EPTI was also super impressed with the panel's reasoning. After reading what they wrote, it's hard to disagree with the decision.
[TSL] Day 1 Disconnect Situation - Page 18
| Forum Index > PokerStrategy.com TSL3 Forum |
|
Datum
United States371 Posts
I was also super impressed with the panel's reasoning. After reading what they wrote, it's hard to disagree with the decision. | ||
Chill
Calgary25987 Posts
On March 20 2011 06:07 Zlasher wrote: What I DO NOT AGREE WITH is the fact that Chill was actually whooping and hollering that Boxer got the win in game one. As a caster in front of 35,000 people, he should NOT be cheering for any decision based off of a disconnect, Day[9] was saying "It is unfortunate that a disconnect happened but the decision was made", that is the correct process to be taking as an unbiased caster but why is Chill cheering that Boxer got a win after he disconnected? This is mind bogglingly bad on his part. I am severely disappointed in how Chill reacted on stream to the decision, but so is the state of what happened. What did I say? I don't remember doing that. | ||
|
Nidoa
Canada239 Posts
Good job with the whole thing, regardless. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
Lesson learned, don't be a nice guy | ||
|
Leviance
Germany4079 Posts
If all five people on the panel determine that the disconnecting player has the game absolutely won, the disconnecter will be awarded the win So there weren't 5 people agreeing on this but 3 (= 40% less). You guys already stated that you will never allow only 3 judges again - but now you did :/ just leaves a bit of a weird feeling | ||
|
Trobot
United States125 Posts
I'm not sure of the fairness of letting players see the panel's review before the veto decision, though. This precludes the concept of personal bias between the panel and the player, whereas seeing the reviews beforehand would cause the player to cast his vote based purely on the review. You mentioned in the OP as well that you didn't expect players to use their vetos when the rules were originally drawn up. Letting them know what reviews they are vetoing though, ensures a biased veto that would have upset a blind decision. For example, had BoxeR not chosen to veto Could, then it would have been a regame. However, if BoxeR had seen Cloud's review recommending a regame, then he most likely would have automatically cast his veto for Cloud, automatically giving himself a win. User was warned for this post | ||
|
michaelthe
United States359 Posts
Anyone remember the DC (power-outage actually) between Jaedong and Flash? I wasnt sure about the decision that game too, but the write ups clearly convinced me... | ||
|
zerglingsfolife
United States1694 Posts
On March 20 2011 07:01 Longshank wrote: It's pretty sad, if Nightend hadn't been good sports by accepting a 3-man jury he could have been in ro16 right now. Lesson learned, don't be a nice guy So you assume he would have won the regame? | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On March 20 2011 06:09 imaROBOT wrote: Thanks for the explanation. I do however feel like the decision was not a good one. You can list numbers all you want, but the truth is, you will never know if BoxeR might have made some mistake during the walk/attack toward Nightends third base. You will never know 100% what the out come could have been, so I think it should clearly have been a regame. I honestly don't think it was a fair decision and put Nightend into a horrible mind set going into the next game. It's just not fair to ASSUME that BoxeR would not have made some mistake, there was a possibility of a come back. Was it a small possibility, yes. Also I do not understand how you can use PLAYERS IN THE TORUNY as a referee on the panel. How would there not be any bias, when you can decide who you want to play next/eventually in the toruny? You didn't watch the YouTube simulation did you? A-Attacking Boxer's army towards the base would've won that fight with a large margin. It's not reasonable for example to assume that BoxeR might accidentally leave 2/3 of his army at home instead of boxing the whole group and attacking NightEnd's 3rd. I hate people who make ignorant posts without reading the OP. | ||
|
michaelthe
United States359 Posts
? I didnt get that at all- you both handled it fine, and it was good that DJ Wheat came in too. | ||
|
CDRdude
United States5625 Posts
On March 20 2011 06:59 samaNo4 wrote: My fault. Yes, I am mad at TL now. That's a huge blunder. I thought the Goliath comment was a reference to the reputations of the people doing the judging. | ||
|
Lemonhead
