EPT[TSL] Day 1 Disconnect Situation - Page 19
| Forum Index > PokerStrategy.com TSL3 Forum |
|
TheStonedGuest
United States19 Posts
| ||
|
Jetaap
France4814 Posts
Thanks for the transparency and your professionalism , this tournament is awesome! | ||
|
Let it Raine
Canada1245 Posts
| ||
|
entropius
United States1046 Posts
As they said, Nightend had an inferior army and no access to tricky things (storms, templar, phoenix mana, charge/blink) that would give him a chance to come back. As people have pointed out, while the veto mechanic is fair using a panel of 3 instead of 5 gives the advantage to the winning player (since only one person has to call for a regame). I imagine, with the consent of the players and the time issue of finding two more panelists, they did something everyone agreed was fair. The decision to include players from the tournament in the panel could potentially create conflicts of interest in the future, but in this case the panel's opinions were clearly written, seemingly fair, and compelling. Of course, if you're going to get the best players in the world to be your judges, and you're going to host a tournament with the best players in the world playing in it...  This incident also shows why bnet2 and the "all games must be played on our servers" attitude from blizzard is an albatross around the neck of competitive sc2. Private servers could be configured to have a much longer disconnect timeout, for instance, used with (if necessary) a Hamachi-like network adapter emulator that masks a physical loss of link from the game to allow a reconnect. | ||
|
Trobot
United States125 Posts
On March 20 2011 07:04 mathemagician1986 wrote: umm, what? I can't make any sense to your second paragraph. Basically: letting players cast their vetos when they know what they are vetoing precludes the idea that they'd veto based solely on who was reviewing the game. BoxeR, in this case, vetoed Cloud because, for some reason, he distrusted Cloud's ability to impartially review the game. However, had BoxeR seen the vote 4-1 in favor of his winning the game, he'd be inclined to automatically veto the 1 against his win, essentially overriding the entire consensus of the panel with a single vote. | ||
|
thebigdonkey
United States354 Posts
On March 20 2011 06:37 madmandrit wrote: Game 3 shows you want would of happened if Game 1 went on. I was thinking the same thing. | ||
|
Reason.SC2
Canada1047 Posts
Making this post and having Wheat come on to give the explanation showed respect to the viewers and I appreciated it. That said, I feel like it was not *impossible* for nightend to come back and thus the situation very unfortunately robs him of an opportunity to go for that comeback (and I also think that it is important that the disconnect was not on his end). Its more so a matter of principle than me believing that nightend had a realistic chance to win that game. I just feel that taking away an opportunity to come back from a deficit is worse than negating a very likely win. But I was cheering for boxer anyways so I can't complain too much about the results very pumped for tomorrow's games!!!!! | ||
|
D_K_night
Canada615 Posts
On March 20 2011 06:03 Acaloth wrote: First of all, i really appreciate the idea of transparency of the process which is shown here but i for my part dont like the descision. I just want to give some impressions why i come to this conclusion: I think with this decision you take away the possibility from nightend to still win the game. He may not have been in a very good position at the moment but its not sure that he couldnt win or that Boxer makes a mistake which costs him the win, you just cant say that there is no possibility of Nightend winning. I think that a regame would have been the better decision. Disagree, for the reasons highlighted by the judges. Listen to what Morrow stated, even if Boxer's skill degraded completely down to Bronze league in skill level, and just A-moved his entire army to take out the remainder of the toss bases, he still would have won. You need to remember that impartiality is absolutely paramount here, the judges delivered their views in an absolutely pro fashion and favored neither player. Even if you could argue that MC would have been protoss-biased, even MC stated that the situation is non-salvagable. This is MC we're talking about - the latest GSL season winner. As viewers we do not have nearly the vested interest in maintaining the same level of professionalism and impartiality, but in the event of a sticky situation, we should still do our best to not let our personal biases color our view of the situation. | ||
|
mathemagician1986
Germany549 Posts
On March 20 2011 07:07 Trobot wrote: Basically: letting players cast their vetos when they know what they are vetoing precludes the idea that they'd veto based solely on who was reviewing the game. BoxeR, in this case, vetoed Cloud because, for some reason, he distrusted Cloud's ability to impartially review the game. However, had BoxeR seen the vote 4-1 in favor of his winning the game, he'd be inclined to automatically veto the 1 against his win, essentially overriding the entire consensus of the panel with a single vote. ok, but that's not going to happen, right? | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4731 Posts
