of the tournament don't watch real-life sports and hence don't realize why that isn't done.
|
KatanaSwordfish is absolutely right.
I know Artosis contributes a lot to the community and hes probably a cool dude, but based on what i saw him do in the TLI he appears to be a very bm person. He showed zero respect to his opponents.
Artosis has every right to be angry at Slush for not being a sportsman, everyone else would have been angry too. But if he wants to play this game to make money and not to make friends and have fun, he cant expect his opponents to have a different attitude. Slush was given another chance and he took it. Another way to put it: Artosis was given another chance to seal the deal and he blew it. If he won the rematch, nobody would care.
This post of Nazgul is a big mistake because things like that will keep on happening from time to time and now everybody will expect some kind of apology from TL. Here is what I would do: If you get a disconnect, you lose the game. One can argue about wether the winner should be able to forfeit the win but thats another question. If there was an autoloss, all this embarrassing rage by Artosis wouldnt have happened cause there would have been noone to blame.
If there were rules simple as this one, the admins would have a much easier time.
Think about this: if u get injured in any other sport, the game is over. Thats the way it should be in SC2 when theres money on the line.
|
Okay guys
I tested out the final forces in UMS
26 Hydralisks 3/2 (what he had at slush's bottom base), 9 Corrupters 0/0 (he had some in the lower left he might have forgot about but I included them)
vs
9 roaches (all upgrades but burrow related 3/3), 2 corrupters 1/0, and 22 1/0 mutalisks
I also sacced 10 drones in the attack.
If Slush focused down the Hydras first with muta, and does good micro with roaches (abusing their regen), and sacrifices some drones, he CAN hold off the attack and survive at least in the short term.
He was not 100% defeated.
Yes I did add triggers to account for upgrades.
He still had a very small chance to come out as winner so I find the 100% chance to win, not accurate.
![[image loading]](http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2043/picturekn.jpg)
*note quick and dirty test just to see if that force of hydra would be able to kill slush.
Further info
How Slush could possibly win: focus down hydra with roach + some drones + muta, Once hydras are dead, run with any remaining muta and do harass on drones around the map, while transferring drones to his new 2nd and massing up a new force.
He had a *chance* to win this game, I agree with rewarding a regame, he was not dead, he could kill the hydras at his base and had 5 more roaches coming up which are good units against the reinforcements (hydralisks) incoming from Artosis.
|
Slush
A few points I want to address in a single post without replying to anyone in specific there's a lot of things being repeatedly said here. I feel that in all kinds of sports that are much bigger, more widely accepted, it is proven time and time again that players will do anything within the rules to win. A soccer player will dive to get a freekick and his teammates will applaud him. This is infact not even allowed by rules and it is simply meant to trick the referee. His fans will applaud him. His opponents cry outrage, commentators will call it out. It's not noble but it's not immoral or unacceptable. What Slush did; not trying to be a judge himself does not deserve respect, but it also does not deserve to be called out on. He did not even try to trick the referees but simply looked at them for the right decision. From my experience in both poker and SC leaving it up to the referees if it benefits you is a totally standard thing to do. Giving away the win in his situation deserves respect. Not doing so does not deserve to be flamed. Hell, even Flash vs Jaedong who was in just as bad of a position as Slush, and his more mature coaches with him, did not agree with the decision to be awarded a loss. This is one of the most respected progamers out there, one of the players with the best grasp of a situation being hopeless. Doesn't this tell you enough? Stop judging Slush. Most of you have never been in a situation like this before and it's easy to talk when you've never proven yourself to do the opposite. I have done the opposite. I have given away wins when my opponents disconnected even recently, yet I don't judge Slush for not doing so because I know how rare it is that people actually follow through with that sort of thing. Lots of people talk, but very few actually do. He listened to the refs, pulled himself mentally together, and beat Artosis, Louder and Cauthonluck afterward and deserves respect for this accomplishment. The fault is with TL not Slush and we take full blame for this.
Artosis
Artosis didn't help himself with the way he acted. Getting that angry is understandable, but not acceptable. It is not 'proper behavior' for a well-known commentator to lose his cool like this and although he was operating as a player we all have to realize that a majority of the people are not capable of making this distinction. They will just see Artosis, not Artosis the player or Artosis the commentator. He knows this and apologized to ETT for his behavior and that should be the end of it. It happened and now we move on best we can.
Referee decisions that influence outcome of matches
If a tournament continued due to a bad decision it has to stand. You can't just take back what was done to people completely unrelated to the situation. It's standard protocol in every big sport that broadcasts to large audiences to accept the mistake but not to un-do it if a match or tournament was continued afterward. If this had happened in the final it would have been completely different. We told them to re-game; Slush won, we continued the tournament and Slush won that too. He didn't do anything illegal by listening to the referees and we can't take back a decision that is in the middle of all the action influencing a thousand different factors as a result. I know it's not always perfect to refer to other sports as an example as you also have to look for your own 'right thing to do', but I do believe in this case it is for a good reason that every major sport accepts bad decisions and moves on because refereeing is a human action and human actions mean mistakes happen.
Policy
I've seen people suggest we need a better policy. This is completely false please don't post this in the future. Our policy regarding discing is the best out there. However when you have policies and rules they need to be carried out and that's where the mistake happened. Every policy has its pros and cons so to suggest our policy is bad because it allows for human error is incorrect. Human error is something that will not occur when saying disc = loss, but the cons attached to a rule like this are simply enormous and do not weigh up in the slightest against the removal of human error.
|
Thanks for posting the chatlog kwark. Shows that the main reason Artosis was so upset was because he thought it was an easy $300 from when he first got the invite. Hope he doesn't get invited again.
|
On May 10 2010 01:00 Full.tilt wrote:
Thanks for posting the chatlog kwark. Shows that the main reason Artosis was so upset was because he thought it was an easy $300 from when he first got the invite. Hope he doesn't get invited again.