Denmark31 Posts
| ||
|
mathemagician1986
Germany549 Posts
On March 20 2011 07:02 Trobot wrote: Thanks for posting the panel's reviews of the game as well. My jaw dropped like Day[9]'s and Chill's did when BoxeR dropped the game, and I would say this is a pretty fair and transparent way of resolving such an issue. I'm not sure of the fairness of letting players see the panel's review before the veto decision, though. This precludes the concept of personal bias between the panel and the player, whereas seeing the reviews beforehand would cause the player to cast his vote based purely on the review. You mentioned in the OP as well that you didn't expect players to use their vetos when the rules were originally drawn up. Letting them know what reviews they are vetoing though, ensures a biased veto that would have upset a blind decision. For example, had BoxeR not chosen to veto Could, then it would have been a regame. However, if BoxeR had seen Cloud's review recommending a regame, then he most likely would have automatically cast his veto for Cloud, automatically giving himself a win. umm, what? I can't make any sense to your second paragraph. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On March 20 2011 07:02 zerglingsfolife wrote: So you assume he would have won the regame? Not at all, hence the 'could' and not 'would'. | ||
|
Aquafresh
United States824 Posts
| ||
|
Oleo
Netherlands279 Posts
Jokes aside, I absolutely love how tsl didnt just make a regame cause there was a disconnect and provided a deep, good analysis of how and why this decision was made. Very open and professional. What I would love to know is the timeline of this thing: Like: Did the players play all 3 games played in a row? Was there a break in between to get a ruling? Did they play a regame anyways in case the panel decided otherwise? etc. + Show Spoiler + With game 3 being somewhat similar to game 1, can we assume game 3 being a sign of how game 1 would have ended? | ||
|
Mithriel
Netherlands2969 Posts
Of course it is not the ideal situation to have a disconnect and must be annoying for the non-disconnecting player. But with the excellent rules and panel i don't think anyone can argue with their decision to give the win to boxer. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On March 20 2011 06:53 nexusil wrote: Only thing I don't understand is why would Nightend veto anyone if an unanimous decision is required to award Boxer the game? Vetoing only makes sense if the panelist was replaced. Maybe he doesn't fully grasp the implication of the panelist not being replaced, or was first asked to veto and then asked to accede to only 3 panelists. If this is the case, the organizers should at least re-instate Tyler since it is clearly in Nightend's interest to hear Tyler if no other panelist can be found to replace him. I believe that`s one of the reasons they stated Tylers ruling even though it wasn`t needed. Since he would have voted for a win, in this case it wouldn`t have made a diference, even though it was probally the better to do it. Since they wouldn`t hold a lower than 5 members panel again, this decision won`t be necessary again. There isn`t really a way to critize the way TSL handles this situations, apart from the problems that they already said won`t happen again. I wish all sports related decision were this open and reasonable. | ||
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
On March 20 2011 06:46 integral wrote: This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament. well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through" | ||
|
Danjoh
Sweden405 Posts
On March 20 2011 06:53 nexusil wrote: Only thing I don't understand is why would Nightend veto anyone if an unanimous decision is required to award Boxer the game? Vetoing only makes sense if the panelist was replaced. Maybe he doesn't fully grasp the implication of the panelist not being replaced, or was first asked to veto and then asked to accede to only 3 panelists. If this is the case, the organizers should at least re-instate Tyler since it is clearly in Nightend's interest to hear Tyler if no other panelist can be found to replace him. From the OP: While we were looking for more panel members, both players agreed to a 3 man panel instead of 5. I'm guessing both of the players didn't want to/have time to wait for the 2 new panel members to be found. The way they wrote it, was that it was intended to be 5 panel members, but the players agreed to using only 3, and in the future, players won't be able to make that decision, and they will use 5 panel members. | ||
| ||
