|
absolutely wrong decision
User was warned for this post
|
On March 20 2011 08:09 VuFFeR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:04 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 VuFFeR wrote: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. Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me. EDIT: And no! i do not think he dc'ed deliberately.
That's why if there wa even a 1% chance of a comeback it would have been re-game. But the three judges all thought boxer had the game 100% won. So it's in no way punishing Nightend.
It WAS has fault for losing the game, since it was already lost when boxer DCed.
|
On March 20 2011 08:18 faqqSen wrote:
absolutely wrong decision
I like how you explained your point.
|
On March 20 2011 08:15 Qaatar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:12 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:10 Qaatar wrote:On March 20 2011 08:03 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 mizU wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Why are you assuming that it would be easy for the TSL organizers to get non-TSL related top progamers to comment and write an indepth exposition about their decision? The people related to the TSL have an obligation to do anything they can do keep it running smoothly and fairly. The people who aren't? lol... And, coming back to my first point - do you think any top progamer not in Prae or Slayers would have given a shit about doing this? Unless TSL is paying their judges, I don't see why they would. I'm not assuming it would be easy any more than you're assuming it would be hard. I'm saying it needs to happen regardless. I'm not assuming anything that directly affects my judgment - your judgment (that it NEEDS to happen) is based on your assumption. There are a variety of other factors as well - the participants could very well bribe the judges, and probably many more possibilties of "bias" and "conflicts of interest" that you are so ardently arguing.
I'm sure boxer paid the judges tho give him a win in his first round after he intentionally dcd while pretty much having won the game. Makes perfect sense.
|
On March 20 2011 08:18 faqqSen wrote:
absolutely wrong decision
with a troll name like that then add absolutely no discussion comment, you need to be ban
|
On March 20 2011 08:10 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:05 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 VuFFeR wrote: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. This proves you truly not get it. Giving Nightend the win was never the question. If Nightend has 1% of winning the game and Boxer D/C you can't punish Nightend for it by taking away that 1% so a regame would be the only option.
Since we can't convince obtuse people that whatever little to non-existant chance NightEnD had was irrelevant, I might was well say that if NightEnD ended up winning because of a re-match things would snowball into a situation where the entire tournament is regarded as biased towards koreans, I for one would be sure of that.
|
right decision - the ONLY way boxer could lose that game was if he disconnected.
|
On March 20 2011 08:11 JackDino wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:09 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:04 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 VuFFeR wrote: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. Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me. They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times -
Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity.
Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
|
On March 20 2011 08:20 ftd.rain wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:10 Longshank wrote:On March 20 2011 08:05 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 VuFFeR wrote: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. This proves you truly not get it. Giving Nightend the win was never the question. If Nightend has 1% of winning the game and Boxer D/C you can't punish Nightend for it by taking away that 1% so a regame would be the only option. Since we can't convince obtuse people that whatever little to non-existant chance NightEnD had was irrelevant, I might was well say that if NightEnD ended up winning because of a re-match things would snowball into a situation where the entire tournament is regarded as biased towards koreans, I for one would be sure of that.
I never said he did have any chance of coming back, I agree with the decision made. But several here doesn't seem to get how the rule works...and why.
|
On March 20 2011 08:02 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The point of my post wasn't that I suspect the panel of any bias. It's just feedback for the future.
And I got to say that while watching the stream, I wasn't sure who would have won that game with any certainty, but I guess that stems from the fact that I'm just bad at starcraft
|
Someone needs to invent a utility that converts a replay into a custom map.
Input the replay and a timecode, and the program outputs a custom map of the game at its exact configuration at that moment. Then if this happens again, they can pick up the game and continue play.
Barring that, someone could go through meticulously and recreate the game scenario in a custom to try to play it out a few times.
That said, I think BoxeR had it 99% and it was a good decision.
|
On March 20 2011 08:15 SpiZe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:10 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:08 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:06 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:05 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:03 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:58 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:55 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:50 integral wrote:
[quote]
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. Who would you have picked then? ANYONE NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT THAT IS A HIGH-LEVEL PLAYER. lol... srsly. You didn't get what I mean't. Names. Wtf, why would I need to list all the viable candidates? ... I'm not running this tournament, it's not my responsibility to come up with a list of players that are neutral, respected, independent parties. That responsibility is TL's. Anyone in good standing not in the tournament is fine. You are the one the one saying they didn't handle it properly. I don'T ask you to make a 20 name lits, I say that you should say propose 5 other good players, that have credibility, deep understanding of the game that could have be chosen. It's not your responsability but the fact is that most of "neutral, respected, independent parties" are already in the tournament. They probably could have come up with some more people but time is also a factor. The issue needed to be adressed so they could move on. You also do not want information leaking out. For my part, MC opinion was enough. If the best protoss in the world and arguably the best player in the world says there was no way for the protoss to win this game, then the protoss was done.
