|
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.
That doesn't make sense. DC is out of his control. To kill someone based on a coin flip is also absolutely objective but it's still unfair. Subjectivity doesn't always equal bad, and objectivity is definitely not always good. This way is better and smarter.
|
This is the most biased decision I have every seen. Teamliquid should be ashamed of themselves.
Also, look at the panel. Morrow who wouldn't want to play again Nigthend because he would have got beat by him. Morrow got owned last time by Nightends pheonix colloses build.
Liquid Nazgul is biased. Also, Morrow is biased. I bet the teamliquid people running this told them to pick Boxer. Because, with Boxer you can say hey Boxer is playing in my competition. From the intro it was obvious that they was biased for Boxer. As they started saying how they always wanted Boxer to play in this and how it's so great Boxer is in this.
Can't believe this. The games should have been remade, instead of this biased crap of giving Boxer the game. I suppose teamliquid is happy because Boxer is put through, but what crap is this?
In summary;
. The game should have been remade.
. Morrow and Teamliquid staff was biased. Especially Morrow as he would lose to Nightend.
. They gave Boxer the win not because he won, but because he is Boxer.
|
United Kingdom38257 Posts
Completely agreed with the decision and I'm very happy you have such a thought out process in place for handling these issues when they do unfortunately arise.
I did have a little question about how you relayed this info to Gisado for the Korean cast, did he get informed beforehand or did he have to have someone update him as it was happening? (Just wondering out of logistical interest here).
|
It's actually really interesting to read these opinions and the rules created by TL. As a law student, these proceedings are very similar to the cases I read everyday. Even the dissent adds to the flavor, but like all legal proceedings, whether you disagree with the judgment, we all live by it and must respect the court. It's not easy being a judge 
|
That doesn't make sense. DC is out of his control. To kill someone based on a coin flip is also absolutely objective but it's still unfair. Subjectivity doesn't always equal bad, and objectivity is definitely not always good. This way is better and smarter.
To make a decision based on a coin flip is arbitrary by definition, not objective. True objectivity rarely exists, but the more subjective decisions you include, the closer you get to an objective one.
|
On March 20 2011 08:57 simples wrote:
This is the most biased decision I have every seen. Teamliquid should be ashamed of themselves.
Also, look at the panel. Morrow who wouldn't want to play again Nigthend because he would have got beat by him. Morrow got owned last time by Nightends pheonix colloses build.
Liquid Nazgul is biased. Also, Morrow is biased. I bet the teamliquid people running this told them to pick Boxer. Because, with Boxer you can say hey Boxer is playing in my competition.
Can't believe this. The games should have been remade, instead of this biased crap of giving Boxer the game. I suppose teamliquid is happy because Boxer is put through, but what crap is this?
In summary;
. The game should have been remade.
. Morrow and Teamliquid staff was biased. Especially Morrow as he would lose to Nightend.
. They gave Boxer the win not because he won, but because he is Boxer.
![[image loading]](http://www.gogaminggiant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/facepalm.jpg)
|
On March 20 2011 08:34 Hot_Bid wrote:
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.
Thank you so much for responding. I understand the concerns of availability, speed, and transparency in addition to reducing bias and conflict of interest. My whole point through all of this was to introduce the additional concerns of bias/conflict of interest, which were not mentioned in the OP as something to learn from. This simple acknowledgement of the panel selection process and the factors involved, with a simply stated intention to not choose players involved in the tournament in the future is all I was looking for, so thank you. I have great faith in you guys that you're doing the best you can, and I don't want to take away anything from how amazing the TSL is.
That said, a suggestion for the future then would be to have a large pool of potential judges from which to pick, hopefully contacted beforehand. I know it's annoying to have to have referees on hand, but I think there is too much at stake here to scrap together a judging panel last minute. While I feel this decision was fair, it's obvious from this thread that there are many who are very upset with the decision. Accusations of bias are always difficult to respond to, but even more so when the judges are involved in the tournament themselves.
Lastly, a minor point -- they don't even necessarily have to write out their opinion in english either should you have a translator on hand, nor in my opinion does the "full transparency analysis" need to come before the decision is made -- I'm not sure if you're suggesting that it did. Regardless, the public transparency can be rendered after the fact, this will help save time. 90 minutes is a long time.
|
On March 20 2011 08:57 simples wrote:
This is the most biased decision I have every seen. Teamliquid should be ashamed of themselves.
