EPT[TSL] Day 1 Disconnect Situation - Page 38
| Forum Index > PokerStrategy.com TSL3 Forum |
|
ThunderGod
New Zealand897 Posts
| ||
|
Mataza
Germany5364 Posts
The lack of tech by protoss, the 1/1 vs 0/0 upgrade situation all eluded my knowledge. The fact that the expansion was deader than dinosaurs was clear though^^ zestzorb wrote: ... 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 is unpractical. #1 and #2 would be much better in my opinion, though #2 is probably hard to get by on the fly. But if #1 and #2 were given, you could have a referee council in advance for the whole tournament. | ||
|
Mr.Loki
Germany136 Posts
There will always be some subjectivity in the decisions, so the most important thing is to get many different people, to make the whole decision as independent as possible. With this I for example think, that taking MC in the panel was a really great choice. Specially in the TSL3, where you have more or less the best players from literally all around the world the best candidates to jugde a situation like this play in the tournament. I as a watcher prefer reading the opinion of a well-kown person like Nazgul (who isn't a player here, but a teammanager is probably not a more neutral person per se), as the opinion of the first bunch of better players that are randomly found... | ||
|
DisaFear
Australia4074 Posts
| ||
|
ropumar
Brazil111 Posts
Liquid`Nazgul did a professional job with his explanation and analysis, he articulate perfectly and is deserving of by praise on this matter. TeamLiquid handled the matter with a professionalism not even multi-billion dollar sport industries would. The transparency was to be praised and the replay file helped a lot. As for MC explanation I did thought was bit dry, but was well thought out even if not greatly articulated. Morrow's explanation was too confuse for my taste, although really show he made a big effort and also his focus on how boxer still was giving macro attention and the detailing of economy helped me understand the situation more. I would like to congratulate all of them for the effort and work they put in on something very sensitive like this. PS: day9 and chill commentary is amazingly good also. edit: ------ I would like to suggest for the panel to be of 3 players only since I fell that not only would be easier and faster to make a panel of 3, as is also better. I believe a panel of 5 is too big for unanimous decision to made when needed. I believe this particulate situation where the panel was only of 3 helped the process, and perhaps having 5 before vetoing and 3 after should be the new standard. ---- | ||
|
terrorist112358
12 Posts
What's even worse, you went ahead with a rule forbidding anyone to post a diagreement with it, unless they provide another way. Well then you ultimately ruined this thread into a backpatting joke. If plain disagreement is not tolerated and plain gratulations are, then the thread itself is biased beyond repair. I do beleive that hateful and agressive posts attacking the decision should be erased, but there is simply nothing wrong about stating a disagreement politely. If Teamliquid evaluates it's decision by the posts in this thread as correct, I am really worried for the future of this community. You simply told all that do not agree with the decision, even if they were polite, to shut up or be banned. Very nice and mature. My suggestion is, that the outcome of the panel should never award a loss to the player that did nothing wrong. The panel should only have two options: issue a re-match or award a loss to the player that failed to secure everything necessary to be able to participate (may it be a disconnect, laggy connection, slow pc, ...). The match should be decided on the field for the sake of us, the audience, and for the sake of fairness. A re-match between Nightend and Boxer would be thousand times more interresting for viewers than reading and writing all this text. Remember that next time Teamliquid. If Boxer won the remaining two matches 2:0, this matter would be much lighter. But it was 1:1 in the non-interrupted matches. The panel's decision decided the whole Bo3. Please arrange the rematch between Nightend and Boxer before the second part begins today. Let them decide the match on the field. I am sure that every viewer will be glad to see that. Don't let the TSL remain tainted in such a terrible way as it is now. Thank you. Martin | ||
|
TaKemE
Denmark1045 Posts
In his interview: 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. | ||
|
Azzur
Australia6260 Posts
| ||
|
Ziken
Ghana1743 Posts
| ||
|
MasterCassim
Germany38 Posts
On March 20 2011 20:15 TaKemE wrote: I agree with this decision but find it weird that Boxer himself dont think he had a 100% win: In his interview: He probably didn't watched the replay. | ||
|
clusen
Germany8702 Posts
