EPT[TSL] Day 1 Disconnect Situation - Page 10
| Forum Index > PokerStrategy.com TSL3 Forum |
|
DerGimli
Germany7 Posts
| ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
| ||
|
xusam
United States419 Posts
However I am greatly impressed by the explanations offered by the panel when there didn't really need to be. Also I thought there was nothing wrong with Chill's reaction. I think that is why he was not part of the decision and he didn't even know about the dc ahead of time. Chill can be as biased as he wants because he did not have any influence on the outcome. | ||
|
Darkomicron
Netherlands216 Posts
| ||
|
dizzy101
Netherlands2066 Posts
| ||
|
Doublehelix_
Germany26 Posts
| ||
|
YoonHo
Canada1043 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 124618
1142 Posts
But in future, I'd try to avoid using in-tournament players or players who have connections to playing players. This would ensure that no panel member is favoring someone unfairly. | ||
|
JayConn
United States408 Posts
| ||
|
RedJustice
United States1004 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
oshit | ||
|
Bulkers
Poland509 Posts
"If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won then we will rule it a win for the disconnecting player." Then there are 3 Pannel members saying Nazgul: "A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win" Morrow: "I think Nightend would been able to save his 3rd base and let the game go on..." Then this rule to award Boxer should not be taken under consideration. Otherwise we will see everyone dc'ing after winning huge battle... Also big question why players that take part in this tournament are taken to panel, I can understand Cloud, Nazgul but all the rest are playing in this tournament and that is there is a big chance that Morrow will face the winner of this game in Ro8. Imo Panel member should be take from pros out of "circle of interests" I got to say TL.net is doing great job with this post, its very hard decision, and I admire how professional this trying to be. Sure, Boxer was ahead by far, but still I don't think win was "absolute" and 100% won for Boxer. | ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
| ||
|
ComTrav
United States1093 Posts
| ||
|
TheAmazombie
United States3714 Posts
I wish I could hear a reason why the players vetoed certain judges. Also, any of the people claiming that there could be cheating in these situations are very uncouth. These are professionals and they don't want to win a tournament or game by cheating. That is just a joke. Good job TL, keep up the good work. | ||
|
CPTBadAss
United States594 Posts
| ||
|
dtz
5834 Posts
On March 20 2011 06:16 Grumbels wrote: What the no-comment from Nightend says is that he will lose game 3 to BoxeR, I mean, he wouldn't care otherwise, would he? Would love to know when the decision is made as well. Although, pretty sure the decision is made before that. Otherwise how will they know whether to play game 3 or not. | ||
|
SCbiff
110 Posts
Having said that, I don't think it's EVER a good idea to award a win for a DC. I understand that a lot of great players looked at this and decided that they didn't think there was any way to recover. However, that is a slippery slope. Even in this case, at least 1 of the original 5 dissented, and that should give anybody pause. My opinion is that a DC should either be a win for the non-DC player, or a rematch if a panel decides that the game was even or the DCing player was ahead. | ||
|
ahbon
France325 Posts
On March 20 2011 05:56 Diozen wrote: I think this entire situation was handled wonderfully by the TSL staff. QFT | ||
| ||