Also, look at the panel. Morrow who wouldn't want to play again Nigthend because he would have got beat by him. Morrow got owned last time by Nightends pheonix colloses build.
Liquid Nazgul is biased. Also, Morrow is biased. I bet the teamliquid people running this told them to pick Boxer. Because, with Boxer you can say hey Boxer is playing in my competition.
Can't believe this. The games should have been remade, instead of this biased crap of giving Boxer the game. I suppose teamliquid is happy because Boxer is put through, but what crap is this?
In summary;
. The game should have been remade.
. Morrow and Teamliquid staff was biased. Especially Morrow as he would lose to Nightend.
. They gave Boxer the win not because he won, but because he is Boxer.
Which part of the panels' various reasons do you disagree with? I'm curious.
|
I think teamliquid can run a better government that any current governments we have on earth...
|
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.
What if NightEnd only had a probe left and no resources left vs Boxer's army before the disconnect? Would you agree with the decision to give the win to Boxer then, even if it's still physically possible for that probe to kill everything? Because if you do, then suddenly you have to agree that there exists some range of situations where some judgments have to be made. What that range is, that is up for discussion.
|
On March 20 2011 08:59 Turgid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:57 simples wrote:
This is the most biased decision I have every seen. Teamliquid should be ashamed of themselves.
Also, look at the panel. Morrow who wouldn't want to play again Nigthend because he would have got beat by him. Morrow got owned last time by Nightends pheonix colloses build.
Liquid Nazgul is biased. Also, Morrow is biased. I bet the teamliquid people running this told them to pick Boxer. Because, with Boxer you can say hey Boxer is playing in my competition.
Can't believe this. The games should have been remade, instead of this biased crap of giving Boxer the game. I suppose teamliquid is happy because Boxer is put through, but what crap is this?
In summary;
. The game should have been remade.
. Morrow and Teamliquid staff was biased. Especially Morrow as he would lose to Nightend.
. They gave Boxer the win not because he won, but because he is Boxer. Which part of the panels' various reasons do you disagree with? I'm curious.
The video that demonstrated the terran army vs the protoss army had the values changed in terran's favour, this is so obvious.
|
On March 20 2011 09:00 how2TL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:23 VuFFeR wrote: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. What if NightEnd only had a probe left and no resources left vs Boxer's army before the disconnect? Would you agree with the decision to give the win to Boxer then, even if it's still physically possible for that probe to kill everything? Because if you do, then suddenly you have to agree that there exists some range of situations where some judgments have to be made. What that range is, that is up for discussion.
Always a chance to win, better believe it.
|
On March 20 2011 08:59 theBOOCH wrote:Show nested quote +That doesn't make sense. DC is out of his control. To kill someone based on a coin flip is also absolutely objective but it's still unfair. Subjectivity doesn't always equal bad, and objectivity is definitely not always good. This way is better and smarter. To make a decision based on a coin flip is arbitrary by definition, not objective. True objectivity rarely exists, but the more subjective decisions you include, the closer you get to an objective one.
Giving someone a loss/regame just for DCing is just as arbitrary. Anyway! I'm done arguing, I forgot this thread was created to be fly paper to attract teenagers hell bent on arguing for no reason. <3 TL! PEACE!
|
Ignore them all. Let the mods sort them out
|
On March 20 2011 08:59 Turgid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:57 simples wrote:
This is the most biased decision I have every seen. Teamliquid should be ashamed of themselves.
Also, look at the panel. Morrow who wouldn't want to play again Nigthend because he would have got beat by him. Morrow got owned last time by Nightends pheonix colloses build.
Liquid Nazgul is biased. Also, Morrow is biased. I bet the teamliquid people running this told them to pick Boxer. Because, with Boxer you can say hey Boxer is playing in my competition.
Can't believe this. The games should have been remade, instead of this biased crap of giving Boxer the game. I suppose teamliquid is happy because Boxer is put through, but what crap is this?
In summary;
. The game should have been remade.
. Morrow and Teamliquid staff was biased. Especially Morrow as he would lose to Nightend.
. They gave Boxer the win not because he won, but because he is Boxer. Which part of the panels' various reasons do you disagree with? I'm curious.
Everything.