Imo you can never give the win to the player who disced, it's just illogical and unfair. You are creating a ruleset that might get abused, judges can be biased(they don't have to participate in the tournament to be a bad choice as a judge, they just have to be a fan/friend of someone), and how can you punish NightEnd for something he can't have any effect on? If there is any person that can get punished by an error on Boxers side of things(if he disced intentionally or not does not matter here, it doesn't even matter if it was his fault or not) it can only be Boxer but not NightEnd. I don't like the rule, it is illogical and unfair in my opinion, and opens the door for abuse by the players/admins. But since the players accepted the rule in advance nobody can complain :p Imo this was a perfect example of a regame. Boxer had a huge advantage, but didn't win the game yet. Then he disced. So you give both players a little extra(Boxer a new chance even though he lost the last game by the disconnect, NightEnd a new chance because he was close to losing the last game). This is as fair as it can possibly get. Now you've just taken away the last (according to Boxer) 20% of NightEnd and gave them to Boxer, because Boxer disced. Not fair. | ||
|
Daigoro
Germany251 Posts
The one ambiguous statement comes from Nightend, I am not sure I understood it correctly. He and his clan don't wish to find Goliath, 'with no stones lying around'. So the Goliath could be the overwhelming opinion against Nightend or the overwhelming evidence in favor of Boxer. I think they rightly feel their obligation to defend their interest, but decline to do so because the rules and ruling are clear as can be. | ||
|
dakalro
Romania525 Posts
Cloud and Tyler never were asked for their opinions and never gave a decision/explanation, they were not part of the panel. The situation in the OP is only hypothetical, that is to explain how the decision making works. IT'S A HYPOTHETICAL: HAD CLOUD SAID REGAME AND TYLER WIN. Read OP carefully before posting shit like "I wanna hear why Cloud thought it should have been a regame". He never said that, he was never asked. On another note, Nazgul's sim pretty much showed that one of the paths Boxer could take would lead to certainly NightEnd being on 1 mining base that was left with 3k minerals, NightEnd had no gateway reinforcements on the way outside of the 15 stalkers and 1 zealot. | ||
|
n0ise
3452 Posts
On March 20 2011 20:08 ropumar wrote: I would like to suggest for the panel to be of 3 players only since I fell that not only would be easier and faster to make a panel of 3, as is also better. I believe a panel of 5 is too big for unanimous decision to made when needed. I believe this particulate situation where the panel was only of 3 helped the process, and perhaps having 5 before vetoing and 3 after should be the new standard. ---- Isn't this, though, the whole idea? Taking an extreme decision *only and only if* it is as clear as a blue summer sky for 5 people, unanimously? What, "when needed"? There's nothing needed, the scenario was someone losing a game through a disconnect and people needing to judge if he was sufficiently far ahead to be granted either a regame or even the win itself. And, as it's been said before, it was Nigthend's folly to agree on a 3-man panel, since most likely in a 5-man panel at least one person would have stated it's a regame. A bit funny how Boxer's iview kinda points to that with his 8:2 balance ^^ | ||
|
Grimmyman123
Canada939 Posts
Nazgul's simulation is just icing on the cake, reinforcing an opinion and making it fact. Very well done! Publicly, visibly, and clearly, a fair decision making process. | ||
|
Inflexion
Canada560 Posts
However, I do feel differently for how the next tournament should be 'ruled' or drawn up. My personal opinion is that whoever disconnects should get a loss immediately. Yes, it is 'directly' not their 'fault' that that person D/Ced. But, in most head to head sports (especially the big ones like tennis), if you can't play the game or suddenly leave, it's a loss. If you have to retire because you can't play or you're somehow injured, you get the big L. The tournament goes on. It's kind of harsh but it's tough love and there are other players that need to move on and other players that were able to deal with their connection issues and so forth. You may argue that disconnects are a part of e-sports/internet gaming, and I agree with you. The ISP of the disconnecting person may not be up to par or you just may have a bad stroke of luck. But fact of the matter is, you disconnected. If e-sports is to become as big as a sport as everyone hopes it to be one day, then everyone will have to draw the line somewhere. This is a sport of concrete results. It is based on score and a DIRECT outcome. Like in tennis, whoever wins best of 3/5 wins the match. Or in basketball, whoever has the highest score at the end of a certain time period wins the game. In SC2, whoever eliminates all of their opponents' buildings in 2/3 games is the victor of the match. The winner of a sc2 match is NOT decided by a panel of judges but by a concrete number. I feel like once you introduce judges to dictate the outcome of a match (like figure skating or gymnastics) it's unhealthy of a sport of this nature. Maybe I'm old-fashioned :S It is NOT like figure skating. In general, I think introducing judges/players/referees that can directly influence the outcome of a match when a disconnect happens introduces much more unnecessary controversy and bias to the tournament. I feel like tennis is the perfect analogy to SC2 pro gaming tournaments. You play a head to head series. There are inherent 'home and away' court advantages (clay court, hard court, grass court - latency issues on which server etc.). It is up to the player to adapt the situation. If a player has to forfeit a match