On March 20 2011 07:05 Jetaap wrote: If I was Nightend I would be really disapointed by this decision , but from a neutral point of view , Boxer had this game. It was even more one sided than the battle in game3 , and Boxer took this game without any problem. Thanks for the transparency and your professionalism , this tournament is awesome! If I was i Nightend position i would refuse to play second game  I suppose we all should be greatfull that neither I nor anyone with mindest similiar to mine is playing in TSL. | ||
|
t3tsubo
Canada682 Posts
On March 20 2011 07:02 zerglingsfolife wrote: So you assume he would have won the regame? actually, they would have just taken longer to find an additional 2 panel members since the rule of veto'ing a members would have been enforced by boxer if nightend enforced the 5 man jury rule. So cloud would have not been in the jury regardless, and it would have been up to the 2 additional panel members TL found and whether they agreed he had lost or not. The only reason that didnt happen was because both players had time contraints on their schedule and couldn't sit around waiting for TL to find other panel members. | ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
On March 20 2011 06:56 Dramborleg wrote: I did not like the decision. "If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won" Boxer did not have the game absolutely won. which is rule #3. "Absolutely won" means that the player had the game won beyond all reasonable doubt and had an "absolute advantage." This operates from the mindset that a player will make all the mistakes in the world that can be expected from a professional level player. So missing EMPs and other micro mistakes can definitely happen but right clicking units and not touching them for five minutes can't. It is important to keep in mind that our standard is NOT that the game must be mathematically over 100% | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
On March 20 2011 07:07 Trobot wrote: Basically: letting players cast their vetos when they know what they are vetoing precludes the idea that they'd veto based solely on who was reviewing the game. BoxeR, in this case, vetoed Cloud because, for some reason, he distrusted Cloud's ability to impartially review the game. However, had BoxeR seen the vote 4-1 in favor of his winning the game, he'd be inclined to automatically veto the 1 against his win, essentially overriding the entire consensus of the panel with a single vote. Except it doesn't matter because Boxer was not aware of anyone's decision when he cast his veto | ||
|
mizU
United States12125 Posts
On March 20 2011 07:05 HeavOnEarth wrote: 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" How far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? You'd have to take into account foreigner/Korean bias, team biases, race biases, fan bias, etc. It was fair as could be. | ||
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
On March 20 2011 06:23 Zim23 wrote: There really isn't a way to avoid conflict of interest in this situation. I agree it should be minimized but there will always be an issue with the panel members' race (T,Z,P), nationality (foreigner vs Korean), and team. The veto system is obviously in place to mitigate this problem, but it'll always exist as the panel is going to be human for the foreseeable future. Another thing to take into account is that the panel should always include elite players or well respected members of the community, and elite players will generally be part of the tournament, so there's no real way to avoid it. Not to mention you need people to AGREE to be part of the panel, and that limits selection even further. This was the best way I could think of to handle the situation, and the fact that both players agreed to make it a panel decision only bolsters my confidence in the handling of the situation. This is true, no matter how you cut it there's always potential for bias. Heck, you could try cutting out every single person that grew up with Boxer as a hero, if people were that concerned. However, everyone on the panel are big names in the SC community and I'm not sure they'd want to damage their reputation by intentionally trying to swing their judgement for one tournament (albiet a big one.) Be that as it may, I'm very happy to see that the TSL is confident in their decision making and are open to criticism by making their process transparent. Obviously people can disagree with their ruling, but no-one can nay-say their professionalism and transparency. | ||
|
Trobot
United States125 Posts
On March 20 2011 07:08 mathemagician1986 wrote: ok, but that's not going to happen, right? Under the proposed retooling of the rules, it's entirely possible, and legitimate. Not every player is fair and decent. | ||
|
imaROBOT
United States81 Posts
On March 20 2011 07:03 teamsolid wrote: 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. Guess what I hate. Ignorant people that just ASSUME things. If you would have read the entire thread you would see that my next post explains that the video WAS NOT THERE when I read the OP. They original had a link to a reply, not a embed video. So who is really the ignorant one here... Also you have saw that I agree with the decision. The game "looked" to be over with BoxeR in the lead obviously. I do think there is reasonable doubt, but it's already been decided. | ||
|
Dramborleg
United States23 Posts
Re-Game was more fair. | ||
|
Mikilatov
United States3897 Posts
Pretty sure he just misinterpreted your response to Day's "Let's just pretend Boxer stomped through game 1 and is up 1-0" cheer. | ||
|
ThaZenith
Canada3116 Posts
| ||
| ||
