EPT[TSL] Day 1 Disconnect Situation - Page 37
| Forum Index > PokerStrategy.com TSL3 Forum |
|
SgtPepper
United States568 Posts
| ||
|
[Atomic]Peace
United States451 Posts
| ||
|
Bulkers
Poland509 Posts
Then FIFA is asking other countries that play in this cup, "Look guys he broke his leg, but he almost got it, how do you think if he didnt broke his leg would he score the goal?" We are all missing the point. Boxer disconnects. In the event of a disconnect the referee will ask the players about what they think the result of the game should be (regame/win/loss). If both players can agree on the result then that result will stand. I wanna know what they said about the game, I'm 100% sure Nightend said regame and Boxer said win (honor would suggest him to ask for regame). As far as I see in European tournaments when player drops no matter how far he was, he is asking his opponent if its ok to regame, or else he lost because he disconnect. And there is no rule on "How we pick members to the panel" is very very bad, how honestly you can ask other players that play in this tournament? You cant ask people that are in "circle of interest" or same nationality or same clan. Anyways absolute win is a situation where winner is destroying last buildings of his opponent or he destroys his entire army and he have no eco or buildings to remake it. You cant say what would Boxer do, your not him, maybe he would split his army and go for both expansions, maybe he would miss click or double stim, or forgot his vikings, or he would wait 15 sec before attack so all this 10 pheonix would have mana to lift. You cant look at the game from pure mathematic perspective. | ||
|
Gotmog
Serbia899 Posts
No blink/charge (hence no 2/2/3/3), massing pheonix and collosi, whit so liitle ground support, it seemed to me that pure marauder army could have rolled through all those unprotected collosus, going to that late game with council tech... By doing all that he basicly removed any chance of a comeback once his army was dead. I don't see how he could have come back without i dunno...blink/charge to prevent kiting, money storms/feedbacks on ghosts...etc. | ||
|
Tegin
United States840 Posts
| ||
|
Eeeegor
Australia809 Posts
| ||
|
Baerinho
Germany257 Posts
On March 20 2011 17:35 Tegin wrote: Very well handled by the TL staff. I'd only suggest using a panel of players who are not active in the same tournament. This seems to be the overwhelming consensus amongst posters in this thread, i basicly posted the same. And since the teamliquid guys are actually quite smart  , i think that something like that will/might happen | ||
|
barkles
United States285 Posts
On March 20 2011 14:24 MechaCthulhu wrote: First of all, I agree completely with the judges' ruling. It's clear Boxer was far, far ahead in the game at the point he dropped. However, I disagree with the policy. I really don't like how by disconnect while way ahead, a player can remove their chance of making a mistake that costs them the game. To be sure, the current policy doesn't allow a player to get just barely ahead and then disconnect, but in my eyes, any situation other than "the disconnecting player about to destroy the other player's last few buildings, while the other player doesn't have any army or workers" should be a re-game. It just does not seem fair to take away a player's chance to win, no matter how slim that chance is. The player will have no idea exactly how far ahead he is, or if there are small factors that could influence the panel's decision of which he is not aware. In a situation in which a player believes he is in strong enough position to warrant a unanimous decision from a panel, it would certainly be safer for that player to play out the game; for example, suppose the other player had hidden tech or expansion(s), or an incoming drop, or a key upgrade about to finish, or any number of other things. These are things which will (for the most part) be outside of the opposing player's sight, and are all things that could sway a decision from "this game is absolutely lost" to "well...he could come back if that drop/expo/tech works out really well." Then it could go to a regame, which would certainly be worse for the intentionally disconnecting player. I think that the current policy does an excellent job of preventing intentional DCs, and to be perfectly honest, it would take a hugely idiotic and risk-taking player to attempt to disconnect on purpose while in a commanding position to try to win via panel decision. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On March 20 2011 17:31 Bulkers wrote: You cant say what would Boxer do, your not him, maybe he would split his army and go for both expansions, maybe he would miss click or double stim, or forgot his vikings, or he would wait 15 sec before attack so all this 10 pheonix would have mana to lift. You cant look at the game from pure mathematic perspective. It's especially weird since Boxer himself in his post game interview gave Nightend a 20% chance of taking the game and Boxer of all people should know especially after watching the replay. He's not to blame though, I understand if he doesn't know of every rule and would rather leave it to the referees. But didn't they even ask what he thought of the situation? It doesn't make sense. | ||