And he certainly got his fame...
|
On May 10 2010 00:58 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Slush
A few points I want to address in a single post without replying to anyone in specific there's a lot of things being repeatedly said here. I feel that in all kinds of sports that are much bigger, more widely accepted, it is proven time and time again that players will do anything within the rules to win. A soccer player will dive to get a freekick and his teammates will applaud him. This is infact not even allowed by rules and it is simply meant to trick the referee. His fans will applaud him. His opponents cry outrage, commentators will call it out. It's not noble but it's not immoral or unacceptable. What Slush did; not trying to be a judge himself does not deserve respect, but it also does not deserve to be called out on. He did not even try to trick the referees but simply looked at them for the right decision. From my experience in both poker and SC leaving it up to the referees if it benefits you is a totally standard thing to do. Giving away the win in his situation deserves respect. Not doing so does not deserve to be flamed. Hell, even Flash vs Jaedong who was in just as bad of a position as Slush, and his more mature coaches with him, did not agree with the decision to be awarded a loss. This is one of the most respected progamers out there, one of the players with the best grasp of a situation being hopeless. Doesn't this tell you enough? Stop judging Slush. Most of you have never been in a situation like this before and it's easy to talk when you've never proven yourself to do the opposite. I have done the opposite. I have given away wins when my opponents disconnected even recently, yet I don't judge Slush for not doing so because I know how rare it is that people actually follow through with that sort of thing. Lots of people talk, but very few actually do. He listened to the refs, pulled himself mentally together, and beat Artosis, Louder and Cauthonluck afterward and deserves respect for this accomplishment. The fault is with TL not Slush and we take full blame for this.
Artosis
Artosis didn't help himself with the way he acted. Getting that angry is understandable, but not acceptable. It is not 'proper behavior' for a well-known commentator to lose his cool like this and although he was operating as a player we all have to realize that a majority of the people are not capable of making this distinction. They will just see Artosis, not Artosis the player or Artosis the commentator. He knows this and apologized to ETT for his behavior and that should be the end of it. It happened and now we move on best we can.
Referee decisions that influence outcome of matches
If a tournament continued due to a bad decision it has to stand. You can't just take back what was done to people completely unrelated to the situation. It's standard protocol in every big sport that broadcasts to large audiences to accept the mistake but not to un-do it if a match or tournament was continued afterward. If this had happened in the final it would have been completely different. We told them to re-game; Slush won, we continued the tournament and Slush won that too. He didn't do anything illegal by listening to the referees and we can't take back a decision that is in the middle of all the action influencing a thousand different factors as a result. I know it's not always perfect to refer to other sports as an example as you also have to look for your own 'right thing to do', but I do believe in this case it is for a good reason that every major sport accepts bad decisions and moves on because refereeing is a human action and human actions mean mistakes happen.
Policy
I've seen people suggest we need a better policy. This is completely false please don't post this in the future. Our policy regarding discing is the best out there. However when you have policies and rules they need to be carried out and that's where the mistake happened. Every policy has its pros and cons so to suggest our policy is bad because it allows for human error is incorrect. Human error is something that will not occur when saying disc = loss, but the cons attached to a rule like this are simply enormous and do not weigh up in the slightest against the removal of human error.
/thread
|
On May 10 2010 01:05 zeppelin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 01:00 Full.tilt wrote:
Thanks for posting the chatlog kwark. Shows that the main reason Artosis was so upset was because he thought it was an easy $300 from when he first got the invite. Hope he doesn't get invited again. And he certainly got his fame...
Soon sc2 up and comers will start coke habits, shave their heads, and marry random people in vegas, not to mention possible reality shows where they compete in events like milking farm animals and sticking their hands up rectums.
The true path to being invited to money events. Although right now raging as often as possible is the best way, I'm sure it will get more competitive over time.
|
Whether or not Artosis is right/wrong/blowing a chance at free money, Slush should just have given the game to artosis if indeed it was a 100% situation. The fact that he did not concede shows that either A. it was not 100% or B. Slush is a dick.
|
On May 10 2010 01:15 Trezeguet23 wrote:
Whether or not Artosis is right/wrong/blowing a chance at free money, Slush should just have given the game to artosis if indeed it was a 100% situation. The fact that he did not concede shows that either A. it was not 100% or B. Slush is a dick.
If he thought it was 100% he would have already said gg by then, you don't get to be a top player by having a weepy lack of self-confidence in your ability to overcome adversity.
|
On May 10 2010 00:58 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Slush
A few points I want to address in a single post without replying to anyone in specific there's a lot of things being repeatedly said here. I feel that in all kinds of sports that are much bigger, more widely accepted, it is proven time and time again that players will do anything within the rules to win. A soccer player will dive to get a freekick and his teammates will applaud him. This is infact not even allowed by rules and it is simply meant to trick the referee. His fans will applaud him. His opponents cry outrage, commentators will call it out. It's not noble but it's not immoral or unacceptable. What Slush did; not trying to be a judge himself does not deserve respect, but it also does not deserve to be called out on. He did not even try to trick the referees but simply looked at them for the right decision. From my experience in both poker and SC leaving it up to the referees if it benefits you is a totally standard thing to do. Giving away the win in his situation deserves respect. Not doing so does not deserve to be flamed. Hell, even Flash vs Jaedong who was in just as bad of a position as Slush, and his more mature coaches with him, did not agree with the decision to be awarded a loss. This is one of the most respected progamers out there, one of the players with the best grasp of a situation being hopeless. Doesn't this tell you enough? Stop judging Slush. Most of you have never been in a situation like this before and it's easy to talk when you've never proven yourself to do the opposite. I have done the opposite. I have given away wins when my opponents disconnected even recently, yet I don't judge Slush for not doing so because I know how rare it is that people actually follow through with that sort of thing. Lots of people talk, but very few actually do. He listened to the refs, pulled himself mentally together, and beat Artosis, Louder and Cauthonluck afterward and deserves respect for this accomplishment. The fault is with TL not Slush and we take full blame for this.
