|
On March 20 2011 07:11 FreezerJumps wrote:
Thanks for the thread. I don't really have the time to go through 18 pages, but in case no one's mentioned this, will Cloud be on future panels, if the need arises? He has disagreed with the panel here, and would have reversed a decision which seems 100% correct to almost everyone. This puts into question his game knowledge and his place on this panel. I don't mean to be too harsh on him, but his opinion could well have cost Boxer this series.
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.
I fully agree with you, awaiting fiercely for Cloud's review.
|
On March 20 2011 07:10 imaROBOT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:03 teamsolid wrote: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. 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.
No I didn't read the whole thread (and why should I, there's 20+ pages), only up to when I saw a really questionable post. Anyways, after reviewing all the evidence, I can't really understand anyone else disagreeing with the decision now. Props to TL for comprehensive analysis and transparency behind the decision.
|
On March 20 2011 07:13 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:05 HeavOnEarth wrote:On March 20 2011 06:46 integral wrote: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 [a huge deal]?
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 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" 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.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
|
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.
It was an unanimous decision that Boxer won the game by all 3 judges. If even one person disagreed and said Toss absolutely would have made a come-back and defeated Boxer soundly, despite all the disadvantages outlined, then sure I would agree with a rematch.
But that didn't happen. I put my faith and trust in the judges.
|
This explanation and the process that went into it are damn impressive.
|
On March 20 2011 07:15 Trobot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:11 mathemagician1986 wrote:On March 20 2011 07:09 Trobot wrote:On March 20 2011 07:08 mathemagician1986 wrote:On March 20 2011 07:07 Trobot wrote:On March 20 2011 07:04 mathemagician1986 wrote: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. 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? 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. Show nested quote +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.' :/
I don't see why it's such a big deal that they showed the other panelists replays.
Their opinions never reached the players, thus their vetoes were not affected.
|
On March 20 2011 07:16 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:10 imaROBOT wrote:On March 20 2011 07:03 teamsolid wrote: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. 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. No I didn't read the whole thread (and why should I, there's 20+ pages), only up to when I saw a really questionable post. Anyways, after reviewing all the evidence, I can't really understand disagreeing with the decision now.
Then don't make ignorant posts, calling someone ignorant when you're the only actually being ignorant, k, buddy.
A forum is to post your opinions, and I think they made a good decision, but the rule clearly says a win can only be awarded beyond any reason of doubt. I still think there was doubt still...
|
Germany98 Posts
you guys handled that hard situation really well, by sharing your dicision with the community and explaing everything really deep
never saw technical issue in a tournement situation in sc/bw/sc2 handled that well
you may remember that msl finals beetween falsh and jaedong, that msl staff could learn from here
|
Nazgul's demo video is very impressive. Good call.
|
On March 20 2011 07:17 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:15 Trobot wrote:On March 20 2011 07:11 mathemagician1986 wrote:On March 20 2011 07:09 Trobot wrote:On March 20 2011 07:08 mathemagician1986 wrote:On March 20 2011 07:07 Trobot wrote:On March 20 2011 07:04 mathemagician1986 wrote: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. 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? 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. 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.' :/ I don't see why it's such a big deal that they showed the other panelists replays. Their opinions never reached the players, thus their vetoes were not affected.
Of course not. I was clarifying the confusion that resulted from my potential misreading of the OP.
|
On March 20 2011 06:56 imaROBOT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 06:49 JoeSchmoe wrote: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. this should be bannable. people deliberately taking nazgul's quote out of context when his conclusion was obvious. LOL Deliberately taking his quote out of context? Did you read the rest of that sentence. The only other thing he states is that the Terran army would win the battle because of numbers and the phoenix low energy. My point being, that you don't even know if they would have attacked straight forward like that video shows. If you read my whole post I point out that I think they made the right decision in the end anyway, DUDE. Your post should qualify for a ban, it's pointless and adds nothing to the topic. GTFO!
Nope you are still wrong. You DID take the qoute out of context. Nazgul outlined the basic situation and said that gave Boxer a "huge advantage". That alone wouldn't have been enough to give him the game though, so he lists some more specific details which were all in favor of Boxer which turns the "huge advantage" into an "absolute afvantage"
And then you say you already claimed that they made the right decision? :s
"The game should have been replayed following the rules in the TSL handbook. "
"It's not fair to award a win to a player because you are just ASSUMING he wouldn't have made a mistake."
That's what you said mate in your first post mate. But I guess you forgot that. Fair enough
It was clear to everyone that boxer was ahead in some shape or form, but I'm not really in a position to comment on whether or not he had the game closed.