|
zestzorb
Thailand776 Posts
1. The original panel should consist of 7 referees, with players being compulsory to veto the panel down to 5 members. - This prevent the vetoed referees from being replaced with "more biased" ones in view of the players. 2. The panel should never include players from this tournament. - Apparent conflicts of interest. This is a major flaw in this process. 3. The panel should not know the identity of the players. - Thus, the panel's decision can never be based on any assumption regarding the skills of the players. This should greatly contribute to the impartiality of the judgment. | ||
|
Ghazwan
Netherlands444 Posts
On March 20 2011 18:02 zestzorb wrote: 3. The panel should not know the identity of the players. - Thus, the panel's decision can never be based on any assumption regarding the skills of the players. This should greatly contribute to the impartiality of the judgment. How are they gonna do that? They gotta watch the replay after all. | ||
|
Leviance
Germany4079 Posts
The game was decided by the panel system used by the TSL... I feel terrible for NightEnd, and I don't feel that great about it myself. But if I had to say, I thought I had around an 8:2 lead in game 1. Sounds like he would have been ok with a regame. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On March 20 2011 18:02 zestzorb wrote: 3. The panel should not know the identity of the players. - Thus, the panel's decision can never be based on any assumption regarding the skills of the players. This should greatly contribute to the impartiality of the judgment. In a perfect world yes but how do you review a replay without seeing the player names? | ||
|
zerglingsfolife
United States1694 Posts
On March 20 2011 18:02 zestzorb wrote: I love the transparency and professionalism displayed in this incident by TL. Though I see some room for improvement. 1. The original panel should consist of 7 referees, with players being compulsory to veto the panel down to 5 members. - This prevent the vetoed referees from being replaced with "more biased" ones in view of the players. 2. The panel should never include players from this tournament. - Apparent conflicts of interest. This is a major flaw in this process. 3. The panel should not know the identity of the players. - Thus, the panel's decision can never be based on any assumption regarding the skills of the players. This should greatly contribute to the impartiality of the judgment. #3 How can you hide names on a replay? Also, many pro players would be able to tell who is playing by the matchup and the style used. | ||
|
Caladbolg
2855 Posts
| ||
|
zestzorb
Thailand776 Posts
On March 20 2011 18:04 Longshank wrote: In a perfect world yes but how do you review a replay without seeing the player names? I completely forgot this issue. Maybe you could put something over the name box as Day9 and some other casters do to avoid spoiling the duration of the game? On March 20 2011 18:07 Caladbolg wrote: Conflict of interest is not a major flaw, it's a fact of life. Why do you think people get convicted of rape on the testimony of just 1 person (the victim) who obviously has a conflict of interest to protect, as she initiated the complaint? The important thing is transparency and full disclosure. I bet the judge would not be a close relative of the victim, would he? While transparency plays a crucial role in promoting the understanding of the public, minimizing the actual conflict of interest (or even the appearance thereof) is also very important. | ||
|
Caladbolg
2855 Posts
On March 20 2011 18:36 zestzorb wrote: I completely forgot this issue. Maybe you could put something over the name box as Day9 and some other casters do to avoid spoiling the duration of the game? I bet the judge would not be a close relative of the victim, would he? While transparency plays a crucial role in promoting the understanding of the public, minimizing the actual conflict of interest (or even the appearance thereof) is also very important. I completely agree, but it's not a major flaw (especially in this case). Of course if a panelist were, say, a teammate of Boxer, then conflict of interest should disqualify him. The circumstances here were very different. I refer to Hot_Bid's post explaining why the particular panelists were chosen. You can't very well have the players wait too long for a completely uninvolved panel to be created. That would be a logistical nightmare. That said, if this happens again, I'm sure improvements can be made as to the procedure. As a first response, TL did very well. | ||
|
sc2olorin
292 Posts
Also very pleased that Morrow was one of the five on the panel, as his knowledge of this game and ability to analyze it has never failed to amaze me. | ||
|
Ironsights
United States196 Posts
However, with the rule set laid out and the opinions of the judges fully viewable, I am more than OK with this choice. You kept everything fair and transparent, including what you will do different next time. Tough luck that the game dropped, that really sucks, but big props to the TSL staff for handling this professionally. | ||
|
NeoR
Norway24 Posts
| ||
| ||