Artosis
Artosis didn't help himself with the way he acted. Getting that angry is understandable, but not acceptable. It is not 'proper behavior' for a well-known commentator to lose his cool like this and although he was operating as a player we all have to realize that a majority of the people are not capable of making this distinction. They will just see Artosis, not Artosis the player or Artosis the commentator. He knows this and apologized to ETT for his behavior and that should be the end of it. It happened and now we move on best we can.
Referee decisions that influence outcome of matches
If a tournament continued due to a bad decision it has to stand. You can't just take back what was done to people completely unrelated to the situation. It's standard protocol in every big sport that broadcasts to large audiences to accept the mistake but not to un-do it if a match or tournament was continued afterward. If this had happened in the final it would have been completely different. We told them to re-game; Slush won, we continued the tournament and Slush won that too. He didn't do anything illegal by listening to the referees and we can't take back a decision that is in the middle of all the action influencing a thousand different factors as a result. I know it's not always perfect to refer to other sports as an example as you also have to look for your own 'right thing to do', but I do believe in this case it is for a good reason that every major sport accepts bad decisions and moves on because refereeing is a human action and human actions mean mistakes happen.
Policy
I've seen people suggest we need a better policy. This is completely false please don't post this in the future. Our policy regarding discing is the best out there. However when you have policies and rules they need to be carried out and that's where the mistake happened. Every policy has its pros and cons so to suggest our policy is bad because it allows for human error is incorrect. Human error is something that will not occur when saying disc = loss, but the cons attached to a rule like this are simply enormous and do not weigh up in the slightest against the removal of human error.
Liquid`Nazgul, the voice of reason :-)
Well put, on all accounts. Let's all move on, shall we?
|
On May 10 2010 00:51 dacthehork wrote:
Okay guys
I tested out the final forces in UMS
Appreciate the effort but your test is incorrect he did not have regen upgrades, his 9 roaches were all in the yellow while 95% of the hydras were fully in the green, and they were fighting already without the mutas being there.
|
On May 10 2010 00:58 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Slush
A few points I want to address in a single post without replying to anyone in specific there's a lot of things being repeatedly said here. I feel that in all kinds of sports that are much bigger, more widely accepted, it is proven time and time again that players will do anything within the rules to win. A soccer player will dive to get a freekick and his teammates will applaud him. This is infact not even allowed by rules and it is simply meant to trick the referee. His fans will applaud him. His opponents cry outrage, commentators will call it out. It's not noble but it's not immoral or unacceptable. What Slush did; not trying to be a judge himself does not deserve respect, but it also does not deserve to be called out on. He did not even try to trick the referees but simply looked at them for the right decision. From my experience in both poker and SC leaving it up to the referees if it benefits you is a totally standard thing to do. Giving away the win in his situation deserves respect. Not doing so does not deserve to be flamed. Hell, even Flash vs Jaedong who was in just as bad of a position as Slush, and his more mature coaches with him, did not agree with the decision to be awarded a loss. This is one of the most respected progamers out there, one of the players with the best grasp of a situation being hopeless. Doesn't this tell you enough? Stop judging Slush. Most of you have never been in a situation like this before and it's easy to talk when you've never proven yourself to do the opposite. I have done the opposite. I have given away wins when my opponents disconnected even recently, yet I don't judge Slush for not doing so because I know how rare it is that people actually follow through with that sort of thing. Lots of people talk, but very few actually do. He listened to the refs, pulled himself mentally together, and beat Artosis, Louder and Cauthonluck afterward and deserves respect for this accomplishment. The fault is with TL not Slush and we take full blame for this.
Artosis
Artosis didn't help himself with the way he acted. Getting that angry is understandable, but not acceptable. It is not 'proper behavior' for a well-known commentator to lose his cool like this and although he was operating as a player we all have to realize that a majority of the people are not capable of making this distinction. They will just see Artosis, not Artosis the player or Artosis the commentator. He knows this and apologized to ETT for his behavior and that should be the end of it. It happened and now we move on best we can.
Referee decisions that influence outcome of matches
If a tournament continued due to a bad decision it has to stand. You can't just take back what was done to people completely unrelated to the situation. It's standard protocol in every big sport that broadcasts to large audiences to accept the mistake but not to un-do it if a match or tournament was continued afterward. If this had happened in the final it would have been completely different. We told them to re-game; Slush won, we continued the tournament and Slush won that too. He didn't do anything illegal by listening to the referees and we can't take back a decision that is in the middle of all the action influencing a thousand different factors as a result. I know it's not always perfect to refer to other sports as an example as you also have to look for your own 'right thing to do', but I do believe in this case it is for a good reason that every major sport accepts bad decisions and moves on because refereeing is a human action and human actions mean mistakes happen.
Policy
I've seen people suggest we need a better policy. This is completely false please don't post this in the future. Our policy regarding discing is the best out there. However when you have policies and rules they need to be carried out and that's where the mistake happened. Every policy has its pros and cons so to suggest our policy is bad because it allows for human error is incorrect. Human error is something that will not occur when saying disc = loss, but the cons attached to a rule like this are simply enormous and do not weigh up in the slightest against the removal of human error.
This sums up everything. There will always be people to argue over this decision.
This is what makes TL great; not only the great events that are organized but also the wisdom of the staff. And also the backbone required to get through a shitstorm that often (it would be fun to check at the ratio uneventful event / number of events done).
Tough decision but fair nontheless, at least people should respect that rules were applied.
|
On May 10 2010 01:25 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 00:51 dacthehork wrote:
Okay guys
I tested out the final forces in UMS
Appreciate the effort but your test is incorrect he did not have regen upgrades, his 9 roaches were all in the yellow while 95% of the hydras were fully in the green, and they were fighting already without the mutas being there.
