• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 02:44
CEST 08:44
KST 15:44
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon8[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt1: Ascent10Maestros of the Game: Week 1/Play-in Preview12[ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt2: Take-Off7[ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt1: Runway13
Community News
SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia6Weekly Cups (Sept 1-7): MaxPax rebounds & Clem saga continues23LiuLi Cup - September 2025 Tournaments3Weekly Cups (August 25-31): Clem's Last Straw?39Weekly Cups (Aug 18-24): herO dethrones MaxPax6
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy What happened to Singapore/Brazil servers? SC4ALL: A North American StarCraft LAN Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon
Tourneys
SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series LANified! 37: Groundswell, BYOC LAN, Nov 28-30 2025 LiuLi Cup - September 2025 Tournaments Maestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 490 Masters of Midnight Mutation # 489 Bannable Offense Mutation # 488 What Goes Around Mutation # 487 Think Fast
Brood War
General
ASL20 General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ alas... i aint gon' lie to u bruh... BW General Discussion [ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt1: Ascent
Tourneys
[ASL20] Ro16 Group B Small VOD Thread 2.0 [ASL20] Ro16 Group A [Megathread] Daily Proleagues
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Borderlands 3 Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread The PlayStation 5 General RTS Discussion Thread Iron Harvest: 1920+
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI UK Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread High temperatures on bridge(s)
TL Community
BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final The Automated Ban List
Blogs
The Personality of a Spender…
TrAiDoS
A very expensive lesson on ma…
Garnet
hello world
radishsoup
Lemme tell you a thing o…
JoinTheRain
RTS Design in Hypercoven
a11
Evil Gacha Games and the…
ffswowsucks
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1231 users

[TSL] Day 1 Disconnect Situation - Page 32

Forum Index > PokerStrategy.com TSL3 Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 30 31 32 33 34 48 Next All
quirinus
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
Croatia2489 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-20 00:38:53
March 20 2011 00:35 GMT
#621
Maybe next time use some players that don't have a conflict of interest? Players that are not in the tournament? No team mates?

Otherwise very professional.

edit:
Now that I think of it, I assume they can veto the players in that are in the tournament and opponents team mates, so you'll have to get other players opinion.

edit2:

For sake of discussion and transparency we will say that Tyler thought it was over and Cloud thought it was a re-game.


I think you should re-word this, it isn't clear enough that those are NOT Tyler's and Cloud's opinions. (if I understand correctly)
All candles lit within him, and there was purity. | First auto-promoted BW LP editor.
how2TL
Profile Joined August 2010
1197 Posts
March 20 2011 00:36 GMT
#622
On March 20 2011 09:29 vebis wrote:
They counted every number, but one of the key valus of a good player is the decision making and i think this wasn't taken into account. both players have no doubt great dm, but you cant get this number quantified, so the ruling cant be 100% sure as stated in the tournament rule.

from a player perspective, i would neither lose or win by dc, i will win/lose by a gaming ending decision of either me or the opponent (read: type "gg" and F10+n).

anyway the decision is final, but pls TL admin consider in this situation a regame next time and not a tournament player judgment (they cant make there free unbiased decision on this case imho, although they've written great essays).


I think it's pretty clear that what the ruling means by "absolutely won" is that decision-making is no longer a relevant factor in the outcome.
MattyClutch
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States711 Posts
March 20 2011 00:38 GMT
#623
It sucks that a DC happened, but I think it was handled as well as humanly possible. Posting the judges opinions was a nice touch and I have to say I agree.
Nihn'kas Neehn
Geolich
Profile Joined March 2011
Australia375 Posts
March 20 2011 00:39 GMT
#624
I like the explanations from the 3 deciders... Though MC's opinion is a bit like "lol check out this protoss he had nothing, i wouldve had XXX"

A tough decision either way, well done to TL for at least trying to explain it... can't please everyone.
MarineKingPrime!
VuFFeR
Profile Joined September 2010
Denmark38 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-20 00:42:07
March 20 2011 00:39 GMT
#625
On March 20 2011 09:27 JackDino wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 20 2011 09:21 VuFFeR wrote:
On March 20 2011 09:12 JackDino wrote:
On March 20 2011 09:06 VuFFeR wrote:
On March 20 2011 08:55 Vorenius wrote:
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:
[quote]
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.

Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong.

No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that.

Exactly the same thing could've happened at an offline tournament. The only problem here is you thinking people dc on purpose, which is why there is a panel. If you would actually read the OP properly(You really haven't done that), you would know that dcing when you're winning wouldn't give you a win.
You want as little people as possible to judge yet you want to judge when to and when not to judge.
The people in the panel are professionals, if a single 1 of them would've said nightend could've won they would've rematched, a single one. If you would understand when people can and can't win you might make it up there.
Life isn't fair, better get used to it.


I have read the OP. Cheap shots aren't gonna get you anywhere. God i hate arguing with people who aren't interested in understanding eachother. There is no "winning" in this arguement if that's what you are looking for. We just have two way of seeing things.

That being said. BoxeR could (if he had known about this rule) have dc'ed deliberately to avoid that 1% chance of losing - even with the panel. You gotta take these things into account. Even if they are only hypothetical. Being a pro sc2 gamers doesn't neccesarily make you good at taking these kinds of decisions. They "can" be biased. I'd much rather watch BoxeR than NightEnd myself - if i were given the choice to let BoxeR go through... hell i would do it. Mainly because i'm such an irrational bastard. ^_^ - anyways ... only wasting time on this debate. I've made my point clear and so have you. I just hope that TL reevaluate the rules.

Good night.
The only thing I know, is that I don't know anything
Hellspawnl
Profile Joined June 2010
Sweden103 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-20 00:43:21
March 20 2011 00:40 GMT
#626
I have just scanned through all the comments so sorry if making points that people have already made.

First of all I just want to say that I feel sorry for TeamLiquid as it's very unfortunate when these kind of things happens. You have put on such a great show already and it's just pity that this, I guess, takes most of the attention for today.

I think the TSL-organization handle it in a very good way, no one can think that you took it lightly and you have for sure put in a lot of effort into this decision.

I would like to give some comments from my perspective. If this event would have been played live then I doubt that the outcome of the decision would have been the same, a replay would have been an easier decision. It's just very fortunate that the TSL-crew could prepare this much and really look into it.

Some of my criticism is also mentioned in the statement is that it was very very unfortunate that the vetoes of the panel members weren't done before hand. If Cloud hadn't been vetoed away then I assume a replay would have occurred as the panel wouldn't have been unanimous.

The panel will view the replay and decide whether one player had the game absolutely won. The decision by the approved panel members must be unanimous. This means if the panel does not award the disconnecting player a win, then 1, 2, 3, 4, or all 5 did not believe the disconnecting player had an "absolute advantage."

I also want to highlight what has been mention before that there is no question that SlayerS_BoxeR was in a big lead, but was it a 100% guaranteed win? Even in Nazguls and Morrows statement it seem to lean more towards that it was more of a huge lead in opposite to an guaranteed win, while MC was sure that the game was over.

Also I must mention that I do understand Praetoriani and I couldn't find a better description then trying to fight Goliath. It's just very unfortunate as mention before.
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.

Even if I might sound very negative towards the TSL-crew, I'm not. The only thing that I do worry a little about is how it will be handle if god forbids this kind of disconnect happens again. Let say that someone has a big lead and DC:s. Then of course this decision will be the praxis and then you will have some kind of discussion about how much more or less of an advantage did this player have compared to SlayerS_BoxeR. Of course the same problem would have occurred if it was called a replay. So I guess my only conclusion is that please make it possible to reconnect to a game, it should be a must in every E-sport game. It's doable in Counter-Strike but not in Quake Live for example. It is just a shame.

An a further note and more of a troll one so take it lightly. Would TeamLiquid have had the juice to make the decision if the situation would have been reversed? Saying that NightEnd got the win would of course have been a harder decision. I'm not questioning TeamLiquid in any way just a though that came to my mind.