I'm probably gonna get banned soon from teamliquid. As yeah, the truth hurts. But, everything. I'm writing it up now. Sadly, I doubt they will release the replay for this.
User was banned for this post.
Mod note: he was not banned for his opinion even though he very clearly didn't read the thread opening (we released the replay). He's being banned because we have an auto-ban on anyone that martyrs, or states that TL will ban them in the future for whatever reason.
This is to prevent users from passive aggressively criticize moderation through "I'm going to be banned" disclaimers in every post. If you want to criticize moderation, feel free to make a thread in the Website Feedback Forum.
|
On March 20 2011 09:03 simples wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:59 Turgid wrote:On March 20 2011 08:57 simples wrote:
This is the most biased decision I have every seen. Teamliquid should be ashamed of themselves.
Also, look at the panel. Morrow who wouldn't want to play again Nigthend because he would have got beat by him. Morrow got owned last time by Nightends pheonix colloses build.
Liquid Nazgul is biased. Also, Morrow is biased. I bet the teamliquid people running this told them to pick Boxer. Because, with Boxer you can say hey Boxer is playing in my competition.
Can't believe this. The games should have been remade, instead of this biased crap of giving Boxer the game. I suppose teamliquid is happy because Boxer is put through, but what crap is this?
In summary;
. The game should have been remade.
. Morrow and Teamliquid staff was biased. Especially Morrow as he would lose to Nightend.
. They gave Boxer the win not because he won, but because he is Boxer. Which part of the panels' various reasons do you disagree with? I'm curious. Everything. I'm probably gonna get banned soon from teamliquid. As yeah, the truth hurts. But, everything. I'm writing it up now. Sadly, I doubt they will release the replay for this.
http://www.teamliquid.net/files/Game1_BoxervsNightend.sc2replay
Nice try though.
|
Can I just chip in that I applaud TL's decision to publish this so clearly and openly. My hat is off to you!
Whatever people's feelings are, at least they have all the facts to draw conclusions off of.
p.s. and as a Protoss player who loves underdogs, I was rooting for NightEnd, but I had also decided the game was over - so I feel no injustice. If he'd had storm or even charge I would have been less sure.
|
On March 20 2011 08:55 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:46 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:43 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 08:40 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:36 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 08:34 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:29 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:23 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:11 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 08:09 VuFFeR wrote:
[quote]
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" Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it. Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order. 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. 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. 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
Totally agree.
To VuFFeR:
Are you in the camp of, as long as someone disconnects, the game should be replayed - no matter what the circumstances are? Or, are you just arbitrarily drawing the line at a certain % that the losing player could come back? Because, if you are arbitrarily drawing the line somewhere, your position is meaningless. Consider Hot_Bid's scenario - what is the possibility of the player winning with only the pylon left? Extremely close to not existing, but there is still a probability, right? The player with the entire army could suicide every single unit and building under his control. So logically speaking, what's the difference between a 0.0000000001% to lose and BoxeR's chance to lose in this instance? None, because there is overwhelming evidence that BoxeR would have won that game - given his skill level. Sure, it might be the 0.1% chance that he might lose instead of the impossibility, but the point is, the 0.1% chance in THIS case = impossibility.
|
On March 20 2011 08:55 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:46 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:43 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 08:40 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:36 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 08:34 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:29 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:23 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:11 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 08:09 VuFFeR wrote:
[quote]
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" Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it. Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order. 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. 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. 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 EDIT: I only just realised you have 12 posts total >_< Nvm, then. Enjoy you ban.
You cant have 100% certainty to win in sc2 only in "very few" scenarios (im sure there would be a way to work around that) besides i doubt any pro gamer with a sponsor would ever do that, it wouldn't exactly be good publicity. That he had won the game (100%) certain was an opinion, not a fact. If you refuse to comprehend that, then there is no point in discussing this.
Ps. Why should i get banned for giving my opinion? That's what the forum is here for now isn't it?
EDIT: @JackDino: there is no point in argueing about what would happen in an offline tournament. Simply because this isn't.
@how2TL: I think you are right to some extend. But it should be narrowed down a lot. So we dont have to involve judges unless it's extremely neccessary. Ofc. there are situations where it would be neccessary. I just dont feel like this was even close to it.
|
Since Tyler and Cloud formed opinions, is there any chance we can see them? In particular, I would like to see why Cloud thought it would be a regame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