Yes of course, it was a rough test, he could have survived though. The chances are slim, but I do not think it was 100%, It was probably near that, but with poor mistakes by Artosis and amazing decisions/micro by slush it could have been in Slush's favor. The forces at Slush's base where not sufficient to kill him outright. It wasn't an army Slush had no chance of defeating.
99% likely for Artosis to win is decent, possibility of more memory errors, huge mismicro, picking the wrong units, possible amazing harass action by Slush. He could pull the roaches back, wait for muta, Artosis doesn't see the corrupters in bottom left of map, then Slush focuses down the Hydras with a really good flank and drone pull. He pulls any low hp Mutas back, sends roaches to harass Artosis after cleaning up hydra, breaks out into amazing harass micro and Artosis falters..
It could happen, likely? no. But sealed and shut? he would have GG by then.
Also I remember looking at his roach upgrades and he seemed to have all of them but the underground movement + upgraded regen while burrowed.
Even in my limited number of SC2 games, less than 400, I've been in cases where I felt dead and have come back. I remember one in particular where I had my entire base destroyed, lifted the CC moved to an island, and made a few hellions + lucky micro to somehow win the game against a strongly superior force.
|
On May 10 2010 00:18 lipebra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 00:13 Geval wrote:On May 10 2010 00:06 Cade)Flayer wrote:
It would be completely unacceptable to revise the results of a played out tournament where nobody cheated. Slush abided by the the ruling of the admin so he can't be blamed for anything. You can't punish a player because of admin mistakes, that would be incredibly unprofessional and against the spirit of fair play. This And remember that the staff didnt award Slush with a win! There was a rematch in which Artosis lost. GG!!!!
Of course replaying the end stage of the tournament would be silly, but the fourth game certainly didn't mean much. Artosis was tilting way too much.
|
On May 10 2010 01:00 Full.tilt wrote:
Thanks for posting the chatlog kwark. Shows that the main reason Artosis was so upset was because he thought it was an easy $300 from when he first got the invite. Hope he doesn't get invited again.
I really dont think it was all about the money dude.
First of all, he had to mess-up hes sleeping routine for this. And because he got eliminated the way like he did, it seriously pisses people off.
And second of all, comments like 'omg i hope he won't never be invited again' are seriously bs.
|
Artosis acted like a bitch, period. The fact anyone is willing to give him any special consideration certainly stems from his name and not his skill level or behavior. Compounded by the fact that he won't play a show match for money vs Slush - because what, he doesn't like him? - it just seems like Artosis is being a complete baby about this. And I'm the last person in the world anyone can accuse of bias here. I've been good friends with Artosis for 11 years. It's still pretty easy to see how clearly he fucked up this up, regardless of who would or would not have won the game.
It's simple: sometimes the wrong decision gets made. If you're not the person in charge, you need to have the maturity level to suck it up and accept it and move on.
I think everyone needs to just drop this and move on.
|
Def still had a chance of winning, esp because they're mutas. He could send the mutas to harass and buy time. If it were the other way around, 0/1 hydras for slush vs 3/2 mutas for artosis, then there is 100% no chance.
|
As upset as I am that Slush didn't concede the win, I agree with Nazgul that you can't fault him for it. He let the referee's make the decision for him.
Artosis had a chance to beat Slush again and then failed.
If Slush went on to lose the next match I think there'd be more room to fight for Artosis. But Artosis lost the rematch and Slush went on to beat everyone else.
I am a big Artosis fan and at first when it happened I was as livid as he was but with all that has happened, it's crazy for people to suggest Slush have his title removed.
I'd like to see Artosis swallow his pride and give the community a rematch.
|
On May 10 2010 01:56 Louder wrote:
Artosis acted like a bitch, period. The fact anyone is willing to give him any special consideration certainly stems from his name and not his skill level or behavior. Compounded by the fact that he won't play a show match for money vs Slush - because what, he doesn't like him? - it just seems like Artosis is being a complete baby about this. And I'm the last person in the world anyone can accuse of bias here. I've been good friends with Artosis for 11 years. It's still pretty easy to see how clearly he fucked up this up, regardless of who would or would not have won the game.
It's simple: sometimes the wrong decision gets made. If you're not the person in charge, you need to have the maturity level to suck it up and accept it and move on.
I think everyone needs to just drop this and move on.
well said
|
On May 10 2010 02:04 hacpee wrote:
Def still had a chance of winning, esp because they're mutas. He could send the mutas to harass and buy time. If it were the other way around, 0/1 hydras for slush vs 3/2 mutas for artosis, then there is 100% no chance.
Yeah, and Artosis might choke on his tongue and die. Slush would probably win then. The game was Artosis'. I hadn't seen the game yesterday, and I took people's word for it that Slush had a decent chance. But he really didn't. I have to say it's a pretty baller move from TL to actually admit a mistake. How many times do you see that happening?
|
Great PR by Nazgul. It's good to see TL events ran by people willing to admit mistakes when they do happen. Accidents like this happen pretty often in any competition but it's important to have a fair review afterwards.
|
On May 10 2010 01:56 Louder wrote:
Artosis acted like a bitch, period. The fact anyone is willing to give him any special consideration certainly stems from his name and not his skill level or behavior. Compounded by the fact that he won't play a show match for money vs Slush - because what, he doesn't like him? - it just seems like Artosis is being a complete baby about this. And I'm the last person in the world anyone can accuse of bias here. I've been good friends with Artosis for 11 years. It's still pretty easy to see how clearly he fucked up this up, regardless of who would or would not have won the game.
It's simple: sometimes the wrong decision gets made. If you're not the person in charge, you need to have the maturity level to suck it up and accept it and move on.
I think everyone needs to just drop this and move on.
