• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 22:32
CEST 04:32
KST 11:32
  • 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
Code S Season 2 - RO4 & Finals Results (2025)0Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy4Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic7Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru3
Community News
Weekly Cups (June 9-15): herO doubles on GSL week0Firefly suspended by EWC, replaced by Lancer8Classic & herO RO8 Interviews: "I think it’s time to teach [Rogue] a lesson."2Rogue & GuMiho RO8 interviews: "Lifting that trophy would be a testament to all I’ve had to overcome over the years and how far I’ve come on this journey.8Code S RO8 Results + RO4 Bracket (2025 Season 2)14
StarCraft 2
General
How herO can make history in the Code S S2 finals Firefly suspended by EWC, replaced by Lancer Rain's Behind the Scenes Storytime Code S Season 2 - RO4 & Finals Results (2025) Weekly Cups (June 9-15): herO doubles on GSL week
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $3,500 WardiTV European League 2025 [GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Semi Finals & Finals WardiTV Mondays Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] Darkgrid Layout
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 478 Instant Karma Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ ASL20 Preliminary Maps BW General Discussion Recent recommended BW games FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL20] ProLeague Bracket Stage - Day 4
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile Beyond All Reason What do you want from future RTS games?
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
Vanilla Mini Mafia TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine UK Politics Mega-thread Echoes of Revolution and Separation Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 32485 users

[TSL] Day 1 Disconnect Situation - Page 34

Forum Index > PokerStrategy.com TSL3 Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 32 33 34 35 36 48 Next All
Yoshi Kirishima
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States10324 Posts
March 20 2011 02:08 GMT
#661
Wow TL, once again I am impressed! Great work! This is exactly what people want; transparency. And you guys do everything so clearly, deeply, and simply professionally.

Your review system is also very good, props to you TeamLiquid!
Mid-master streaming MECH ONLY + commentary www.twitch.tv/yoshikirishima +++ "If all-in fails, all-in again."
mookku
Profile Joined October 2010
Finland39 Posts
March 20 2011 02:09 GMT
#662
Go TeamLiquid!

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
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States10324 Posts
March 20 2011 02:13 GMT
#663
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?
Mid-master streaming MECH ONLY + commentary www.twitch.tv/yoshikirishima +++ "If all-in fails, all-in again."
Prinate
Profile Joined October 2010
United States182 Posts
March 20 2011 02:16 GMT
#664
Most of my points will be repetitive, so I'll mention what I think (skimmed all the pages, too much bickering to read everything carefully) is my only new suggestion first:

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
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
Denmark1979 Posts
March 20 2011 02:17 GMT
#665
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
Profile Joined August 2010
Canada539 Posts
March 20 2011 02:24 GMT
#666
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
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States4796 Posts
March 20 2011 02:27 GMT
#667
Good situation. Sorry NightEnD.
LiquipediaBrain in my filth.
BGrael
Profile Joined November 2010
Germany229 Posts
March 20 2011 02:28 GMT
#668
I want to complement TL Staff on this. I think I have never seen such a situation handled as well thought out, with as much common sense and as transparent. I did not watch the games unfortunately, but after reading this thread I'm sure the decision was fair. I have enough time this sunday to watch all the games, and I'm so looking forward to this.
fueNN
Profile Joined July 2010
Germany58 Posts
March 20 2011 02:30 GMT
#669
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..
emythrel
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United Kingdom2599 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-20 02:38:40
March 20 2011 02:35 GMT
#670
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.


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.
When there is nothing left to lose but your dignity, it is already gone.
zerat00l
Profile Joined April 2010
United States100 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-20 02:37:22
March 20 2011 02:36 GMT
#671
I won't point fingers or degrade into social commentary, but it bears mentioning that It brings a sense of order and stability to my universe to know that that MC, the best protons in the world by any reasonable standard, is like "naw dude, the protoss has absolutely 100% lost here, here's a list of reasons why that's obvious to me," and in spite of that there will STILL be TL posts about how the game wasn't decided yet, because boxer *could have* keeled over and died in his chair.
VuFFeR
Profile Joined September 2010
Denmark38 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-20 02:40:05
March 20 2011 02:38 GMT
#672
I just disagree with the margin at which the game was considered "absolutely" won. If you think that's equavilant with saying I know better than the pros, then i guess i feel like i do. I cant help to think that it is more unfair to NightEnd to get his "chance" taken away like this, than it would have been for BoxeR to get a rematch instead of the win. And now we are back to scratch. I just dont get how they can be so certain that NightEnd had absolutely no chance to turn it around. But on the other hand i'm not a progamer... i'm not even close.
The only thing I know, is that I don't know anything
Beatus
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada101 Posts
March 20 2011 02:38 GMT
#673
I think the decision was right but I don't think it should have been called by people playing in the same tournament as well as teammate and/or friends of players who play in the tournement.

