EPTMy only suggestion would be to use panel members that are not participants in the tournament and are not on teams with any players in the tournament to avoid any appearance of impropriety (not that I believe there was any whatsoever). This may be impractical because you need people with a high level understanding of the game to be the ones making an informed decision, but just some food for thought.
[TSL] Day 1 Disconnect Situation - Page 20
| Forum Index > PokerStrategy.com TSL3 Forum |
|
puddingmonkey
11 Posts
My only suggestion would be to use panel members that are not participants in the tournament and are not on teams with any players in the tournament to avoid any appearance of impropriety (not that I believe there was any whatsoever). This may be impractical because you need people with a high level understanding of the game to be the ones making an informed decision, but just some food for thought. | ||
|
mizU
United States12125 Posts
On March 20 2011 07:08 eshlow wrote: Except it doesn't matter because Boxer was not aware of anyone's decision when he cast his veto There's no fucking way TL would allow the players to know the votes or reviews BEFORE the veto. That's would be past stupid. | ||
|
Sok4R
Germany124 Posts
NightEnD has very few to blame himself, he played on par with Boxer, one of the Legends of StarCraft and he came very to win the series. This is something 99% of all StarCraft 2 player would be proud of, including myself. Game 1 was pretty much over when the disc happened, and NightEnD most likely knew it. He gave the right answer by winning game 2 and made game 3 very close, it just came down to the EMPs. I don't think this is the right place to discuss balance, I just think we saw to great players player SC2 in the highest level, where even the slightest mistakes can give your opponent the win. Today BoxeR got the better end and I'm sure that another time NightEnD will be the winner, he has a lot of potential and really showed it in the Qualifier and his games here. | ||
|
L3g3nd_
New Zealand10461 Posts
i thought you reacted fine. He has overstated it, it was an intense time, and an intense decision about something we all care about a lot. Of course youre going to be excited or dissapointed if it doesnt go the way you want it to or think it should. Showing that excitement adds to the atmosphere. great cast man. was truly epic. This TSL is going to be insane | ||
|
mathemagician1986
Germany549 Posts
On March 20 2011 07:09 Trobot wrote: Under the proposed retooling of the rules, it's entirely possible, and legitimate. Not every player is fair and decent. I still don't see the problem. it says in the OP that in future the replays will only be sent to players who have not been vetoed, so there is no way for that to happen. | ||
|
FreezerJumps
Canada653 Posts
I know Cloud's game knowledge must be very high for him to have been chosen for the panel, but in order to convince the TL community of this, can his justification for his decision be released? If the strength of his arguments don't match those he's opposing, I don't think he should be considered for future panels. I want to say that I have nothing against Cloud, but his decision would have caused a HUGE problem for the TSL, if Nightend had proceeded to win the series. I am also not saying that I don't think anyone who disagrees with the majority must be removed from the judging system, but his expertise should be questioned in this instance, as he disagrees with absolutely conclusive arguments from the other panel members. | ||
|
legaton
France1763 Posts
| ||
|
JoeSchmoe
Canada2058 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. maybe you should actually read the whole OP. "To be absolutely clear, we asked the players to veto and they veto'd before Cloud told us his opinion." | ||
|
ftd.rain
United Kingdom539 Posts
| ||
|
MeatlessTaco
United States302 Posts
Still, with a game that won by Boxer, reloading at the disconnect time and let Boxer clean up would have stopped some of the complaining. Props to Team Liquid though. Going out of their way to being fair and alleviating some of the whining. | ||
|
mcneebs
Canada391 Posts
| ||
|
Zlasher
United States9129 Posts
Not so much words as it was a response of "WHOOOOO!!!" after Day9 said "And Boxer does take the first game after the decision was made" (paraphrased). I mean either you were genuinely excited that Boxer gets the win due to the decision or you were trying to just keep the hype up and divert the attention from a disconnect, into keeping the attention for game 2, the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards that is what you were doing, which is very much reasonable. Editted in: On March 20 2011 07:10 Mikilatov wrote: 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. Yeah, I think this was it, which leads me to beleive more that Chill was just trying to keep excitement up for the series, instead of lamenting on a disconenct. | ||
|
michaelthe
United States359 Posts
On March 20 2011 07:10 mizU wrote: There's no fucking way TL would allow the players to know the votes or reviews BEFORE the veto. That's would be past stupid. Actually, that would make it effectively have to be a 4-1 decision, which seems pretty fair to me though. But you are right anyways, idk why people are complaining. I would love it if people who want to contest the ruling would quote the judges and why they disagree. "l0l, looked to me pretty even." or "Duh! Winning!" arent very convincing... | ||
|
humblegar
Norway883 Posts
On March 20 2011 06:59 samaNo4 wrote: My fault. My apologies to Praetoriani. Yes, I am mad at TL now. That's a huge blunder and the only reason they should not be banned is becasue the site and the tournament is theirs :D. Now seriously, don't do this again, I'm sure I'm not the only one that lost the excitement after that. On another point, I like the fact that there were some rules set in stone and I liked discovering that the caster hadn't watched the games before casting them. The only thing that needs improvement is the panel choice, they definetely should't be from the tournament. Where are you going to get people at MC's level waiting around to make decisions in a tournament they are not attending? Are you going to pay them to sit around for every TSL-evening? I think this is as good as it gets, and I have never seen any better solution to it. Most tournaments tend to make a mess out of these things :p | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 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" I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice. It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars. | ||
|
PetRockSteve
United States70 Posts
Thanks again for the transparency! | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On March 20 2011 07:10 Dramborleg wrote: I have noticed that most people were not convinced that the first game had a clear cut winner, until they were persuaded. A person who believes one player should win will always try to persuade you. Re-Game was more fair. If they had access to the replay they might be convinced. I don't understand how "most people" here on the forums have any real importance in such a decision when you clearly can't get all information just watching the stream. | ||
|
fire_brand
Canada1123 Posts
Good decision, I don't think it would have mattered who was on that panel, if they were progamers with a reasonable knowledge of the game, and they had any shred of integrity, they would have come to the same conclusion as this panel did. Once you read through the ENTIRE OP there is little to no argument you can make for Nightend to win the game short of Boxer taking all his units and putting them on move command into his army until they all die. Look forward to future games! Edit: I think if a GSL game had reached this point and suffered a DC the GSL would come to the same decision. All of the regames we have seen in the GSL have been early in the game, or at a point in the game where the two players were mostly even. Do not compare this DC to GSL DC's, the situations are completely different. | ||
|
Trobot
United States125 Posts
On March 20 2011 07:11 mathemagician1986 wrote: I still don't see the problem. it says in the OP that in future the replays will only be sent to players who have not been vetoed, so there is no way for that to happen. Sending the replays out before vetoing process We sent out the replay to our panel members before confirming their participation with the players. Even though we were going to give them the option to veto players we did not operate enough from the thought that this would actually happen. As such, Tyler and Cloud were sent the replay and were vetoed off. Their opinions never reached NightEnd and Boxer. I read this as: Next time we'll get the players the opinions of the panel before we call for vetos. Upon rereading, it seems more as a 'we leaked the replay to two extra people.' :/ | ||
|
Scorch
Austria3371 Posts
| ||
| ||