That's exactly what I think about it...except you know..me not being friends with Artosis
|
On May 09 2010 19:19 BroOd wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 19:09 dogabutila wrote:On May 09 2010 18:25 BroOd wrote:
You wouldn't blacklist a soccer player who didn't report his own handball, would you? Or a football player who didn't report his own facemask penalty? Entirely different situation my friend. If I stand to gain something by not speaking up then why would I ever speak up? However in this situation not only do I stand to gain, but another stands to lose by my inaction. Is it fair that because of my selfishness, greed, and lack of morals that I would cause another who should rightfully gain something to lose it? I just cannot understand the people who feel as if slush did nothing wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_(criminal_law)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue How is that different exactly? In Ireland vs France World Cup qualifiers, Thierry Henry handballed a goal that put France in the World Cup and left Ireland out. Should he have reported himself to the referee?
And everybody knows france did not advance because they were better, but rather because one of their captains cheated. However this case is entirely different because he proactively reached out to control the ball, therefore he would never have chose to cheat, and then reported himself. What comes out of this is that the world also knows of Henry's non-existent morals.
This situation is different because slush did not cheat per se, just chose to take undue advantage of the situation rather than doing the right thing. He did not proactively cheat. He just allowed it to happen.
Did you read the links? This is exactly what duty to act is. You can commit a crime by NOT doing something as well as doing something.
|
I haven't actually seen the replay in question, but it's great to see the TL can admit any mistakes they have made in the past and learn from it and move to hopefully not repeat it again. Apart from that mistake in judgement I think the rest of the tournament was shown flawlessly, though hopefully no drama like this happens again. I read the chat logs posted and its a shame how Artosis acted, though given the circumstances it is slightly understandable, but still a shame.
I look forward to the future tournaments TL hosts and hopefully with any luck, we wont see a repeat of this episode.
|
I don't feel like someone who knowingly have a problem on his computer that make the game crash should play in a tournament.
It's common sense, if your graphic card would overheat everytime you play for over 20 minutes in a game, and it crashed 20% of the time, it wouldn't be a wise idea to sign up to a tournament.
Not only will you most likely slow things down, but you'll also fuel some drama like in this current case. The normal thing to do would be wait until you have a new computer or your computer fixed.
|
On May 10 2010 02:34 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 19:19 BroOd wrote:On May 09 2010 19:09 dogabutila wrote:On May 09 2010 18:25 BroOd wrote:
You wouldn't blacklist a soccer player who didn't report his own handball, would you? Or a football player who didn't report his own facemask penalty? Entirely different situation my friend. If I stand to gain something by not speaking up then why would I ever speak up? However in this situation not only do I stand to gain, but another stands to lose by my inaction. Is it fair that because of my selfishness, greed, and lack of morals that I would cause another who should rightfully gain something to lose it? I just cannot understand the people who feel as if slush did nothing wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_(criminal_law)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue How is that different exactly? In Ireland vs France World Cup qualifiers, Thierry Henry handballed a goal that put France in the World Cup and left Ireland out. Should he have reported himself to the referee? And everybody knows france did not advance because they were better, but rather because one of their captains cheated. However this case is entirely different because he proactively reached out to control the ball, therefore he would never have chose to cheat, and then reported himself. What comes out of this is that the world also knows of Henry's non-existent morals. This situation is different because slush did not cheat per se, just chose to take undue advantage of the situation rather than doing the right thing. He did not proactively cheat. He just allowed it to happen. Did you read the links? This is exactly what duty to act is. You can commit a crime by NOT doing something as well as doing something.
Actually the two situations are very comparable. SLush = Henry and Artosis = Trappatonni, Ireland's manager. SLush did exactly what Henry did, except he did not admit/think that he lost while Henry did admit to the handball. They both let the decision go to the refs. The only problem with that is that the ref staff for this event was not properly assembled, but they have said that will be corrected in future events. Maybe this will add more drama for the future and a rivalry can be started.
|
On May 10 2010 00:58 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Slush
A few points I want to address in a single post without replying to anyone in specific there's a lot of things being repeatedly said here. I feel that in all kinds of sports that are much bigger, more widely accepted, it is proven time and time again that players will do anything within the rules to win. A soccer player will dive to get a freekick and his teammates will applaud him. This is infact not even allowed by rules and it is simply meant to trick the referee. His fans will applaud him. His opponents cry outrage, commentators will call it out. It's not noble but it's not immoral or unacceptable. What Slush did; not trying to be a judge himself does not deserve respect, but it also does not deserve to be called out on. He did not even try to trick the referees but simply looked at them for the right decision. From my experience in both poker and SC leaving it up to the referees if it benefits you is a totally standard thing to do. Giving away the win in his situation deserves respect. Not doing so does not deserve to be flamed. Hell, even Flash vs Jaedong who was in just as bad of a position as Slush, and his more mature coaches with him, did not agree with the decision to be awarded a loss. This is one of the most respected progamers out there, one of the players with the best grasp of a situation being hopeless. Doesn't this tell you enough? Stop judging Slush. Most of you have never been in a situation like this before and it's easy to talk when you've never proven yourself to do the opposite. I have done the opposite. I have given away wins when my opponents disconnected even recently, yet I don't judge Slush for not doing so because I know how rare it is that people actually follow through with that sort of thing. Lots of people talk, but very few actually do. He listened to the refs, pulled himself mentally together, and beat Artosis, Louder and Cauthonluck afterward and deserves respect for this accomplishment. The fault is with TL not Slush and we take full blame for this.
Wrong, wrong, absolutely wrong. Yes players in higher levels would do anything to win. Does that mean because more people act in a certain way it should be acceptable? Diving for a free kick is immoral. Knowingly cheating and purposefully acting in a manner against the rules can't be anything but that. Saying it is not is like saying hacking in starcraft is not immoral or unacceptable. That is just plain wrong on all accounts.