I'm pretty sure you guys could have find pro players not playing in TSL3
?
Zeri
Profile Joined March 2010
United States773 Posts
March 20 2011 02:38 GMT
#674
Transparency is the most important thing in these sticky situations. I really appreciate TL's proactive approach and transparent methods in order to handle this situation as professionally as possible.

Well done.
You can think I'm wrong, but that's no reason to quit thinking.
recklessfire
Profile Joined September 2010
United States373 Posts
March 20 2011 02:40 GMT
#675
@fuenn

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
Profile Blog Joined April 2007
Australia2474 Posts
March 20 2011 02:41 GMT
#676
losing on upgrades, econ, army size and having 1 robo, no archives, blink or charge, i dont see how anyone could operate under the assumption that is winnable for the protoss player.
@NvPinder on twitter | Member of Gamecom Nv | http://www.clan-ta.com | http://www.youtube.com/user/ftrunkz | http://www.twitchtv.com/xghpinder
SlapMySalami
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1060 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-20 02:50:04
March 20 2011 02:47 GMT
#677


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
marineking will u huk my bigtt1 ilu
VuFFeR
Profile Joined September 2010
Denmark38 Posts
March 20 2011 02:49 GMT
#678
On March 20 2011 11:35 emythrel 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.


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.
The only thing I know, is that I don't know anything
Eyx
Profile Joined December 2010
England165 Posts
March 20 2011 02:51 GMT
#679
I think Nazgul's explaination makes it quite clear, and his simulation of the fight is undisputable (considering terran even had more at home) and as MC says boxer could have simply gone for the main and ended the game strait up. I do agree with the comments that it shouldnt be judged by players in the TSL however. That being said it would be hard to get sombody who knows the protoss side of PvT better than oGsMC.
adeezy
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States1428 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-20 03:09:54
March 20 2011 03:06 GMT
#680
I don't know what mym cloud said. But I can help feel that if he had an argument to the contrary of what was presented, I'd have to think he's possibly biased. Especially considering the standpoint he had of having Koreans in the nasl (in which he was against it since he says they don't do anything to participate in our scene, along with other reasons).

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
I asked my friend how the ratio at a party was, he replied. "Let's just say for every guy there was two dudes."
Prev 1 32 33 34 35 36 48 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Replay Cast
00:00
2025 GSL S2 - Ro8 Group B
CranKy Ducklings130
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft742
Nina 145
ROOTCatZ 90
Ketroc 48
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 15400
Artosis 844
HiyA 155
Sharp 75
Icarus 12
ajuk12(nOOB) 7
Dota 2
monkeys_forever654
LuMiX1
League of Legends
Trikslyr86
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K785
Other Games
summit1g5800
C9.Mang01069
shahzam804
WinterStarcraft424
Maynarde143
Mew2King106
Temp014
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1730
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH287
• practicex 1
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Stunt183
Other Games
• Scarra945
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
7h 28m
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
WardiTV Qualifier
13h 28m
PiGosaur Monday
21h 28m
RSL Revival
1d 7h
herO vs sOs
Zoun vs Clem
Replay Cast
1d 21h
The PondCast
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
Harstem vs SHIN
Solar vs Cham
Replay Cast
2 days
RSL Revival
3 days
Reynor vs Scarlett
ShoWTimE vs Classic
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
[ Show More ]
SC Evo League
4 days
Circuito Brasileiro de…
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #3 - GSC
2025 GSL S2
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
BLAST Open Fall 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
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.