Off topic: I'm so excited for tomorrows games and so happy for ThorZaINs success!
@Hellspawnlord - hellspawn@rakaka.se - Editor of Rakaka.se - Head Admin of Dreamhack Starcraft 2
BaronFel
Profile Joined July 2009
United States155 Posts
March 20 2011 00:44 GMT
#627
On March 20 2011 09:28 Qaatar wrote:
Look at this from another perspective: what other standard can TSL use to judge "professional level?" If they use mathematical probability, we have already demonstrated the impossibility that such a standard would be fair throughout this thread (various scenarios have been explained in depth). So without that, what other standard is there? I feel like the assumption that BoxeR wouldn't suddenly go afk for no reason or play like a bronze-league noob is perfectly fine. In other words, whatever % chance BoxeR had for losing this game = impossibility.


Oh yea, no I'm fine with it. Just saying that I think that in the judges explanations for future occurrences, they should make it a point to highlight what level of play they expect when they "simulate" the game to decide on a decision. This could help clear things up for people who feel that the decision was wrong (whether it was biased or not looked at closely enough by the judges etc).
JackDino
Profile Joined July 2010
Gabon6219 Posts
March 20 2011 00:46 GMT
#628
On March 20 2011 09:39 VuFFeR wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 20 2011 09:27 JackDino wrote:
On March 20 2011 09:21 VuFFeR wrote:
On March 20 2011 09:12 JackDino wrote:
On March 20 2011 09:06 VuFFeR wrote:
On March 20 2011 08:55 Vorenius wrote:
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:
[quote]
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.

Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong.

No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that.

Exactly the same thing could've happened at an offline tournament. The only problem here is you thinking people dc on purpose, which is why there is a panel. If you would actually read the OP properly(You really haven't done that), you would know that dcing when you're winning wouldn't give you a win.
You want as little people as possible to judge yet you want to judge when to and when not to judge.
The people in the panel are professionals, if a single 1 of them would've said nightend could've won they would've rematched, a single one. If you would understand when people can and can't win you might make it up there.
Life isn't fair, better get used to it.


I have read the OP. Cheap shots aren't gonna get you anywhere. God i hate arguing with people who aren't interested in understanding eachother. There is no "winning" in this arguement if that's what you are looking for. We just have two way of seeing things.

That being said. BoxeR could (if he had known about this rule) have dc'ed deliberately to avoid that 1% chance of losing - even with the panel. You gotta take these things into account. Even if they are only hypothetical. Being a pro sc2 gamers doesn't neccesarily make you good at taking these kinds of decisions. They "can" be biased. I'd much rather watch BoxeR than NightEnd myself - if i were given the choice to let BoxeR go through... hell i would do it. Mainly because i'm such an irrational bastard. ^_^ - anyways ... only wasting time on this debate. I've made my point clear and so have you. I just hope that TL reevaluate the rules.

Good night.

The reason it's impossible to understand you is because you keep contradicting yourself, using different standarts that are fine according to YOU yet saying OTHERS aren't allowed to decide those exact things.
This isnt Broodwar so I dont owe anyone respect for beating me. -arb
Ludwigvan
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Germany2371 Posts
March 20 2011 00:50 GMT
#629
I love that nobody told the commentators that this would happen. "Hi, i am DJ Wheat ... I am only the messenger!" (please don't blame me). Not as awesome as the MSL power outage, but with the DJWheat guest appearance definitely entertaining.
Hellspawnl
Profile Joined June 2010
Sweden103 Posts
March 20 2011 00:54 GMT
#630
On March 20 2011 09:50 Ludwigvan wrote:
I love that nobody told the commentators that this would happen. "Hi, i am DJ Wheat ... I am only the messenger!" (please don't blame me). Not as awesome as the MSL power outage, but with the DJWheat guest appearance definitely entertaining.


For me it was obvious that it was staged and that Day[9] and Chill knew about it. I could of course be wrong but that was very clear to me. =D
@Hellspawnlord - hellspawn@rakaka.se - Editor of Rakaka.se - Head Admin of Dreamhack Starcraft 2
VuFFeR
Profile Joined September 2010
Denmark38 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-20 01:11:07
March 20 2011 01:00 GMT
#631
On March 20 2011 09:46 JackDino wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 20 2011 09:39 VuFFeR wrote:
On March 20 2011 09:27 JackDino wrote:
On March 20 2011 09:21 VuFFeR wrote:
On March 20 2011 09:12 JackDino wrote:
On March 20 2011 09:06 VuFFeR wrote:
On March 20 2011 08:55 Vorenius wrote:
On March 20 2011 08:46 VuFFeR wrote:
On March 20 2011 08:43 JackDino wrote:
On March 20 2011 08:40 VuFFeR wrote:
[quote]

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.

Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong.

No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that.

Exactly the same thing could've happened at an offline tournament. The only problem here is you thinking people dc on purpose, which is why there is a panel. If you would actually read the OP properly(You really haven't done that), you would know that dcing when you're winning wouldn't give you a win.
You want as little people as possible to judge yet you want to judge when to and when not to judge.
The people in the panel are professionals, if a single 1 of them would've said nightend could've won they would've rematched, a single one. If you would understand when people can and can't win you might make it up there.
Life isn't fair, better get used to it.


I have read the OP. Cheap shots aren't gonna get you anywhere. God i hate arguing with people who aren't interested in understanding eachother. There is no "winning" in this arguement if that's what you are looking for. We just have two way of seeing things.

That being said. BoxeR could (if he had known about this rule) have dc'ed deliberately to avoid that 1% chance of losing - even with the panel. You gotta take these things into account. Even if they are only hypothetical. Being a pro sc2 gamers doesn't neccesarily make you good at taking these kinds of decisions. They "can" be biased. I'd much rather watch BoxeR than NightEnd myself - if i were given the choice to let BoxeR go through... hell i would do it. Mainly because i'm such an irrational bastard. ^_^ - anyways ... only wasting time on this debate. I've made my point clear and so have you. I just hope that TL reevaluate the rules.

Good night.

The reason it's impossible to understand you is because you keep contradicting yourself, using different standarts that are fine according to YOU yet saying OTHERS aren't allowed to decide those exact things.


I see, my point is simply too advanced for you Jokes aside. Tbh. the only thing there is to understand is that i want to minimize the use of judges to the absolute minimum. To be VERY specific. And in this situation i didn't see the need for one, because there still was a chance of NightEnd winning. I think this game still was to uncertain to judge on. I think it should be even more obvious who is gonna win, before you go away from a rematch. I'm talking like 20 marauders vs 1 probe and a nexus. To me that would be okay to judge in BoxeR's favor. This game was still too open. Eventho' a panel said otherwise. - I know my opinion isn't "mainstream", but that's really how I feel. I'm not trying to piss anybody off, but this would just make so much more sense in "my" head. - In and ideal world we wouldn't need judges, but we do. The least we can do is to try to minimize the use of them.

EDIT: Typo
The only thing I know, is that I don't know anything
Crebstar
Profile Joined September 2010
United States151 Posts
March 20 2011 01:05 GMT
#632
I honestly believe the situation was handled correctly. Boxer had the game 95% won.
AdahnSC
Profile Joined March 2010
United States376 Posts
March 20 2011 01:09 GMT
#633
there were a few subtle things that make me certain boxer had won.

1) two turrets in the middle of the map to stop any sort of phoenix harassment after the upcoming battle

2) forge at 3rd base probably about to go down means no more upgrades for nightend who is already way behind in upgrades

3) nightend is gas starved. Almost every single comeback strategy requires a ton of gas he just wont have.

4) Boxer was scanning and looking at nightends army right before he disconnected. In all likelihood about to position his units appropriately, catch Nightend out of position and throw down 3 good EMPs.


I think the main thing is nightend being gas starved. A comeback requires options and with the low gas he has very few of them.
ReachTheSky
Profile Joined April 2010
United States3294 Posts
March 20 2011 01:10 GMT
#634
I'm curious as to why one person automatically gets the win and why its not a re-game if there is a possibility of one player winning
TL+ Member
mowglie
Profile Joined August 2010
United States74 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-20 01:13:36
March 20 2011 01:12 GMT
#635
On March 20 2011 10:10 ReachTheSky wrote:
I'm curious as to why one person automatically gets the win and why its not a re-game if there is a possibility of one player winning


1. Go back to page one.
2. Read original post
3. Watch replay
enzym
Profile Joined January 2010
Germany1034 Posts
March 20 2011 01:15 GMT
#636
On March 20 2011 10:10 ReachTheSky wrote:
I'm curious as to why one person automatically gets the win and why its not a re-game if there is a possibility of one player winning