Actions like this may not be unacceptable, but only because we choose to let it be acceptable. Yet, clearly wrong actions such as this should NOT be acceptable. Not being honest and admitting you lost is quite clearly wrong, it SHOULD be unacceptable.
TL made a mistake, yes. It only happened because SLUSH did not do the right thing. Does the sense of fair play not exist anymore?
Those saying that it was not a GG situation clearly have no idea. Progamers do not always GG even after it becomes apparent they will lose. Some zerg vs flash, in which he had the advantage but decided to keep running ultras headon into mines and drop them on top of mines was later in the situation where he had lost all his bases except for 1. Flash had taken the entire map and was sieged outside. This player then attempts to attack with drones, as if he somehow still has a chance. Yet anybody could realize that the game was over and he had no chance left.
The game can be over, and outcome decided without GG being called. Am I saying slush should have called GG without trying? No. But he should have recognized after DC that the game was over, done the right thing, and admitted loss.
If starcraft is a game in which manners are important, TL ought to hold players to a higher standard then they currently do.
|
I think the winning at all costs thing as Nazgul suggests is wrong.
Just because it benefits you in that moment such as winning the PK or a game or a few bucks, and even if some people applaud you for it doesn't make it not cheating, dishonest or deceitful. Would slush have forfeited the game if he had playing a close friend?
|
I wonder how most of the people flaming Artosis would have reacted had they been in his shoes. Do remember that his reaction came prior to the official statement, which was in fact too delayed.
"yeah np, I'm fine with getting screwed."
Yeah, people make mistakes. They can apologize for them, and that's great and all, but that won't ever fully rectify the situation. Teamliquid screwed up and Artosis has every right to be mad.
With that said, TL is handling this situation appropriately and I hope they can resolve their differences. Although I would never play Slush again if I were Artosis.
|
tournament for money.
Incorrect Ruling
Public Apology
Artosis reserves his right to refuse showmatch.
Done.
|
Meh, lost a lot of respect to Artosis.
Both the spitting in the face of the refs/not accepting rematch of a "obvious easy oppentent", and telling Day9 hes so bad he cant win without oppenent getting "Page Pool Error".
Highlevel BM from a "Respected Member" of the SC community.
|
Why does it matter who disconnected? It's a buggy beta. That should have no influence on the judgement. Artosis should have been given the win.
Regardless, Slush played his ass off the rest of the tournament. Props to him.
|
If I were Artosis I would refuse a showmatch on principle. I don't see it as being a baby but as making a statement. He has a lot more to lose than he does to gain in a showmatch. If he goes in there and loses, it's pretty bad for him. Even if you're the better player, anyone can lose a series in starcraft 2. No one has a 100% record.
If he plays and wins, it looks like he is legitimizing the idea that he needed to play another match. He already won, why prove himself again? The only thing you could argue that he could gain from this is money, but at what cost? He has little to gain and everything to lose.
And that's just talking about fame... as a principle of morality you have no duty to play someone that you believe to have cheated the system. This is nothing against Slush but from Artosis' pov he definitely cheated in a moral sense, even if not from a technical one.
|
On May 10 2010 03:06 dogabutila wrote:
Actions like this may not be unacceptable, but only because we choose to let it be acceptable. Yet, clearly wrong actions such as this should NOT be acceptable. Not being honest and admitting you lost is quite clearly wrong, it SHOULD be unacceptable.
TL made a mistake, yes. It only happened because SLUSH did not do the right thing. Does the sense of fair play not exist anymore?
I am pretty sure that Slush wasn't done with that game yet. He was still seeing a chance to win or else he would have gg'ed already. It doesn't matter if he really had a chance. If he thinks he has a chance (as small as it might be) then there is nothing wrong with not "admitting" defeat, because from his perspective he wasn't defeated yet. He is not omniscient; that's the job of the referees.
So as long as Slush didn't clearly see that he had 100% lost (and this can be very hard to see if you are one of the players), he didn't do anything wrong.
|
GJ TL very manner about the whole situation
|
Agree with what louder said, he even gets offered a rematch for money.... I mean come on... Don't refuse this...
|
On May 10 2010 03:49 spinesheath wrote:
I am pretty sure that Slush wasn't done with that game yet. He was still seeing a chance to win or else he would have gg'ed already. It doesn't matter if he really had a chance. If he thinks he has a chance (as small as it might be) then there is nothing wrong with not "admitting" defeat, because from his perspective he wasn't defeated yet. He is not omniscient; that's the job of the referees.
So as long as Slush didn't clearly see that he had 100% lost (and this can be very hard to see if you are one of the players), he didn't do anything wrong.
People hang on all the time. I have stayed in games I know I was going to lose for just a little while longer out of spite to make them spend more of their time. There wasn't any realistic chance that he could come back. Slush knew he had it lost but was holding on for whatever reason. If TL has the policy of "if there's a chance" they should just make all DCs instant loss for the sake of consistency. If you have a hatchery and one drone there's still technically a chance you could come back. Who cares what I think though, just a nobody here.
|
wonder wats going to be on this weeks artosis weekly news
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
To anyone arguing against it: the disconnect rules are probably the best possible. Explanation:
On one hand, it strongly discourages players from disconnecting so that they can receive a win without taking the risk that they might screw up or the opponent might come back. Not just in theory, but even in reality, where a win might be awarded by human error even if the game is not 100% over. In order for that error to occur, the player has to be so close to winning already (say, 98% chance of winning) that the probability of winning by playing the game out is far higher than the probability of winning by intentionally discing and receiving an erroneous favourable decision. So there is zero motivation to try to get a win by discing: only a giant idiot would try it.
