One question that is not 100% clear in the op: Are the panel members allowed to discuss their decision with each other? I guess they are not, but wanted to make sure.

Froadac

United States6733 Posts

March 19 2011 21:14 GMT

#182

Thank you for hte information. All of the analysis (seemed to me_ to be spot on.

xusam

United States419 Posts

March 19 2011 21:14 GMT

#183

By listing the rules that were agreed upon ahead of time by the players would have been enough explanation. Rules are rules and even if people might not think they are fair, the rules still need to be followed.

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

March 19 2011 21:14 GMT

#184

Great, really happy how this has been resolved =)

dizzy101

Netherlands2066 Posts

March 19 2011 21:15 GMT

#185

I wonder if the two player continued with their games, while waiting on the decision. Or did they wait a day?

Doublehelix_

Germany26 Posts

March 19 2011 21:15 GMT

#186

Very well handled by TL, absolutly professional. The "non-comment" from Praetoriani implicates that they are not so happy with the decision of the Panel, but I think they were right. *thumbs up*

YoonHo

Canada1043 Posts

March 19 2011 21:15 GMT

#187

It's very unfortunate that this happened, but this was dealt in a very professional manner. I love the entire process of it, as well as the pros' assessments. They were very thorough and they made their points completely clear.

Deleted User 124618

1142 Posts

March 19 2011 21:15 GMT

#188

Very nicely handeled! I agree with the verdict.

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

March 19 2011 21:16 GMT

#189

I'm super impressed by how much work was put into this. Good work

RedJustice

United States1004 Posts

March 19 2011 21:16 GMT

#190

Wow, just so impressed by how professional every aspect of TL's tournaments are. Good decisions, and explanations. Really appreciate how you take the time to explain in depth to the community how the decision was made.

Grumbels

Netherlands7028 Posts

March 19 2011 21:16 GMT

#191

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?

redFF

United States3910 Posts

March 19 2011 21:17 GMT

#192

We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around.

oshit

Bulkers

Poland509 Posts

March 19 2011 21:17 GMT

#193

I got a question, I read this topic as carefully as I can and there is this:

"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

March 19 2011 21:17 GMT

#194

Can't say I can find any flaws in the panel's rulings. Boxer absolutely had that game in the bag.

ComTrav

United States1093 Posts

March 19 2011 21:17 GMT

#195

I really appreciate TL's transparency around this issue.

TheAmazombie

United States3714 Posts

March 19 2011 21:17 GMT

#196

I also have to agree with decision. The arguments are far too strong. Both players accept these rules when they join the tournament, so it is fair game. It sucks to not see a clear winner, but I accept the decision wholeheartedly. Good job.

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

March 19 2011 21:18 GMT

#197

Just because NightEnd didn't get to play the game out doesn't mean he didn't get a chance to help shape the outcome. He got to veto part of the panel. At least there was a provision to still give the players some say in the event of a disc. Really can't ask for much else imo.

dtz

5834 Posts

March 19 2011 21:18 GMT

#198

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

March 19 2011 21:19 GMT

#199

Thanks for the detailed explanation, and given the rules in place, it seems like it was handled very well - I do agree that in the original size of the panel should be maintained if this is handled the same way in the future.

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

March 19 2011 21:20 GMT

#200

On March 20 2011 05:56 Diozen wrote:
I think this entire situation was handled wonderfully by the TSL staff.

QFT