Protoss: Ace, Inca, Squirtle, SangHo, San, HongUn, Tester, Hero, Choya ... [...]
Terran: TheSTC, MKP, TOP,
... fuck, I could go on and on. These are just koreans...
|
On March 20 2011 06:51 samaNo4 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Even reading this thread after the match was over, I read this as them agreeing with the assessment that NightEnD was dead in that game. Specifically, I interpreted the comment to mean that it would take a miracle for NightEnD to occur (ala David and Goliath), but he was at an even bigger disadvantage than David.
|
I would not be surprise to see more dc's in this tournament after big fights that one player got almost win situation but doesn't want to take "little" but still a chance to make mistake and lost the game.
And then you can ask other players from the tournament. who should get a win and who should loss. Not bad, after abuse in TSL2 this rules about panel members should be crystal clear, and should involve people outside "circle of interest". Morrow lost to NightEnD in Black Dragon league lately, maybe he just doesnt want to face him in Ro8 of TSL3
|
On March 20 2011 08:23 VuFFeR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:11 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 08:09 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:04 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 VuFFeR wrote: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. Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me. They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment. First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR?
"Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
|
On March 20 2011 08:23 VuFFeR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:11 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 08:09 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:04 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 VuFFeR wrote: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. Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me. They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment. First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So if a terran floats away all his buildings while the other player has his army on a mined out map without any flying units the terran hasn't lost?
And no, you do not admit there was a chance of winning when if it's close to non existing, the chance however was non existant. He couldn't have won if boxer would just amove.
Now lets assume they rematch, either of them could've kept dcing because "there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing".This is why you are wrong.
|
Nazgul's explanation was well-thought out but I still can't help but feel a little bad for Nightend. Anyway very good job handling the situation TL staff--I think there's something to be learned here for every organization in a similar damage-control situation.
|
On March 20 2011 08:28 integral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:15 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:10 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:08 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:06 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:05 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:03 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:58 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:55 mizU wrote:
[quote]
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. Who would you have picked then? ANYONE NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT THAT IS A HIGH-LEVEL PLAYER. lol... srsly. You didn't get what I mean't. Names. Wtf, why would I need to list all the viable candidates? ... I'm not running this tournament, it's not my responsibility to come up with a list of players that are neutral, respected, independent parties. That responsibility is TL's. Anyone in good standing not in the tournament is fine. You are the one the one saying they didn't handle it properly. I don'T ask you to make a 20 name lits, I say that you should say propose 5 other good players, that have credibility, deep understanding of the game that could have be chosen. It's not your responsability but the fact is that most of "neutral, respected, independent parties" are already in the tournament. They probably could have come up with some more people but time is also a factor. The issue needed to be adressed so they could move on. You also do not want information leaking out. For my part, MC opinion was enough. If the best protoss in the world and arguably the best player in the world says there was no way for the protoss to win this game, then the protoss was done. Protoss: Ace, Inca, Squirtle, SangHo, San, HongUn, Tester, Hero, Choya ... [...] Terran: TheSTC, MKP, TOP, ... fuck, I could go on and on. These are just koreans...
And you can guarantee these players can't be bribed and don't have any personal grudges?
|
Nightend started the game very badly, he was never in the game, and that battle sealed the deal for me. Great decision in this regard,and there's nothing to add to it.
|
On March 20 2011 08:12 integral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:10 Qaatar wrote:On March 20 2011 08:03 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 mizU wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Why are you assuming that it would be easy for the TSL organizers to get non-TSL related top progamers to comment and write an indepth exposition about their decision? The people related to the TSL have an obligation to do anything they can do keep it running smoothly and fairly. The people who aren't? lol... And, coming back to my first point - do you think any top progamer not in Prae or Slayers would have given a shit about doing this? Unless TSL is paying their judges, I don't see why they would. I'm not assuming it would be easy any more than you're assuming it would be hard. I'm saying it needs to happen regardless.
So even though TSL has gone a lot longer in securing fairness and tranparency than any other tournament organizer, you still come to their home page and very aggresively demand them to immediately change the way they run tournaments just because you say so? :s
And I don't even see a reason why LiquidTLO would be any less biased than LiquidJinro. So to find someone neutral isn't really probable, since anyone in the starcraft community is gonna have a lot of teammates/friends/bitter rivals in the tournament.
Instead TSL took another road and got the most respected and capable judges they could find. They probably though these players were less likely to abuse the position than anyone else, since it is people they trust.
Any other tournament would have just had two unknowns behind the scenes making the decision and not bother explaining it. You are really just arguing here for the sake of it. I don't know if you have something against TL or you're just seeking attention/thrill/whatever and I don't really care.
They explained what they had done and why. Then they explained what experiences they had made and what they need to improve on. So please just GTFO. Thank you
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