On the other hand, it also discourages players from waiting around until their last building is destroyed and hoping their opponent disconnects so they can get a regame. If you have only a handful of pylons left and your opponent discs, then you still lose since they had it 100% won. If this part of the rule didn't exist, then every player could maximize their chances of winning a lost game by never GG-ing and waiting until they are eliminated. Even if it sounds like a silly thing for the player to do, a rule system that encourages pain-in-the-ass behaviour like this is a flawed rule system. With the TL rule system, you don't gain anything from waiting to be eliminated. You don't lose anything either, in terms of your chances of winning, but you do lose things outside the game, such as respect in the community, thus players are ultimately discouraged from doing it.
And that's why the current rule system is ideal. Mistakes can happen due to human error, as with any rule system, but it motivates the players to do the right things: play out your wins and gg your losses. Cases like this one are very rare and even if they do arise, they can be handled by improving the ref system -- which TL plans to do.
|
Personally, I would also refuse the showmatch if I were in Artosis' shoes. Had this happened to me in a tourney I would have felt extremely aggrieved, but that shit happens from time to time and you gotta move on. Having to play Slush in an apologetic "showmatch?" For me it would have been a more frustrating than enjoyable experience, regardless of the outcome. And then there's the whole principle thing... I don't like seeing people hate on Artosis because I'm sure a LOT of people would feel the same way in his shoes. Best we all just move on from this clusterfuck and learn from this.
|
Id refuse the rematch/showmatch if i was Slush. He already won
|
On May 10 2010 04:28 iamtt1 wrote:
wonder wats going to be on this weeks artosis weekly news
LOL I was already thinking about that, too.
|
On May 10 2010 04:30 jonich0n wrote:
Personally, I would also refuse the showmatch if I were in Artosis' shoes. Had this happened to me in a tourney I would have felt extremely aggrieved, but that shit happens from time to time and you gotta move on. Having to play Slush in an apologetic "showmatch?" For me it would have been a more frustrating than enjoyable experience, regardless of the outcome. And then there's the whole principle thing... I don't like seeing people hate on Artosis because I'm sure a LOT of people would feel the same way in his shoes. Best we all just move on from this clusterfuck and learn from this.
obviously we would all be mad if we were in his shoes, but he's way overreacting here, and he says he's been robbed of 300$.... this is totally wrong, this wasn't even the semis....
|
Even if he did lose 300$, he also lost the respect from a lot of people. I hope he thinks it was worth it.
|
Well most people knew artosis as a commentator, not as a player, he was like that years ago too
|
On one hand, I want to be sympathetic.
If I were in his shoes, I'd probably be mad too, but it doesn't excuse such petulance.
Really, the chat logs were hilarious.
And seeing as how I agree with the disc rules, well...
|
On May 10 2010 04:58 Fayth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 04:30 jonich0n wrote:
Personally, I would also refuse the showmatch if I were in Artosis' shoes. Had this happened to me in a tourney I would have felt extremely aggrieved, but that shit happens from time to time and you gotta move on. Having to play Slush in an apologetic "showmatch?" For me it would have been a more frustrating than enjoyable experience, regardless of the outcome. And then there's the whole principle thing... I don't like seeing people hate on Artosis because I'm sure a LOT of people would feel the same way in his shoes. Best we all just move on from this clusterfuck and learn from this. obviously we would all be mad if we were in his shoes, but he's way overreacting here, and he says he's been robbed of 300$.... this is totally wrong, this wasn't even the semis....
Overreacting or not the fact remains that Artosis was right about opposing the decision of the refs. Pro players should be professional and by not being so they can be hated by the community but it does not strip him of his rights as a player which is to be treated fairly. Obviously his statement of being robbed of 300usd and this was an easy tourney was arrogant but still he was wronged and it should be corrected.
To the people who agree that Slush did the right thing by staying silent, I really don't know what to say. Just because other pro players in soccer or basketball stay silent to benefit their team it does not make doing so ok. Not because everybody is doing the wrong thing then you should do too. That is when you show characters by sticking to what you think is right even when people cheat to gain advantage.
Using an example in pro sports of tennis. I have seen many players gave their opponents point when the line judge make a mistake of calling a shot out when it was clearly in. I am surprised to see in the poll that so many people would not have conceded the game.
|
On May 09 2010 17:58 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 17:56 gngfn wrote:On May 09 2010 17:25 MorningMusume11 wrote:
Says the guy that has two posts Indeed. Perhaps he ought to hold off on making comments like that until he has 2241 posts' worth of serious Starcraft discu loooooooooool
This needs more face time.
|
I don't understand why arrogance makes everyone tick in this community. It seems few here are capable of viewing things subjectively.
Whenever I play tennis I never contest the other player's calls unless it is obviously in (like a foot in). If I lose then that's that, but I discontinue any future association with that player. I might complain a little bit and tell my friend the guy was a douche bag, and I could have easily won, but I stop caring eventually. Would I be a "baby" for refusing to play against someone who I know acts poorly? It would be extremely irrational to call me one, because the rematch would not be enjoyable for me, and I would have nothing to prove to him, and would contently accept that he is a poor sportsman, and I would have probably won the first game.
|
On May 09 2010 22:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 22:00 Ghardo wrote:
Rules are only as good as the people carrying them out. In this case an "expert" admin decision would have been necessary, but as has been stated by Naz there was no one available at that time. So the admins in charge carried out the rules as they saw fit and made a mistake (not from their point of view). It has now been identified that the merit of the rule (which I think is a good rule) to give someone the win should he disc after his opponent should already have typed "GG" is highly dependent on the game sense of the admin judging the situation. And that's what Naz said would be secured for such future TL events - that there is always a top player / expert like Naz, Chill, Day[9], Drone who may appropriately judge what's the best decision. Naz incorrectly describes the situation. This probably isn't deliberate because he simply wasn't there but to characterise the ref team as ignorant of the situation because they're not good enough at sc2 to understand it is wrong. Several refs, myself included, are good at sc2. The subject was hotly debated by refs and the opinion of every ref who had seen the replay was taken into account (for the record my vote was that Artosis should be awarded the win). There was no misunderstanding about what happens with 3-2 hydralisks take on 1-0 mutalisks, I was very clear about that in the IRC channel. The conclusion was that the rules were clear and that a disconnect while ahead was a regame. If Slush felt the game was over then he could concede but he said he felt he still had a chance and it wasn't the place of the referees to deny him that chance.