because they are injured, it's similar to a player disconnecting. Tennis players get injured because of outside influences such as (unfoturnately) getting hit by a car (not within their power to control), or over training, or not finding the right coaches, or partying too much which are all similar to SC2 players having difficult finding the best ISP or the best computer, etc (for an online tournament). It's a different story when it comes to LAN. Example is the game betweeen JD and Flash when the MSL studio lost power. Then there is a case for a judge/panel to make a decision for regame or declaring a winner because neither players disconnected and it was the host's fault. Much like if a power shut down or there was a rain out during baseball game. But it is clear when one player disconnects. If BNET or the server crashed then this solution of a panel of judges would be warranted. However, if it is clear that one of the players disconnected (and not BNET's or the hosts fault), then the disconnecting player should acquire the loss. It is the onus of the player/participant of a sports tournament to be totally healthy (not injured), find the best connection possible, bring their best keyboard/mouse, be as lag free as possible, find the best ISP with least chance of disconnecting, etc.) Perhaps e-sports, following a model similar to what TL has established, will work out one day. However, I believe that in order for e-sports and sc2 to become as big as a 'true sport' it'll have to follow a model similar to one that is already tested and true. It's really hard to formuate what I'm trying to say into words but I hope it makes sense. | ||
|
Aflixion
United States191 Posts
On March 20 2011 20:15 terrorist112358 wrote: I beleive the decision was highly unprofessional. I don't beleive that Teamliquid will ever achieve high professionality without looking into the professional sports leagues for inspiration. Those leagues (football, ice hockey etc.) have decades of experience. And do they ever punish the visitors team if the hosts are unable to provide a proper environment for a match? No! They never award a loss to the team who was there, willing and ready, whatever way the match looked like. They have two simple rules: a) a match should be decided on the field instead of an office desk whenever possible b) each side is responsible for and required to secure everything necessary to be able to participate. They always preffer a re-match or a punishment to the side that failed to fullfil the second rule. They never punish the side that did nothing wrong. And there is logic behind that. What if Nightend invests heavily into his internet connection to have a superstable one and his opponent doesn't? Is it fair in such a situation to punish him? What's even worse, you went ahead with a rule forbidding anyone to post a diagreement with it, unless they provide another way. Well then you ultimately ruined this thread into a backpatting joke. If plain disagreement is not tolerated and plain gratulations are, then the thread itself is biased beyond repair. I do beleive that hateful and agressive posts attacking the decision should be erased, but there is simply nothing wrong about stating a disagreement politely. If Teamliquid evaluates it's decision by the posts in this thread as correct, I am really worried for the future of this community. You simply told all that do not agree with the decision, even if they were polite, to shut up or be banned. Very nice and mature. My suggestion is, that the outcome of the panel should never award a loss to the player that did nothing wrong. The panel should only have two options: issue a re-match or award a loss to the player that failed to secure everything necessary to be able to participate (may it be a disconnect, laggy connection, slow pc, ...). The match should be decided on the field for the sake of us, the audience, and for the sake of fairness. A re-match between Nightend and Boxer would be thousand times more interresting for viewers than reading and writing all this text. Remember that next time Teamliquid. If Boxer won the remaining two matches 2:0, this matter would be much lighter. But it was 1:1 in the non-interrupted matches. The panel's decision decided the whole Bo3. Please arrange the rematch between Nightend and Boxer before the second part begins today. Let them decide the match on the field. I am sure that every viewer will be glad to see that. Don't let the TSL remain tainted in such a terrible way as it is now. Thank you. Martin The OP never says that you can't disagree with the decision at all. It asks that you do so respectfully. There's a big difference. The OP also asks you not to criticize the process (not the decision itself) without offering an alternative process. I would agree with your analogy to professional sports leagues if players had complete control of their internet connection and ISP. In professional sports leagues, the teams and players have full control over whether their equipment is ready for a match or not, so it is fair to punish them for not having their equipment. Unfortunately, none of us can control random disconnects, so it would be unfair, unacceptable, and unreasonable to punish a player for that random disconnect (they did nothing wrong!). As for your suggestion: by your logic, even if a player disconnects as