EPT[TSL] Day 1 Disconnect Situation - Page 29
| Forum Index > PokerStrategy.com TSL3 Forum |
|
cujo2k
Canada1044 Posts
| ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
I'm quoting these issues as they catched my eye while reading the thread. Post-game statements related to anything other than the game in question itself. "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." On March 20 2011 06:36 n00b3rt wrote: Only 1 complaint : you should have posted this thread after all the games had been casted. The reaction by Prae spoiled the result of game 3 ;( On March 20 2011 05:56 FliedLice wrote: "A message from Praetoriani and NightEnd 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." no stones=no points to criticize? Possible conflicts of interest. On March 20 2011 06:01 Tossy64 wrote: Shouldn't the panel members not include tourney participants or others who have a potential conflict of interest? Vetos On March 20 2011 06:43 Jonoman92 wrote: So if Boxer had vetoed a different panel member, and Cloud had submitted his decision, then it would have been a re-game? Since that in order to award a win to the disconnecting player a unanimous decision is needed. On March 20 2011 06:46 syzygy wrote: What were the compelling reasons as to why Tyler and Cloud were vetoed? NightEnD's veto On March 20 2011 06:28 AmiPolizeiFunk wrote: NightEnd pushed it to the panel, yet allowed the panel to be decreased from 5 voters down to 3? Why would he do that? Did he know that only 1 of the 5 had to rule a re-game for him to get one? Did he fully understand how the panel functioned? Why would he not accept a loss, and then right away increase the chance that he would get one by accepting a 3-man panel? Doesn't make sense to me. On March 20 2011 06:53 nexusil wrote: Only thing I don't understand is why would Nightend veto anyone if an unanimous decision is required to award Boxer the game? Vetoing only makes sense if the panelist was replaced. Maybe he doesn't fully grasp the implication of the panelist not being replaced, or was first asked to veto and then asked to accede to only 3 panelists. If this is the case, the organizers should at least re-instate Tyler since it is clearly in Nightend's interest to hear Tyler if no other panelist can be found to replace him. On March 20 2011 06:24 BasedSwag wrote: Well Tyler could face either of these players in the bracket so his decision is potentially biased. BoxeR's veto On March 20 2011 06:28 BasedSwag wrote: I think it's interesting that the sole possible Terran panel member was vetoed by BoxeR and that member felt it was a re-game, perhaps BoxeR felt like he could have lost it and that other Terrans could come to the same conclusion somehow? Or maybe he just doesn't know who Cloud is & it's a coincidence.... All in all I think TL shows a lot of foresight when compiling rules for their events, although it takes a long time to build contentment with decisions such as this one, because the only thing that will silence criticism at all if the situation is even slightly disputed is being able to draw from a long history of the event and thereby precedent and tradition to validate the decision by consistency. I hope that the above mentioned questions will get additional coverage, so that the transparency and renown/exaltedness of T(S)L can increase even further. | ||
|
Seam
United States1093 Posts
On March 20 2011 08:40 VuFFeR wrote: No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo. The issue you run into is when someone is simply holding out leaving, for one reason or another, and the player who only has to kill say the Main with no resistance DCs. Now they have to replay, and the whole result is changed, now the player who didn't DC in the first game wins it. That could change whole series. Making a series go 2-0 instead of 2-1 in favor of the other player. | ||
|
kibeth
United States116 Posts
I'd just like to say that we agree with you that the players who are on the panel shouldn't be in the tournament. However, we have to balance this with availability. We have a Korean at 11:30 pm already waiting for a decision that was going for 90 minutes, and we have no way to really ask or access a large pool of top players who would be willing to comment on this. Not every pro is willing to have their name out there and write a lot justifying his opinion when he can be subject to scrutiny. Add to that the time sensitive nature (they have to do it RIGHT NOW immediately) and it's not as easy as you think. Thankfully, some players stepped up to do it even though they really have nothing to gain from opening themselves up to criticism, so we really want to thank Morrow MC and Naz for doing this. I just wanted to say that it is not as easy as you make it out to find a super top player at the exact time of the disconnect to drop everything and write something articulate in English and be willing to have his opinion scrutinized publicly and bear the responsibility of a decision like this. I think it's very hard to find people willing to do that. We don't have all these players on stand by. In a perfect world we'd have 5 top players just sitting around waiting for discs, but there are practical considerations. HotBid, go back a few pages and read my suggestion. Basically, have the players the maximum amount of games in the series while awaiting a panel decision rather than have them wait and waste their precious time. If Game 3 was played because they were waiting to find out about Game 1, and it turns out Boxer won both 1 and 2, its no big deal and Game 3 just never sees the public eye. | ||
