|
Rule #3 states...
"If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won then we will rule it a win for the disconnecting player. "Absolutely won" means that the player had the game won beyond all reasonable doubt and had an "absolute advantage.""
Then Nazgul states the following...
"A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win. "
This just goes to show that you will NEVER know for sure if the player with the advantage would have won. There will always be a possibility of a come back no matter how small the chance, it's still possible.
The game should have been replayed following the rules in the TSL handbook. The game was not won by BoxeR beyond all reason of doubt. Nightend had the gateways to remake his army, chrono boost stocked up, and BoxeR could have made some mistake.
It's not fair to award a win to a player because you are just ASSUMING he wouldn't have made a mistake.
User was warned for this post
|
After reading the whole OP id have to say the rules govening DC's are fair, the reasoning behind the decision is sound and the panel is more than qualified (dont think anyone can argue against that point)
Its a shame to see a DC at this level in a major tournament but it was handled properly imo.
|
Although i wouldn't call it an ABSOLUTE advantage, I would give an advantage to Boxer. However the game wasn't over. Under certain circumstances NightEnd could still come back IMO. Small chance, but not an absolute advantage for boxer. If he backed off/Nightend defended then NightEnd had COMPLETE AIR CONTROL (almost 9 lift-ups ready), abusing phoenix mobility he could've come back (of coarse with a certain small chance of this happening)
|
NightEnd pushed it to the panel, yet allowed the panel to be decreased from 5 voters down to 3? Why would he do that? Did he know that only 1 of the 5 had to rule a re-game for him to get one? Did he fully understand how the panel functioned? Why would he not accept a loss, and then right away increase the chance that he would get one by accepting a 3-man panel? Doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
On March 20 2011 06:26 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
The best part is the transparency TL showed by saying that, despite the 2 members being vetoed, Cloud would have voted for a regame.
I think it's interesting that the sole possible Terran panel member was vetoed by BoxeR and that member felt it was a re-game, perhaps BoxeR felt like he could have lost it and that other Terrans could come to the same conclusion somehow? Or maybe he just doesn't know who Cloud is & it's a coincidence....
|
On March 20 2011 06:17 Bulkers wrote:
Then this rule to award Boxer should not be taken under consideration. Otherwise we will see everyone dc'ing after winning huge battle...
No. The point of this was that Boxer was in such a position that he in all likelihood would have won. It wasn't just a huge battle; the game was virtually won by Boxer, which is what every panel member took the time to explain. If players get in that position in a match, it is actually more advantageous to play the game out than to disconnect on purpose, since disconnecting adds immediate ambiguity, whereas playing on is nearly a guaranteed win. That's the entire point of the rule.
|
On March 20 2011 06:27 imaROBOT wrote:
Rule #3 states...
"If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won then we will rule it a win for the disconnecting player. "Absolutely won" means that the player had the game won beyond all reasonable doubt and had an "absolute advantage.""
Then Nazgul states the following...
"A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win. "
This just goes to show that you will NEVER know for sure if the player with the advantage would have won. There will always be a possibility of a come back no matter how small the chance, it's still possible.
The game should have been replayed following the rules in the TSL handbook. The game was not won by BoxeR beyond all reason of doubt. Nightend had the gateways to remake his army, chrono boost stocked up, and BoxeR could have made some mistake.
It's not fair to award a win to a player because you are just ASSUMING he wouldn't have made a mistake.
it's also not fair to take a near 100% sure win away from a player because his internet dies. I think they made the right decision.
|
if nightend dics i understand the decision
this way i don't
|
Very professional of the TSL staff. The decision couldn't have been any different in my eyes.
|
On March 20 2011 06:28 BasedSwag wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 06:26 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
The best part is the transparency TL showed by saying that, despite the 2 members being vetoed, Cloud would have voted for a regame. I think it's interesting that the sole possible Terran panel member was vetoed by BoxeR and that member felt it was a re-game, perhaps BoxeR felt like he could have lost it and that other Terrans could come to the same conclusion somehow? Or maybe he just doesn't know who Cloud is & it's a coincidence....
I think it's more of the latter. Boxer has probably never heard of Cloud or knows who he is.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 20 2011 06:27 imaROBOT wrote:
Rule #3 states...
"If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won then we will rule it a win for the disconnecting player. "Absolutely won" means that the player had the game won beyond all reasonable doubt and had an "absolute advantage.""
Then Nazgul states the following...
"A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win. "
This just goes to show that you will NEVER know for sure if the player with the advantage would have won. There will always be a possibility of a come back no matter how small the chance, it's still possible.
The game should have been replayed following the rules in the TSL handbook. The game was not won by BoxeR beyond all reason of doubt. Nightend had the gateways to remake his army, chrono boost stocked up, and BoxeR could have made some mistake.
It's not fair to award a win to a player because you are just ASSUMING he wouldn't have made a mistake.
It's becoming clear that you haven't read the OP at all. Their rulings take into account normal mistakes on the pro level, and the simulations run by Nazgul feature extremely sloppy play by the Terran.
|
This cannot be said enough but - Thank you so much TL for the transparency. Very professionally done.
|
very professional attitude.
Great to see that.
|
My goodness, my compliments to the TSL admins and the panel. This is what happens when the people in charge actually care about what they're doing. Thank you.
One thought that might be worth something (or not, but I'm saying it anyways): would it be possible to pre-approve a panel? Ask seven players, two get vetoed, and you're set if disaster strikes. It seems like that would ensure you don't need to settle for a three member panel.
But, seriously, the thorough explanation of the admins and the panelists is fantastic and should be a model for all other tournaments.
|
Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
|
I wasn't convinced about the decision as it did not look that obvious to me and was therefore very looking forward to see the explanations - I'm convinced now.
Great props to the TSL team for dealing with this in a very, very great manner. I feel sorry for NightenD as he must be feeling wronged (as most people would in that situation) but sc2 remains, to a certain extent, a game of numbers at a certain level (when constant macro/micro are not really variable anymore but simply present).
MC explained it pretty simply, same arguments as Nazgul pretty much. Coming from MC - a protoss particularly know for his PvT, it would be foolish to assume one can read that kind of situation better than him.
|
On March 20 2011 06:27 imaROBOT wrote:
Rule #3 states...
"If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won then we will rule it a win for the disconnecting player. "Absolutely won" means that the player had the game won beyond all reasonable doubt and had an "absolute advantage.""
Then Nazgul states the following...
"A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win. "
This just goes to show that you will NEVER know for sure if the player with the advantage would have won. There will always be a possibility of a come back no matter how small the chance, it's still possible.
The game should have been replayed following the rules in the TSL handbook. The game was not won by BoxeR beyond all reason of doubt. Nightend had the gateways to remake his army, chrono boost stocked up, and BoxeR could have made some mistake.
It's not fair to award a win to a player because you are just ASSUMING he wouldn't have made a mistake.
All 3 judges agreed that boxer had "absolutely won", that he had that "absolute advantage" which is more than the huge advantage nazgul speaks of. I think you are misunderstanding the text. Nazgul states "A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win. " and then proceeds to explain why he thinks boxer doesn't have a "huge advantage" but an "absolute advantage", giving him the win in TSL handbook standards.
|
Good decision. Just seeing how this whole thing was handled shows the advantage of casting replays over a live online tourney. Since we'd still be waiting for a decision if this had happened live.
|
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote:
Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament.
--
:s
Aren't all replays being released anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
