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.
Correct, the players were not given the decisions UNTIL the vetoes were made.
I agree the staff handled this extremely professionally and it is obvious of the time and effort that was put in to plan this event with rules as these.
However, I'm going to have to agree with a few of the posters that it would be difficult for a player competing in the tournament to be unbiased. This tournament is some of the best of the best, but I believe it would be possible to find some good players who are not participating to judge. This is just a small critique though and I overall thought it was handled extremely well.
great decision by the panel! Game 3 ended exactly how game 1 would have ended. Boxer won the 200/200 battle in both cases but actually had more army left over in game 1 than in game 3. Then you saw how game 3 ended, it only took like another 5 mins for boxer to finish it which would have how game 1 would have ended as well. 100% correct ruling!
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.
I was unable to catch a live stream of the matches, but I must say after reading the initial post I am very proud of Team Liquid and the TSL. This shows a level of openness and honesty usually not found in competitions. I applaud you for so concisely laying down the rules and how you came to the judgement you did.
I look forward to watching the matches once the VODs are posted.
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.
Managers are an obvious excepition, their recognition doesn't come from playing, and I think having koreans in the panel is almost necessary to maintain the legitimacy of the tournament. If you wouldn't have one of the players, would one of their teammates be any less biased? I'm not sure they are able to get koreans unrelated to any player in the panel, and I'm sure they try to bring someone that would bring the least amount of suspicion as biased as possible. People need to respect the players a little more, and people in general. The fact that they bring 5 players is already one way to diminish the possible bias, you would need a full panel of "corrupt" judges to actually change the outcome.
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.
I would be interested to see a detailed breakdown too. If your points are able to soundly counter all the highly illustrated points made by MC and company, let 'er rip. But honestly my advice here is, it's not productive to disagree against the vast majority, just to be different or be controversial.
your favored champion didn't win - I'm sorry about that too - but what's done is done.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: 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.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
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.
Nazgul isn't in the TSL.
It's also worth pointing out that MC is on the opposite side of the bracket.
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.
Nazgul isn't in the TSL.
Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Also, come on, JWD, I'm not accusing these players of bias. Srsly, I'm not, and that's not the point, and I hope you'd be able to recognize that. I'm saying they shouldn't pick people from the same tournament to be on the judging panel. Principle of the thing.
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.
Managers are an obvious excepition, their recognition doesn't come from playing, and I think having koreans in the panel is almost necessary to maintain the legitimacy of the tournament. If you wouldn't have one of the players, would one of their teammates be any less biased? I'm not sure they are able to get koreans unrelated to any player in the panel, and I'm sure they try to bring someone that would bring the least amount of suspicion as biased as possible. People need to respect the players a little more, and people in general. The fact that they bring 5 players is already one way to diminish the possible bias, you would need a full panel of "corrupt" judges to actually change the outcome.
I feel like people automatically jump to conclusions, such that a player asked to be a panelist would abuse said given power in order to further their own status in a tournament. For some reason, it is adamant in my mind that the panelists' never for a second regarded the players in question in relation to the tournament and how it would affect their standing.
hmmmm....and the opinions of the vetoed players errr panel members???? the supreme court always issues a dissenting opinion and since we cant have that here maybe those folks had an opinion?
side note: even though even i made the joke about our unbiased panel members being from the tournament i can see the difficulty in finding people knowledgable enough to be ad hoc judges who aren't seated to maybe win. humble suggestion permanent judges...you know some baller wanna be casters who would love to flex judge powers abound im sure...oherwise well handled tl love
Not knowing of this rule before I started watching, my first thought was "Wow thats fucking terrible for Boxer, he was so ahead/about to win." Then djwheat came on and announced that a panel has awarded the game to boxer. I immediately felt like that was right decision. Its great read this thread and see that they put a great deal of effort and thought into this decision as well. Appeasing both emotionally and objectively.
After watching Game 1, and realizing it probably took a good hour to find panelists, distribute replays, and form opinions, I have a suggestion for the future if this type of thing happens (maybe its what TL staff did, it's not mentioned). If this happens during a Game1 or Game 2, just have them go on and keep playing til Game 3 is finished, and if it works out that Game 3 was never necessary based on the panels decision, then the replay is never seen, but it keeps the players playing and within their obviously strained time schedules.
I have to say that I agree with not using players that are playing in the tournament because those players could theoretically have a vested interest in wanting certain players or races eliminated. I really don't think any impropriety went on but the appearance of it possibly being there should be avoided.
That aside I agree with the panel's decision and I'm glad that it tl has made their process in dealing with this so transparent.
My level of respect for the TSL and TeamLiquid just went up tremendously (Not that it was in anyway low before)
Amazing explanation of exactly what happened, how it happened, what you've learned from it and how it would be addressed in the future.
Nazgul actually going so far as to do a simulation of the closing fight shows an amazing attention to detail and this whole thing shows a level of professionalism that made me feel very good about this whole community.
It did certainly look to me like the decision was correct, and I agree that if even Tyler or MC couldn't envision a way they could have comeback to win that game, than it wasn't going to Happen.
One mild suggestion, and maybe it's silly or backwards...but I could see a situation where people might complain about race bias in this type of decision...You might want to make the panel of 5 all a non-playing race. In other words, get 5 Zergs to decide...or Just let TLO decide by himself who won since Random knows best.
I could see people complaining some day if a panel of 5 had 2 Terrans voting for the terran win and 3 Protoss voting for a regame etc...
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.
Nazgul isn't in the TSL.
Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I read all the explanations verry carefully , and I understand their point of view. In case of a re-match from that point (where Boxer had an advantage) , NightEnd (they say) would gain an advantage coz they will start again from even chances.But my point is NightEnd didn`t ask for this advatage or did nothing about it. He just played the game , and because the other`s player computer closed he lost the match. How is this fair?. To don`t do nothing against the rules and still loose?.Also , NightEnd still got some Phoenixes that could get some energy , also he had a bounch (the caster`s even noteced that ) of gateways so he could remax instantly. So , Boxer is the one geting out of the game , and still he is winning.
Yea and like people above me said:1. Boxer clearly has infinitly more fans that NightEnd so it`s not even CLOSE to a "impartial" vote. 2.I kinnda` ask mysellf why they don`t post ClouD`s oppinion 3.There are to "maybe"`s in the reviews.
Still , I respect the decision and I fully understand what they are trying to explain there. Still this is what I don`t agree with.
On March 20 2011 07:43 EnderSword wrote: My level of respect for the TSL and TeamLiquid just went up tremendously (Not that it was in anyway low before)
Amazing explanation of exactly what happened, how it happened, what you've learned from it and how it would be addressed in the future.
Nazgul actually going so far as to do a simulation of the closing fight shows an amazing attention to detail and this whole thing shows a level of professionalism that made me feel very good about this whole community.
It did certainly look to me like the decision was correct, and I agree that if even Tyler or MC couldn't envision a way they could have comeback to win that game, than it wasn't going to Happen.
One mild suggestion, and maybe it's silly or backwards...but I could see a situation where people might complain about race bias in this type of decision...You might want to make the panel of 5 all a non-playing race. In other words, get 5 Zergs to decide...or Just let TLO decide by himself who won since Random knows best.
I could see people complaining some day if a panel of 5 had 2 Terrans voting for the terran win and 3 Protoss voting for a regame etc...
now THAT is a VERY interesting way of looking at it. In theory hey - why would zergs be biased in a matchup where they have no vested interest in seeing which way it goes? But it would have to be zergs who aren't participating in the event.
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.
Nazgul isn't in the TSL.
Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
EPT
