|
Well not saying that this affected their decision in some kind, but just on the principle players that are participating in tournament shouldnt be allowed to make any deciosn regarding said tournament. There will always be some shadow of doubt over that situation. Regardless of their knowledge, Tyler and Mc shouldnt be on panel IMHO. Thats just not feel right.
|
Having studied the endgame off the replay for several minutes it's overwhelming. The third was going to die, boxer was seconds from being on 3 base against 1, and P had none of the tech that would have allowed him to overcome the T army. Even if he waits to lift the marauders and doesnt lose any phoenix to the marines he STILL LOSES because he is at an astounding economic disadvantage and would be able to kill some marauders or some scvs but not both with the phoenix.
I normally think that regames should happen 99% of the time these happen but this was the 1% where the game was already decided conclusively.
|
On March 20 2011 07:25 LorDo wrote:Show nested quote +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?
maybe he thinks the games he saw today were live?
|
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.
basically that's exactly what happened, but ClouD got vetoed
|
I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
|
On March 20 2011 07:09 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +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.
This is poor logic. Because there is always "potential" for bias, it doesn't matter that the players they chose to be in the INDEPENDENT, NEUTRAL, judging panel, are players in the exact same tournament they're judging? This makes no sense. From my perspective this is an unarguably poor decision.
The panel selection process needs to be made transparent too.
On edit: it doesn't seem like from the OP that they acknowledge the conflict of interest whatsoever.
|
On March 20 2011 06:40 madmandrit wrote:
Game 3 shows you want would of happened if Game 1 went on.
Seriously
This.
TSL administration is really inspiring 
|
At first it didn't seem fair to me, but I gotta say that after reading all the opinions, i think it was the right decision after all. The video and morrows analysis was very convincing
Also, game 3 had quite a similar scenario according to me, with a slight bigger chance for a comeback for the toss (my opinion). Boxer still won it convincingly.
And lastly, nice job on this situation, very proffesionally, fair and effectively handled :D
|
I commend the process that the TSL tournament is handling this decision of the game, which is open and transparent as it can be. I honestly agree with the opinions of the three panelist and believed that Boxer won that game after the huge engagement. He had 4 bases, a sizable ground army left over, upgrades, and that Nightend only could produce gateway units which in all probability could not beat the MMM bio ball that Boxer has.
In terms of Impartiality, there's always going to be the concern of bias no matter what. In terms of magnitude and prestige of the TSL, the best players that are knowledgeable of the game and the match-up are most likely already in the tournament so its hard to find other people that have insight and grasp to be a panel member on such quick notice. I would suggest that there should always be at least 2-3 permanent members or a combination of rotating panelists that can be reached in terms of scheduling and to avoid players that could ultimately decide bracket advancement, if they were to face that player in the next round.
Also since the TSL is streaming in Korea on gomtv, I assume there will be a follow version of this for the Korean Netizens? Keep up the good work guys.
|
On March 20 2011 07:19 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:17 HeavOnEarth wrote: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.
Still I agree that having competing players in the jury is something they should avoid in the future. It doesn't necessarily have to be the best players in the jury - there are hundreds of players at Nazguls level and higher but in these situations I still have more trust in him than in MC.
|
On March 20 2011 07:25 n0ise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:15 ftd.rain wrote: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.
This is why I'd like to see Cloud's justification. Lots of people are pointing out things that favor Nightend, but until we can see a pro evalutation of the situation up to the standards set by Nazgul, MC and Morrow, I think it's right to question how correct Cloud's analysis was. If several pros come out defending Cloud and can match the quality of the arguments for awarding Boxer the win, then Cloud should remain a possible panel member.
|
On March 20 2011 07:27 Leviance wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:17 D_K_night wrote: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. basically that's exactly what happened, but ClouD got vetoed
ClouD wasn't the only one to be vetoed, remember that. We cannot assume that Boxer saw ClouD's write-up, and vetoed him after seeing it, that's wrongful information.
The sequence of events as we know it, is this:
- Players agree to hand the decision to the judges
- Players are each allowed ONE veto
- judges weigh in on the decision
And these are not bronze league people acting as judges, or non-gamers. These are people who play this game professionally and for a living.
|
On March 20 2011 07:24 Dramborleg wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:17 D_K_night wrote: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.
Please your highness, from the top of your 7 posts and your copper league, explain your disagreement.
|
On March 20 2011 07:28 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:19 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:17 HeavOnEarth wrote: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. Still I agree that having competing players in the jury is something they should avoid in the future. It doesn't necessarily have to be the best players in the jury - there are hundreds of players at Nazguls level and higher but in these situations I still have more trust in him than in MC.
For the sake of argument, who could they have picked then?
I'm just saying that with what they had, the players at their disposal, the TSL participants were a good sample grouping as any other pros. I highly doubt that when they were asked to cast their opinion that they were thinking about furthering themselves in the tournament by showing favor to a weaker player.
Their logic and explanations would be highly suspect, had they gone with a decision that would contradict a solid verdict and further their own tournament standings.
|
Very professional report on the decision. It feels like I just read a truth commission, it's so detailed. Nice work.
|
A real shame this had to happen. The decision was probably correct, from a noob's perspective it seemed to go in Boxer's favour as well. Although I lolled about Boxer vetoing Cloud :D Do they know each other?
|
On March 20 2011 06:40 madmandrit wrote:
Game 3 shows you want would of happened if Game 1 went on.
Seriously
Except Game 1 had boxer in an even greater advantage due to the maps size.
This, along with the fact that fucking Tyler and MC (!) thought it was over really makes people arguing against the decision look pretty silly. Especially since they chose to not give any valid reasoning despite the mod warning.
|
On March 20 2011 07:18 imaROBOT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:16 teamsolid wrote: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...
There is nothing "ignorant" about calling out a post for being wrong and the post I quoted had a bunch of incorrect statements, regardless of whether you were missing information at that time or not (which is not my problem).
On a forum, you can be called out for being wrong, and if you actually were wrong it doesn't really help to keep steadfastly defending yourself. Anyways, this is offtopic. I'm impressed with TL's decision process, and especially interested in Cloud's response.
|
Does it create a conflict of interest to use players in the tournament to be on the panel? What if someone on the panel knew they have a lot of trouble playing against a certain player they have to judge? Wouldn't just part of their decision be based on the fact it would be beneficial to them to not have to meet that player later? Even the best of us get swayed by personal gains sometimes.
|
On March 20 2011 07:19 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:17 HeavOnEarth wrote: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.
"HOW FAR" as if finding qualified players that are not playing in the TSL is a difficult or strenuous task? There are only 32 players in the TSL and they picked THREE TSL players for the panelist? I mean, fair MINIMUM requirements seem to me to have at least two players of each represented race that are NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT. (lol... come on, srsly) This is not hard, they just overlooked it.
You can mitigate conflict of interest far better than they did, especially considering they seem to have completely overlooked the fact that these players are in the same tournament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