|
Vorenius
Denmark1979 Posts
On March 20 2011 08:28 PetRockSteve wrote: 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. It's quite clear that they disagree with the ruling from that comment. Even if they said no comment. They didn't wanna go up against TSL (goliath) since they didn't have any arguments at all (no stones lying around). I guess you can't blame players for being upset after being eliminated, but they should really keep that to themselfs. And certainly their team shouldn't be backing them up in their BM :s Especially since it's already a no-win situation. A disconnect is always a very bad thing for a tournament but TL handled it as well as anyone, so they don't need some passive aggressive bs from a disappointed team. | ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
I am sure they will be better prepared with having other players available in a case a situation like this happens again, but for the first time, I think it was handled extremely well. Good thoughtful write-ups from the panel, specially Naz and Morrow. | ||
|
LanTAs
United States1091 Posts
look at situation. So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense. look at situation please | ||
|
Zim23
United States1681 Posts
On March 20 2011 08:39 Full.tilt wrote: The only time it shouldn't be a regame if it's the player in a clearly losing position who disconnects. All other times should be regame, that's the only true fair way. That is actually not fair at ALL. If I was clearly in a winning position after a 20 minute game according to a unanimous decision by a panel of experts, and yet STILL had to regame I would consider that extremely unfair and unacceptable. | ||
|
SwizzY
United States1549 Posts
Oh well, Boxer HWAITING!! | ||
|
integral
United States3156 Posts
On March 20 2011 08:33 Vorenius wrote: 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 All I'm saying is that they need to pick players that are not in the tournament to be the judges. This is really simple. I'm only aggressively responding to the people who somehow think this is unnecessary or too difficult, both of which reasons are not adequate for helping to reduce bias. You just don't pick players in the tournament to be judges unless you're desperate or you completely overlook it. edit: meh. | ||
|
VuFFeR
Denmark38 Posts
On March 20 2011 08:43 JackDino wrote: So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense. Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs. | ||
|
proot
United States126 Posts
As for the naysayers, they seem nothing short of trolls trying to grab attention. If you really want to show a comeback, setup a game scenario with your friend that mimics the game situation(like what Nazgul did but to a greater scale). Find a way for that .25-1% chance to play out and post the replay. I'm sure it'd be pretty fun to watch. | ||
|
JackDino
Gabon6219 Posts
On March 20 2011 08:46 VuFFeR wrote: Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished. In the second game it shouldn't be a regame so he DOES get punished. Newsflash, dcs can happen randomly and they can be anyone's fault, not just the player who dcs. The only thing that's biased here are you with your "the DCer should be punished attitude", while saying it's not fair for someone who lost the game to be given a loss. | ||
|
Count9
China10928 Posts
People need to stop treating dc some magic thing that happens and the guy who doesn't dc is suddenly a saint and should under no circumstances lose as long as he has some units and probes. One guy's internet connection cutting out does not mean he can't claim a win if he's already earned it. I'm kinda sad about nightend response, playing helpless victim to the big bad community, but it's understandable because it really, really sucks. | ||
|
Zim23
United States1681 Posts
On March 20 2011 08:46 VuFFeR wrote: Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs. Um... because a player winning (as decided unanimously by a panel of experts) is punished with a regame when he shouldn't be? It's kind of crystal fucking clear. | ||
|
blamous
United States377 Posts
| ||
|
VuFFeR
Denmark38 Posts
| ||
|
ftd.rain
United Kingdom539 Posts
| ||
|
JackDino
Gabon6219 Posts
On March 20 2011 08:52 VuFFeR wrote: He does get punished because on some level it's his responsibility to have a stable connection and because we shouldn't encourage deliberate dcs. It's tough luck yes, but it makes more sense... the fewer subjective opinions we can involve the better. Who says he doesn't have a stable connection? Just because he dcs it doesn't mean he has an unstable connection. Let's say this happened @ an offline event, would it still be his fault for having an unstable connection? What if someone would use some kind of hack to somehow dc the winning player? How would a rematch be fair, please explain. | ||
|
Vorenius
Denmark1979 Posts
On March 20 2011 08:46 VuFFeR wrote: Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs. You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame. Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell? In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true. And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s User was warned for this post | ||
| ||
