|
On March 20 2011 07:52 integral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:51 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:49 AlienX wrote:On March 20 2011 07:42 mizU wrote:
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.
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat by watching streams which I believe is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat by stream watching why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing? ... Proven fact? Strong words for no citation or links to hard evidence to back up an accusation of "top level players" cheating. I'm starting to get a picture of how clueless you are about the integrity of various players... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=108352
I know about the ladder abuse incident.
Ladder abuse is NOT stream hacking.
|
well shit, you guys handled this really damn well, nice work.
|
United States2822 Posts
Any possibility that there is a Korean translation of this? The TSL is being followed to some extent in Korea, and I think it'd actually be really good for the Koreans to know the thought process that went into doing this. Even if they agree with the decision because it kept BoxeR in the tournament, perhaps it will give the Koreans some light into how seriously the foreign scene takes these tournaments. Any opportunity to bridge the two communities further is good in my opinion. TeamLiquid handled this as professionally as I could have possibly imagined, and to have that sort of professionalism on Western e-Sports could raise some eyes in the Korean community.
|
Since I'm not a Boxer or NightEnd fan, I don't really care about the decision. The process TL uses for these situation is still very impressive.
What I have to agree on is that the panel should not consist of players playing in the actual tournament. I have read all the statements from the panel members and I guess they can or are in fact right (I play way too bad to judge the situation myself  ). For future situations I still think it would be better for everyone to have players in the panel that aren't/weren't in the tournament. It would at least give a feeling of an unbiased decision.
But anyhow, keep up the good work TL! <3
|
On March 20 2011 07:55 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:50 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:49 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:47 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:44 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:41 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:38 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:34 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:19 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:17 HeavOnEarth wrote:
[quote]
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? Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict. So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get... The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL... Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
|
Yeah, the fact that protoss does not have charge/blink/storm/amulet/dt/energy on phoenix makes it impossiible for him to win
|
On March 20 2011 07:58 integral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:55 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:50 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:49 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:47 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:44 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:41 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:38 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:34 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:19 mizU wrote:
[quote]
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? Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict. So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get... The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL... Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun? Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
I can't think of many western players completelly unrelated to anyone in the tournament. If you would cheat for yourself, why wouldnt you cheat for a friend/teammate?
And I really don't know how easy or hard it would be to get koreans completelly unrelated to the event to participate.
|
On March 20 2011 07:58 integral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:55 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:50 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:49 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:47 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:44 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:41 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:38 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:34 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:19 mizU wrote:
[quote]
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? Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict. So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get... The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL... Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun? Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL?
How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
|
just watch VODs and listen to Chill, he did fenomenal job (Day9 also), nothing of this trashtalk from Zlasher is true.
|
On March 20 2011 07:40 ftd.rain wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
|
On March 20 2011 07:57 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:52 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:51 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:49 AlienX wrote:On March 20 2011 07:42 mizU wrote:
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.
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat by watching streams which I believe is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat by stream watching why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing? ... Proven fact? Strong words for no citation or links to hard evidence to back up an accusation of "top level players" cheating. I'm starting to get a picture of how clueless you are about the integrity of various players... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=108352 I know about the ladder abuse incident. Ladder abuse is NOT stream hacking.
Let's rephrase then:
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat which is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing?
Anything you care to nitpick in this post, intentionally-obtuse guy?
|
Someone suggested that Zergs should commentate on the status of the game, and they should judge who won, in a situation like this (PVT), and vica versa.
Well, I think we could all step back a little and realize that once you are a high level Terran, Protoss or Zerg, you are really capable of judging any battle regardless of what your race is. There is no need from the judge to be X, Y, or Z race in a ZVX, because it simply does not matter. They are clearly checking this out taking the time, putting effort into the actual explanation - it is obvious that the race the judges might or might not play with does not matter.
|
On March 20 2011 07:57 RedZack wrote:Since I'm not a Boxer or NightEnd fan, I don't really care about the decision. The process TL uses for these situation is still very impressive. What I have to agree on is that the panel should not consist of players playing in the actual tournament. I have read all the statements from the panel members and I guess they can or are in fact right (I play way too bad to judge the situation myself ). For future situations I still think it would be better for everyone to have players in the panel that aren't/weren't in the tournament. It would at least give a feeling of an unbiased decision. But anyhow, keep up the good work TL! <3
Well, if you were in the panel and possibly playing the winner of that match later, would you really pick Boxer to win? 
Nah, all in all it's a fair decision. There will always be people disagreeing, but it seems that most people are disagreeing about the judges and not the actual decision. It was clear to anyone watching the stream that Boxer had that game won with 99.8% certainty.
|
On March 20 2011 08:01 integral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:57 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:52 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:51 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:49 AlienX wrote:On March 20 2011 07:42 mizU wrote:
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.
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat by watching streams which I believe is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat by stream watching why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing? ... Proven fact? Strong words for no citation or links to hard evidence to back up an accusation of "top level players" cheating. I'm starting to get a picture of how clueless you are about the integrity of various players... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=108352 I know about the ladder abuse incident. Ladder abuse is NOT stream hacking. Let's rephrase then: It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat which is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing? Anything you care to nitpick in this post, intentionally-obtuse guy?
Sure.
"So if SOME players would cheat why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing? "
The players that were found for ladder abuse aren't in the TSL, and are banned from TSL events.
I doubt TL would pick those players to be on the panel.
|
On March 20 2011 08:01 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:58 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:55 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:50 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:49 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:47 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:44 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:41 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:38 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:34 integral wrote:
[quote]
"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? Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict. So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get... The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL... Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun? Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament? Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
|
On March 20 2011 08:01 VuFFeR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:40 ftd.rain wrote: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. It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
|
On March 20 2011 08:01 VuFFeR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:40 ftd.rain wrote: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. It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
It's also not Boxer's fault if his city suffers a black out, his internet provider has a problem, or whatever may cause a disconect. Seriously, why would this rule even exist if the players could control or be blamed for disconnects?
|
On March 20 2011 08:01 VuFFeR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:40 ftd.rain wrote: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. It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
It's not Nightend's fault he disconnects, no.
But he isn't awarded the win, becuase he was LOSING.
|
On March 20 2011 08:03 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:01 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:57 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:52 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:51 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:49 AlienX wrote:On March 20 2011 07:42 mizU wrote:
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.
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat by watching streams which I believe is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat by stream watching why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing? ... Proven fact? Strong words for no citation or links to hard evidence to back up an accusation of "top level players" cheating. I'm starting to get a picture of how clueless you are about the integrity of various players... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=108352 I know about the ladder abuse incident. Ladder abuse is NOT stream hacking. Let's rephrase then: It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat which is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing? Anything you care to nitpick in this post, intentionally-obtuse guy? Sure. "So if SOME players would cheat why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing? " The players that were found for ladder abuse aren't in the TSL, and are banned from TSL events. I doubt TL would pick those players to be on the panel.
Oh my god. I'm really trying hard to refrain from ad hominem arguments, but this is getting ridiculous.
|
Boxer was clearly going in for the kill, good call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
