|
On March 20 2011 10:00 VuFFeR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 09:46 JackDino wrote: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:
[quote]
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
Yeah 20 marauders versus 1 probe and it's obvious who will win of course.
And 20 maraduers versus 1 stalker and it's still obvious.
Then 20 marauders versus 2 stalker. versus 10 stalkers. etc..
So you just need someone to come in and judge wether or not it's obvious who wins a certain game. Well guess what. That's exactly what happened!
The fact that you think you know better than Morrow, Nazgul and MC (yes, that is what you just said) really makes the mind boggle. They said boxer was obviously gonna win. You say he wasn't. Well sorry, if I take the double GSL champion's word over yours.
You are essentially proposing the exact thing that happened, you just haven't bothered to think it through and see what it would actually mean. You even admit this yourself in the latest post, even if you don't realise it yourself.
EDIT: You making jokes about people not understanding your posts, while you don't even understand what your own suggestion denotes = priceless 
|
On March 20 2011 10:00 VuFFeR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 09:46 JackDino wrote: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:
[quote]
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
Your point isn't advanced at all, it's actually very simple. It's great that you want to minimize using judges, but that just is not the best solution. This is real life, where choices are not just black and white. This is why the whole civilized world uses judges. It is the best possible solution we have, TL used this solution. The only thing you can argue is that they didn't use the best possible judges, but with time constraints and both players agreeing to this, they used what they had.
You contradict yourself saying they should not rematch for disconnects that you yourself are judging to be 100% over. So why do you get to judge? You could actually say no game is 100% even one void ray vs a floating cc, if you want to be particular about it. Therefore you either have to claim every disconnect as a rematch or use outside judges to determine it.
|
I would say this is the best protocol possible for dealing with a dc. Im no expert but the players arguments were definitely compelling enough. Still would've been interesting to se clouds arguments.
Anyway, clutch star-sense by boxer... picking cloud that is
|
The point of argueing is to make eachother smarter.
Now that being said, yeah i realize that i have changed my statements slightly, but the bottomline has been the same all along. Avoid subjective win/lose decisions at all costs. Now tbh. i can see it won't work to just play rematch no matter what, but in this specific case we still had two armies on the map. The fact that the panel had to write long posts about why and how boxer would have won, just proves that there was a chance of NightEnd winning. Else they wouldn't have had to go so much into details. Imagine them(the panel) doing the same thing if there was only a probe and a nexus left vs 20 marauders. They wouldn't now would they?
I have never stated that i know better than Morrow, Nazgul and MC... in fact i've done the exact opposite. I said I was an irrational bastard. I have no idea why you cant argue as an adult. Putting words in my mouth, threatning me with bans etc... not nice! T_T
|
very good decision imo, and we as a community appreciate that you guys gave us all an explanation of the decision. keep up the good work.
|
The players agree the rules beforehand, and had the opportunity to know who was on the panel, and given veto privileges.
Based on the fact that the rules were agreed upon by both players in advance of the games...I'd say any argument is irrelevant.
Props to TL for making this as transparent as possible.
|
One of the reasons why I love TL.
|
I think the process is right but I don't agree with the judgement. I've watched thousands of replays and losing one battle doesn't always determine the outcome of the game. The p still had good eco and was reinforcing his cannoned expo. He would have been able to fend off boxer since he would be reinforcing from gateways close by where as boxer would have to send units across the map. The game ultimately would have been decided later on by something else. I think a replay of game 2 was the correct decision. My suggestion is to give the player with a disadvantage a little more benefit of the doubt.
|
On March 20 2011 09:35 quirinus wrote:Show nested quote +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)
It's pretty clear that those were indeed their opinions.
|
Singapore147 Posts
On March 20 2011 10:41 VuFFeR wrote:
The point of argueing is to make eachother smarter.
Now that being said, yeah i realize that i have changed my statements slightly, but the bottomline has been the same all along. Avoid subjective win/lose decisions at all costs. Now tbh. i can see it won't work to just play rematch no matter what, but in this specific case we still had two armies on the map. The fact that the panel had to write long posts about why and how boxer would have won, just proves that there was a chance of NightEnd winning. Else they wouldn't have had to go so much into details. Imagine them(the panel) doing the same thing if there was only a probe and a nexus left vs 20 marauders. They wouldn't now would they?
I have never stated that i know better than Morrow, Nazgul and MC... in fact i've done the exact opposite. I said I was an irrational bastard. I have no idea why you cant argue as an adult. Putting words in my mouth, threatning me with bans etc... not nice! T_T
I find it funny that you admit that you're irrational in one sentence and ask us to argue like adults in the next.
Anyway, you still haven't answered who gets determines what a subjective win/loss situation is? What you're arguing for, and what other people have already pointed out, is that since you're no longer arguing for a rematch in all cases, in which case who decides when to rematch and when not to rematch? If you're going to say the people who are best qualified, that's exactly what TL have attempted to do in this case.
|
While watching the match I thought the decision was wrong, but I can't argue with the process and people who know a lot more than I do seem to think the match is over.
Congratulations on dealing with this issue in not only a fair, but also transparent way.
|
I appreciate the transparency on this.
