EPTYour review system is also very good, props to you TeamLiquid!
[TSL] Day 1 Disconnect Situation - Page 34
| Forum Index > PokerStrategy.com TSL3 Forum |
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10366 Posts
Your review system is also very good, props to you TeamLiquid! | ||
|
mookku
Finland39 Posts
Really good job at handling of this situation and reporting of the whole process with such detail to the community. This is what will make or break e-sports in the future - the level of professionalism in these high profile tournaments; in the in-game action, in these types of rulings and of course in the production as well. Thank you for this, now let us get on with the tournament and see who will prevail! | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10366 Posts
Anyway, clutch star-sense by boxer... picking cloud that is Haha yeah I wonder... may be it has to do something with the replays being sent out first? I read the post but am a bit confused as to why sending the replays to the players first before confirming "participation" has any different. Either way the players don't know their opinions, so it's fine right? Or was the problem that they veto'd 2 players and then didn't have time to find 2 more, rather than veto'ing earlier and then sending the replay to a confirmed 5-player panel? | ||
|
Prinate
United States182 Posts
Has the TSL staff attempted or considered trying to arrange an emergency contact list of players deemed worthy of performing a review? I have no doubt that it would be potentially very difficult to find 5 quality people who are both willing and available to perform the review tasks at whatever hours this situation might occur. But there's no doubt that the SC2 player community helps each other out. Limiting the search to players logged into SC2 at the time or are personal contacts with the staff drastically reduces the number of qualified candidates. I don't think it would be unreasonably difficult to contact and find 15-20 players ahead of time who would give their cell # for the staff list and make the time to help out if they're called. Even if you asked them for hours they're willing to be contacted, 15 people likely means 4-5 would be awake to take the call, despite the server time. Assuming 3-4 of those contacts come through, you already have the core of your review team. Then you can search the servers to fill out the remaining needed players. As for tourney players in the review: Personally, I have no problem with TSL using other players from the tournament to form the review panel? Would/could it be better to have non-tourney players form the panel, assuming they are available? Sure, avoiding the opportunity for bias is a given that I think would be universally acknowledged. I think common sense dictates what can be reasonably expected; teammates shouldn't be allowed in a review panel, nor a player who would immediately benefit (matched up in the next round of bracket). I include the next round player simply because the cost of two less potential reviewers is less than the risk of said player possibly picking a race match-up. Any other player in the tournament that could be matched up later on is fair game in my opinion. Why? The tournament is already stacked. Even if you wanted to be bias, what is the marginal gain of potentially having an impact on 1 out 6 potential opponents (being matched up two rounds later). I also have no problem with using any eliminated players, assuming the players weren't eliminated by a player involved in the disc controversy. It should also be mentioned that players in (or were in) the tournament might be preferable for performing a review as they would more likely know the specifics of the disconnect rules (or for any other controversy). Any outside player would also require time to familiarize themselves with the specifics for this tournament. I'd also like to give my honest appreciation for the work and transparency with which TL does their business. As a federal employee of a ridiculous bureaucracy, transparency isn't even in the vocabulary. The TSL staff went miles beyond what is necessary in this situation. For an online videogame tournament, you guys do your work in a way that makes million dollar transactions seem childish. Volunteerism generally isn't done from being compelled, but rather the availability and desire to do so. I like to think that the reason TSL (and TL in general) does such a great job isn't because it's expected of them, but because they desire to be doing the most they can for their community. Kudos. | ||
|
Vorenius
Denmark1979 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? How is the fact that the decisision was wellfounded a bad thing? They didn't have to explain why boxer was winning, but they decided to do so to avoid people with less insight to not understand their reasoning. Probably in the hope that it would eliminate a potential shitstorm on the forums, aswell as to keep the whole process as fair and tranparent as possible. You still haven't explained when a player will be considered in a 100% winnable situation, without using judges qua my previous post. On March 20 2011 10:41 VuFFeR wrote: 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 "This game was still too open. Eventho' a panel said otherwise." You claim to know the game was open even though Morrow, Nazgul and CM all judged otherwise. How is that not insinuating you know better than them? I've presented my arguments reasonably and haven't put words in your mouth as you claim. You are the one doing the personal attacks, while evading the point of my previous post. | ||