BUT when both Tyler and MC says he had, I can't believe anyone questions them on that. They are probably the two most analytical and thinking protoss players so if they thought it was over, that's more than good enough for me
If you actually disagree even after that at least state why? :s
Anyway much respect to Team Liquid for the way they handled this whole thing. It's obviously an unfortunate situation, and you'll never make everyone happy, but the way you guys handled it just underlines the fact that you are the greatest starcraft organisation by far.
|
On March 20 2011 07:17 HeavOnEarth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:13 SKC wrote:On March 20 2011 07:05 HeavOnEarth wrote:On March 20 2011 06:46 integral wrote: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 [a huge deal]?
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 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" 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. Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest?
There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc.
It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
|
Love the analisis and also how morrow explaing every single aspect, great job man ^^.
Also love the dry analisis from MC, he was like=> He didn't had this, he losse... Just like his Interviews love it. But also very nice reasons.
Great way to handle this situation guys
Props on been so profesional
|
On March 20 2011 07:17 D_K_night wrote:Show nested quote +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. It was an unanimous decision that Boxer won the game by all 3 judges. If even one person disagreed and said Toss absolutely would have made a come-back and defeated Boxer soundly, despite all the disadvantages outlined, then sure I would agree with a rematch. But that didn't happen. I put my faith and trust in the judges.
This is the Third rule:
" "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. "
This means that even if Boxer made some mistakes he still would have won the game.
I disagree with that statement.
|
Rules should not, in any case, rely on subjective decisions. That is why rule n°3 is not satisfactory even if it leads us here to a "happy ending", as Boxer had clearly the game won.
In fact, this is the kind of dispute I would have expected to see being settled in a "gentlemen's agreement".
|
Cool explanations. And I think that simulation cleared up any confusion very well
|
On March 20 2011 06:59 samaNo4 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 06:55 Jonoman92 wrote:On March 20 2011 06:51 samaNo4 wrote:On March 20 2011 06:17 SupastaR wrote:
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 If this quote is truly theirs, they should get punished. When you win you don't care what happened, I knew beforehand Boxer was going to take game 3 thanks to them. Actually you should be mad at TL for publishing the comment before the series was completely casted, not at them, it was an easy oversight to make though. I understand why TL posted this immediately after the first game instead of after the series though, it definitely helped keep people satisfied with the decision. 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.
I know we all lost some excitement from Prae's quote, but I think TL did the right thing there. They knew the thread was going to blow up over that announcement so they needed to get this out there quickly. Could they have put in Prae's quote later? Yes, but that would have given it even further scrutiny and made it look like they were being whiny little kids when it's just all parties trying to make the best out of a no-win situation.
Here, you get it all out and in the open and give a slight hint at the results. Tbh, I can see them releasing a similar quote had Boxer narrowly lost the third match as well, so it wasn't an ironclad statement as to who won the whole thing.
|
On March 20 2011 06:33 imaROBOT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 06:29 Jibba wrote: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. Trust me I read the whole post. Keep ASSUMING things so your argument looks better. BTW the video was not in the post when first read it. They had a replay link instead, so after the EDIT.. I would say they made a good decision, but you can never count someone out 100%. What if BoxeR for some reason turned around and did not attack the Nexus? You DON'T KNOW! That's all I'm saying about this.
you DON'T KNOW that toss could make a comeback - at all. For the exact same reasons you're suggesting that Boxer would think "no reason to kill any buildings" and back off, Toss could also think "no reason to make any collosi".
|
On March 20 2011 07:15 ftd.rain wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:11 FreezerJumps wrote:
Thanks for the thread. I don't really have the time to go through 18 pages, but in case no one's mentioned this, will Cloud be on future panels, if the need arises? He has disagreed with the panel here, and would have reversed a decision which seems 100% correct to almost everyone. This puts into question his game knowledge and his place on this panel. I don't mean to be too harsh on him, but his opinion could well have cost Boxer this series.
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. I fully agree with you, awaiting fiercely for Cloud's review.
I'm going to completely pull this number out of my ass, but I'd say that 1/5 people saying that's not a clear win sounds about right to me.
And about 'game knowledge' and other stuff - let's be serious - that was basically it, not much game knowledge needed to analyse that and decide whether it's a clear win or not. Nend had a shitton of pheonixes that would have 50 energy in the future, also he could've warped 9 zealots, again, *in the future*. Boxer had 3 EMPs and quite some time to poke and *possibly* take the Nexus down, before the reinforcements/energy timing hit. It comes to judging that *possibilty* above. And, again, 1/5 people saying it wasn't necessarily a win for the Terran sounds about proper.
|
On March 20 2011 06:46 Slix36 wrote:
Very professional attitude from TSL here and i agree completely with the analyses of Nazgul, MC and Morrow.
That being said i wonder how long it took to completely analyse the situation and as such if it would be an appropriate system for something live like GSL. If it only took a few minutes then i think this sort of analysis would be a good idea for things like GSL and MLG.
You think Morrow wrote that 5 page essay in a few minutes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