Even during the games I agreed with the call, but its still nice to hear the thinking that went into it. <3 TL.
|
On March 20 2011 10:41 VuFFeR wrote:
The point of argueing is to make eachother smarter.
Now that being said, yeah i realize that i have changed my statements slightly, but the bottomline has been the same all along. Avoid subjective win/lose decisions at all costs. Now tbh. i can see it won't work to just play rematch no matter what, but in this specific case we still had two armies on the map. The fact that the panel had to write long posts about why and how boxer would have won, just proves that there was a chance of NightEnd winning. Else they wouldn't have had to go so much into details. Imagine them(the panel) doing the same thing if there was only a probe and a nexus left vs 20 marauders. They wouldn't now would they?
I have never stated that i know better than Morrow, Nazgul and MC... in fact i've done the exact opposite. I said I was an irrational bastard. I have no idea why you cant argue as an adult. Putting words in my mouth, threatning me with bans etc... not nice! T_T
I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Think of some physical sporting events and how they use judges. It might put this in better perspective. Sometimes it comes down to humans to make an opinion call, this happens all the time in the real world in all kinds of different sports. It's something that is inevitable. The rules were there before the event and they stood by them, if you can accept judges calling sports such as boxing, you should have no problem having matches being judged in SC2 where it's far more easier.
|
If only many companies, especially those that ran MMO's, had panels that had this much in-depth knowledge about their game, and this much confidence in their authority and ability to mediate disputes. Most of all, I am very impressed at the willingness to act decisively and with so much transparency.
Kudos TeamLiquid. You just gained a lot of respect from me.
|
Well with two "okayish" armies left on the map, i think it's unfair to call it a win for BoxeR.
If i had just come to that conclusion right away, we had probably not been discussion now. But yeah, debating with my roomie made me realize a thing or two.
Cant you say you are an irrational bastard in an adult arguement? Im pretty sure you can.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On March 20 2011 10:41 VuFFeR wrote:
The point of argueing is to make eachother smarter.
Now that being said, yeah i realize that i have changed my statements slightly, but the bottomline has been the same all along. Avoid subjective win/lose decisions at all costs. Now tbh. i can see it won't work to just play rematch no matter what, but in this specific case we still had two armies on the map. The fact that the panel had to write long posts about why and how boxer would have won, just proves that there was a chance of NightEnd winning. Else they wouldn't have had to go so much into details. Imagine them(the panel) doing the same thing if there was only a probe and a nexus left vs 20 marauders. They wouldn't now would they?
I have never stated that i know better than Morrow, Nazgul and MC... in fact i've done the exact opposite. I said I was an irrational bastard. I have no idea why you cant argue as an adult. Putting words in my mouth, threatning me with bans etc... not nice! T_T
We get it; you want all results decided in game.. But how can you just ignore the 19min that happened and the clear advantage that BoxeR had. Personally i tipped Nightend in an upset, so the outcome doesn't make me happy but at the end of the day TL has taken the most professional and unbias approach to the situation.
Subjective decisions are never going to be the best method of determination but that is why there is a panel; your whole argument is based on an entire 19min game (which is a long game in SC2 standards) to be ignored, which is simply unacceptable.
We appreciate the way you have approached this TL and the ways that you have kept the community informed
<3333
|
On March 20 2011 10:52 Kvothe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 10:41 VuFFeR wrote:
The point of argueing is to make eachother smarter.
Now that being said, yeah i realize that i have changed my statements slightly, but the bottomline has been the same all along. Avoid subjective win/lose decisions at all costs. Now tbh. i can see it won't work to just play rematch no matter what, but in this specific case we still had two armies on the map. The fact that the panel had to write long posts about why and how boxer would have won, just proves that there was a chance of NightEnd winning. Else they wouldn't have had to go so much into details. Imagine them(the panel) doing the same thing if there was only a probe and a nexus left vs 20 marauders. They wouldn't now would they?
I have never stated that i know better than Morrow, Nazgul and MC... in fact i've done the exact opposite. I said I was an irrational bastard. I have no idea why you cant argue as an adult. Putting words in my mouth, threatning me with bans etc... not nice! T_T I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Think of some physical sporting events and how they use judges. It might put this in better perspective. Sometimes it comes down to humans to make an opinion call, this happens all the time in the real world in all kinds of different sports. It's something that is inevitable. The rules were there before the event and they stood by them, if you can accept judges calling sports such as boxing, you should have no problem having matches being judged in SC2 where it's far more easier.
Ye well i get your point. I just think it was a wrong call and hence a wrong use of judges that could and should have been avoided.
|
your professionalism and transparency throughout handling this issued is unparalleled. great explanations with great analysis. gj
|
What i love about this thread is the best protoss in the world goes through it says 'no its just not winnable, boxer should be awarded the win GG'
but mr John Smith from Silver league, gold league, diamond or wherever they're from see's the games and goes 'NO! He's wrong. Nazguls evidence is wrong! Morrow is wrong! MC? He doesn't know shit about protoss!' can't help but laugh abit
And also loving the professionalism by TL, you're showing why you're the best community on the Internets. My hat is off to you sirs
|
The best decision of the day award has to go to Boxer. Very prescient veto.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