|
CursedFeanor
Canada539 Posts
On March 20 2011 10:53 salvagebar wrote: 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. Thanks for typing this for me!  I especially appreciate the full transparency of TL in all of this. | ||
DivinO
United States4796 Posts
| ||
|
BGrael
Germany229 Posts
| ||
|
fueNN
Germany58 Posts
a 160 pop vs. 140 pop is never, in none of all the blizzard universes, an "absolute" win. 1 out of 2 unbiased players even confirmed that.. | ||
|
emythrel
United Kingdom2599 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:39 VuFFeR wrote: 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. Your argument is utter nonsense. Why would you DC deliberately if you think you have it 99% won? Only a coward or a moron would do that. You rarely know for sure if you have a game until you start killing buildings and nothing is coming to defend. At this point in the game Boxer probably thought he had it won, but he doesn't have all the information we have in the replay, they looked at the replay and concluded that under pro level conditions there was no reasonable way boxer could lose. also if you know for sure you have a game won and then deliberately DC you are running the risk of the panel ruling for a re-game, you would have given up a sure thing. If you think any player is that stupid, then I applaud you for your naivety. There is no advantage to be gained from DCing when you are in a winning position. If boxer DC'd because he thought he was losing, then you might have a point. DCing in that case might grant you a regame, and if it doesn't you knew you were losing and thats why you dc'd...... Thats not what happened here. You present your argument well and try to sound intelligent but you've completely missed the point of why someone would deliberately DC. No one in their right mind would DC from a winning position. Its like when people say we didn't go to the moon, they quote "facts" and sound quite convincing until you actually listen to what they are saying and realise they haven't understood the material. | ||
|
zerat00l
United States100 Posts
| ||
|
VuFFeR
Denmark38 Posts
| ||
|
Beatus
Canada101 Posts
I'm pretty sure you guys could have find pro players not playing in TSL3 | ||
|
Zeri
United States773 Posts
Well done. | ||
|
recklessfire
United States373 Posts
your basing it only off 160 vs 140. Look at what was present at the disconnect. 19 Marauders with ghosts and medivacs vs 15 stalkers with one zealot. No templar upgrades for the toss units. The templar tech wasnt even up. How was nightend going to defend his gold expo against a superior number marauder army with only 15 stalkers with no blink? Looking at the food count, nightend probably had more workers than boxer, that why it seems closer than it actually was | ||
|
Ftrunkz
Australia2474 Posts
| ||
|
SlapMySalami
United States1060 Posts
goooood now can someone edit that ending into the vod and maybe have nightend throw in a gg =D On March 20 2011 11:30 fueNN wrote: allowing just three players to judge the game, two of them even being in the same tournament, a potential quarter-finals opponent. seriously, whoever is responsible for this, should retire immediatly. a 160 pop vs. 140 pop is never, in none of all the blizzard universes, an "absolute" win. 1 out of 2 unbiased players even confirmed that.. did you read op? 18 food was in useless phoenixes | ||
|
VuFFeR
Denmark38 Posts
On March 20 2011 11:35 emythrel wrote: Your argument is utter nonsense. Why would you DC deliberately if you think you have it 99% won? Only a coward or a moron would do that. You rarely know for sure if you have a game until you start killing buildings and nothing is coming to defend. At this point in the game Boxer probably thought he had it won, but he doesn't have all the information we have in the replay, they looked at the replay and concluded that under pro level conditions there was no reasonable way boxer could lose. also if you know for sure you have a game won and then deliberately DC you are running the risk of the panel ruling for a re-game, you would have given up a sure thing. If you think any player is that stupid, then I applaud you for your naivety. There is no advantage to be gained from DCing when you are in a winning position. If boxer DC'd because he thought he was losing, then you might have a point. DCing in that case might grant you a regame, and if it doesn't you knew you were losing and thats why you dc'd...... Thats not what happened here. You present your argument well and try to sound intelligent but you've completely missed the point of why someone would deliberately DC. No one in their right mind would DC from a winning position. Its like when people say we didn't go to the moon, they quote "facts" and sound quite convincing until you actually listen to what they are saying and realise they haven't understood the material. Dont you get me started on the moon!  In the rules you have to take any possibility into consideration. Even deliberately dc'ing when winning - as stupid as it may sound. But yeah, i'm maybe not the smartest person alive, yet i do know deliberately dc'ing while losing would be a bigger issue. | ||
|
Eyx
England165 Posts
| ||
|
adeezy
United States1428 Posts
Of course I don't know because we didn't get to see what they said but I just hope they don't choose a panel who don't have bias or prejudice because it's a possbility | ||
| ||