What "Slush thinks" is irrelevant just like in any sports match (player has no role in ref's decision). However, if all the refs unanimously decided that Artosis should' have been awarded a win, then clearly whoever made the final call should've respected the refs' decision and should be here making the statement of apology (rather than flaming people in a thread, etc and letting Nazgul come in and patch things up).
|
I'm surprised so many people in this thread rage/tantrum enough to be able to sympathize or justify Artosis' behavior to themselves.
|
Such e-drama, that's actually quite funny.
Nazgul talked a lot about the comparison with soccer. In soccer, when the ref takes a decision and you rage and insult him and keep discussing, you get a red card and you are out for two match, whether the ref was right or wrong in the first place. If it was soocer, Artosis would be fucking out and his team would have finished the game with 10 players.
I would expect someone over 15 years old to accept ref's decision without needing to insult his opponent and the organizers who were kind enough to invite him in the first place.
Seriously...
|
I think TL should set up a showmatch with Artosis and Cauthonluck with a prize for the winner. It would be the 'alternate reality' final, and both players deserve a chance @ a prize, since if Artosis were to eliminate slush, slush wouldn't have been there to beat Cauthonluck in the finals.
|
On May 10 2010 06:05 vaesolar wrote:
I think TL should set up a showmatch with Artosis and Cauthonluck with a prize for the winner. It would be the 'alternate reality' final, and both players deserve a chance @ a prize, since if Artosis were to eliminate slush, slush wouldn't have been there to beat Cauthonluck in the finals.
Great idea. And we can then have showmatches for every other person who got eliminated from the tournament and give them prizes if they happen to beat Cauthonluck. In fact, let's have people who weren't even IN the tournament play against Cauthonluck for free prizes too!
/sarcasm.
Why are we still talking about this?
|
I still find it funny that artosis never got a "we're sorry" from the refs of the tourney.
excuse this, excuse that, yea you can justify this, but you are still in the wrong.
|
still im blowen away by good manners of TL, Nazgul ur da man!
|
On May 10 2010 05:07 Longshank wrote:
Even if he did lose 300$, he also lost the respect from a lot of people. I hope he thinks it was worth it.
I agree, i had never seen slush play before and didn't know much about him ... sadly this is my first impression of him .... as i already know who artosis is so i kinda sided him with before the official statement.
|
On May 10 2010 05:21 Trezeguet23 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 17:58 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 09 2010 17:56 gngfn wrote:On May 09 2010 17:25 MorningMusume11 wrote:
Says the guy that has two posts Indeed. Perhaps he ought to hold off on making comments like that until he has 2241 posts' worth of serious Starcraft discu loooooooooool This needs more face time.
Oh yeah, defend the guy who makes an account and his 1st or 2nd post is devoted entirely to bash Artosis. As a matter of fact, when Flash and Jaedong played on Odd Eye 2 in the last MSL, they gave Jaedong the win when I'm sure his advantage wasn't as great as Artosis' vs Slush ~~
|
On May 10 2010 06:39 MorningMusume11 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 05:21 Trezeguet23 wrote:On May 09 2010 17:58 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 09 2010 17:56 gngfn wrote:On May 09 2010 17:25 MorningMusume11 wrote:
Says the guy that has two posts Indeed. Perhaps he ought to hold off on making comments like that until he has 2241 posts' worth of serious Starcraft discu loooooooooool This needs more face time. Oh yeah, defend the guy who makes an account solely to bash Artosis. As a matter of fact, when Flash and Jaedong played on Odd Eye 2 in the last MSL, they gave Jaedong the win when I'm sure his advantage wasn't as great as Artosis' vs Slush ~~
... and Flash accepted the decision of the referee even if he thought it was unfair, and didn't bm Jaedong, and didn't cry in front of the camera saying that everybody was shitty and that he was a victim and his opponent a cheater.
Although two differences are, MSL was dozen thousand K $ differences and Flash is ten years younger tha Artosis. Oh wait... It makes it much worse
|
United States42258 Posts
On May 10 2010 06:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 06:39 MorningMusume11 wrote:On May 10 2010 05:21 Trezeguet23 wrote:On May 09 2010 17 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 09 2010 17 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:58 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 09 2010 17:56 gngfn wrote:On May 09 2010 17:25 MorningMusume11 wrote:
Says the guy that has two posts Indeed. Perhaps he ought to hold off on making comments like that until he has 2241 posts' worth of serious Starcraft discu loooooooooool This needs more face time. Oh yeah, defend the guy who makes an account solely to bash Artosis. As a matter of fact, when Flash and Jaedong played on Odd Eye 2 in the last MSL, they gave Jaedong the win when I'm sure his advantage wasn't as great as Artosis' vs Slush ~~ ... and Flash accepted the decision of the referee even if he thought it was unfair, and didn't bm Jaedong, and didn't cry in front of the camera saying that everybody was shitty and that he was a victim and his opponent a cheater. Although two differences are, MSL was dozen thousand K $ differences and Flash is ten years younger tha Artosis. Oh wait... It makes it much worse
That and JD didn't disc. Artosis did.
|
On May 10 2010 06:22 BluApex wrote:
I still find it funny that artosis never got a "we're sorry" from the refs of the tourney.
excuse this, excuse that, yea you can justify this, but you are still in the wrong.
- Nazgul apologized for the whole team in the OP.
- Artosis called pretty much every single referee of the tournament a retard. I'd say he is the one who should apologize first. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong. If I had run this tourney I would have kicked him out for that immediately.
|
Baltimore, USA22251 Posts
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