I thought they already stated that in the OP. It's supposedly in order to prevent players from disconnecting with the intent of forcing a regame.
"I fart a lot, often on my gf in bed, then we roll around laughing for 5 mins choking in gas." — exog // "…be'master, the art of reflection. If you are not a thinking man, to what purpose are you a man at all?" — S. T. Coleridge
aimaimaim
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Philippines2167 Posts
March 20 2011 01:15 GMT
#637
I hate this when this happens to TSL .. QQ
Religion is a dying idea .. || 'E-sport' outside Korea are nerds who wants to feel like rockstars. || I'm not gonna fuck with trolls on General Forum ever again .. FUCK!
Seam
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States1093 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-20 01:18:29
March 20 2011 01:16 GMT
#638
I think people are forgetting that it's based on reasonable doubt.

There has to be no reasonable chance for nightend to come back, and there wasn't.

Yes, if Boxer a-moved into Nightend's army, then accidentally targeted his own units, while making all his workers stop mining, he could have lost. But these aren't reasonable mistakes to make.

There was a CHANCE. There will always be a CHANCE. If Nightend only had a pylon there is always the CHANCE that boxer will kill all his own buildings, but it's not reasonable to believe it.
I only needed one probe to take down idra. I had to upgrade to a zealot for strelok. - Liquid`Tyler
pigscanfly
Profile Joined April 2010
Singapore147 Posts
March 20 2011 01:18 GMT
#639
On March 20 2011 10:00 VuFFeR wrote:

I see, my point is simply too advanced for you Jokes aside. Tbh. the only thing there is to understand is that i want to minimize the use of judges to the absolute minimum. To be VERY specific. And in this situation i didn't see the need for one, because there still was a chance of NightEnd winning. I think this game still was to uncertain to judge on. I think it should be even more obvious who is gonna win, before you go away from a rematch. I'm talking like 20 marauders vs 1 probe and a nexus. To me that would be okay to judge in BoxeR's favor. This game was still too open. Eventho' a panel said otherwise. - I know my opinion isn't "mainstream", but that's really how I feel. I'm not trying to piss anybody off, but this would just make so much more sense in "my" head. - In and ideal world we wouldn't need judges, but we do. The least we can do is to try to minimize the use of them.

EDIT: Typo


I understand your point, but then who judges when we don't need judges? what if it's 20 marauders vs 1 probe, a nexus and a zealot? what if it's 5 zealots? you say it needs to be VERY SPECIFIC. who defines what very specific is?
zerat00l
Profile Joined April 2010
United States100 Posts
March 20 2011 01:18 GMT
#640
Good call, refs.
Prev 1 30 31 32 33 34 48 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 3h 16m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 177
ProTech70
StarCraft: Brood War
Leta 262
sSak 124
Noble 76
ToSsGirL 53
zelot 24
Bale 22
Icarus 7
League of Legends
JimRising 688
Counter-Strike
m0e_tv2103
Stewie2K966
Other Games
summit1g9661
hungrybox264
XaKoH 248
C9.Mang0195
NeuroSwarm41
trigger1
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1120
BasetradeTV46
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 41
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Sammyuel 25
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 1
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Rush1701
• Lourlo1007
• HappyZerGling86
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
3h 16m
Classic vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs Maru
Online Event
5h 16m
Kung Fu Cup
5h 16m
BSL Team Wars
12h 16m
RSL Revival
1d 3h
Maestros of the Game
1d 7h
ShoWTimE vs Classic
Clem vs herO
Serral vs Bunny
Reynor vs Zoun
Cosmonarchy
1d 9h
Bonyth vs Dewalt
[BSL 2025] Weekly
1d 11h
RSL Revival
2 days
Maestros of the Game
2 days
[ Show More ]
BSL Team Wars
2 days
Afreeca Starleague
3 days
Snow vs Sharp
Jaedong vs Mini
Wardi Open
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
Afreeca Starleague
4 days
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
LiuLi Cup
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Copa Latinoamericana 4
SEL Season 2 Championship
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
Chzzk MurlocKing SC1 vs SC2 Cup #2
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1

Upcoming

2025 Chongqing Offline CUP
BSL Polish World Championship 2025
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
EC S1
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.