[TSL] Day 1 Disconnect Situation - Page 36

On March 20 2011 08:10 Longshank wrote:


This proves you truly not get it. Giving Nightend the win was never the question.

If Nightend has 1% of winning the game and Boxer D/C you can't punish Nightend for it by taking away that 1% so a regame would be the only option.

On March 20 2011 12:58 Chill wrote:

LOL why do people keep making up wild statements like this every TSL? When Boxer left I couldn't figure out what the fuck happened and when Wheat started talking all I could think about was "Why the fuck is Wheat talking?"

On March 20 2011 17:02 Caladbolg wrote:
So strange that it's this thread that made me register on TL. Useless context: I've been lurking TL since 2004 (temporarily left right after oov defeated boxer) and returned 2009. Never bother to register and post because reading the forums is already very time-consuming for a law student. That said, I feel quite strongly about this and will be writing quite a bit. Sorry.

Every dispute must be resolved. That is a basic fact of life. Historically, this was accomplished by force of arms. However, the best alternative that humankind has come up with so far has been law. Law, and rules to a lesser extent, have always been there as the last option before resorting to violence. Some people call it the last civilized measure to achieve justice.

I'm not trying to make an esoteric point, but the issue of the disconnect HAD to be resolved in some form. That is the basic premise underlying this present dispute. Now, what should govern its resolution? The OP is clear: the rulebook, which every player, upon entering the TSL agreed upon. In that sense, they gave their consent to be bound by the rules created by TeamLiquid. Hot_Bid is a Michigan University lawyer - I'm pretty sure he wouldn't allow these possibilities to be left to arbitrariness.

Hence, the creation of the panel. I DO AGREE that the best way to choose an arbitral panel (which is what this is, by analogy) would be to choose from non-participants. Impartiality is the centerpiece of both national and domestic arbitration and litigation. HOWEVER, assailing the partiality of a panel member is ALWAYS waivable (estoppel sees to that). The fact that there was a veto procedure for one panelist is already a sign that TL recognized this and gave each player a power beyond what is normally given militates against the argument that the panel exercises too much power. Moreover, the fact that one vote can entail a re-game already gives a substantial advantage to the party who was losing the battle.

This is not (yet) a dispute that needs legalism. The players who comprised the panel gave a very good explanation for their decision. I am very impressed by Nazgul and Morrow - they write decisions better than some judges. The vote was unanimous. It was substantiated with evidence.

Now, the main argument against the decision seems to be reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt that yes, there was a possibility that Nightend would win. Reasonable doubt that yes, there was a possibility that Boxer would throw the game away.

However people have to understand this standard (which is applied to criminal convictions all throughout the world): this is not ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. It is a moral certainty that, on the basis of the arguments and evidence, there is no reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. "Reasonable" is defined primarily by logic and human experience. Thus, on the strength of logic (shown by Nazgul's video and the excellent analysis by Morrow) and experience (shown by the pro-gamers who were part of the panel), there is clearly moral certainty that Boxer would win the game.

If this standard did not exist, then law would get nowhere, and no one would fear the consequences of violating the law or rules because you can always argue on possibility. Law is based on PROBABILITY. In much the same way, TSL decisions are based on PROBABILITY. Leave certainty to the scientists and mathematicians. In life, nothing is certain except death and taxes.

At the end of the day, the decision was the most JUST decision possible, given the context, the rules that exist, and the evidence available. Hat's off to TL: they've established a precedent worth of emulation by any legitimate tournament organizer. Human justice is not absolute justice, but it is fair, as dictated by the standards of reason. I think no one can expect anything less. And TL did not give anything less.

TL DR: The decision was consistent with justice as understood in a legal framework (even in an international sense), and this was not even a legal dispute. So you have to commend TL for establishing standards far beyond what is expected of them.

Now as to recommendations, I only have one: perhaps you could make it similar to arbitration rules (UNCITRAL?), wherein both sides choose one arbitrator, and both arbitrators choose a third one, and a majority vote will decide the issue at hand. Of course, you could still retain the veto in this kind of procedure. I don't really like the fact that the opinion of one panelist can decide the entire thing.

Sorry for such a long first post. Thanks for your time.

PS: The comment by Prae and Nightend is harmless and should be expected. I hope you guys won't crucify them for that. I'm sure the entire issue was frustrating for everyone involved and emotions are bound to get in the way.