he's killing his opponent's last building, then the game goes to a re-match instead of awarding the win. This has been brought up several times in this thread, and the general consensus has been that the TSL administration's method, as defined in the handbook given to all participants and in the OP, is the fairest way of dealing with this situation. On March 20 2011 20:53 clusen wrote: I don't think TL handled the situation well. Imo you can never give the win to the player who disced, it's just illogical and unfair. You are creating a ruleset that might get abused, judges can be biased(they don't have to participate in the tournament to be a bad choice as a judge, they just have to be a fan/friend of someone), and how can you punish NightEnd for something he can't have any effect on? If there is any person that can get punished by an error on Boxers side of things(if he disced intentionally or not does not matter here, it doesn't even matter if it was his fault or not) it can only be Boxer but not NightEnd. I don't like the rule, it is illogical and unfair in my opinion, and opens the door for abuse by the players/admins. But since the players accepted the rule in advance nobody can complain :p Imo this was a perfect example of a regame. Boxer had a huge advantage, but didn't win the game yet. Then he disced. So you give both players a little extra(Boxer a new chance even though he lost the last game by the disconnect, NightEnd a new chance because he was close to losing the last game). This is as fair as it can possibly get. Now you've just taken away the last (according to Boxer) 20% of NightEnd and gave them to Boxer, because Boxer disced. Not fair. From what I understood of Boxer's quote, that's how he felt right when it happened. If that's the case, then he couldn't possibly know how far ahead he was. An 80:20 lead sounds reasonable if you've just killed all your opponents' colossi and EMP'd his Phoenixes, denied the gold expo and were about to move into his third base. Even Nazgul agreed that he had a huge advantage, but not an absolute advantage with this information. Factor in the fact that Boxer was ahead on upgrades, tech, and army size, and you get the necessary absolute advantage to award Boxer the win. NightEnd had 9 useless Phoenixes and fewer Stalkers than Boxer had Marauders. He didn't have any of the tech that allows the amazing comebacks we've seen from other Protoss players, and even if he did, Nazgul said the Protoss player would still lose in this scenario 99 times out of 100. NightEnd had no reasonable chance to come back and win this game at that point. Someone stated this a couple pages ago, and it's in the OP, but I'll reiterate it here: the panel review isn't looking for absolute 100% certainty that one player won the game, just certainty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if even one of the panel members is hesitant to award the win, then it goes to a re-game. All the panel members in this case agreed to award Boxer the win, based on their expert analysis of the replay and the assumption of reasonable play from both players (expected mistakes from a professional player). I disagree with you on the point that this process encourages abuse. The only time a disconnecting player is awarded a win is when the game is pretty much over anyway. Otherwise, it's taken to a re-game or the disconnecting player is awarded a loss (such as if NightEnd disconnected instead of Boxer). | ||
|
Krehlmar
Sweden1149 Posts
I think the protoss might've come back but it was highly unlikely to be fair. | ||
|
ropumar
Brazil111 Posts
On March 20 2011 21:04 n0ise wrote: Isn't this, though, the whole idea? Taking an extreme decision *only and only if* it is as clear as a blue summer sky for 5 people, unanimously? What, "when needed"? There's nothing needed, the scenario was someone losing a game through a disconnect and people needing to judge if he was sufficiently far ahead to be granted either a regame or even the win itself. And, as it's been said before, it was Nigthend's folly to agree on a 3-man panel, since most likely in a 5-man panel at least one person would have stated it's a regame. A bit funny how Boxer's iview kinda points to that with his 8:2 balance ^^ You even agreed that a 5 man panel would make very hard for a unanimous decision to happen, which explains why I believe a 3 man panel is more than enough so the hard decisions(the ones that don't involve a re-game) can ever occur. I believe 3 person is more than enough to decide about this, perhaps some would think 5, 7 or even 12(like in USA court trials) should be required, but that is a opinion we will never know for sure which is best. So I maintain my suggestion that 3 expert man panel not only would be more pragmatical as would be more efficient to achieve the right and fair decision. 3 and 5 are arbitrary numbers just 12 is for the court trials, and is subject to opinion the right amount people need to achieve a "absolute advantage" as a "guilty without reasonable doubt" decision. Because the 3 referee would all have completely expertise on the matter and wouldn't be laymans I believe a 3 man unanimous decision carry the weight required for the decision to be considered fair "beyond reasonable doubt". | ||
|
zoshk
United States64 Posts
On March 20 2011 21:17 Inflexion wrote: However, I do feel differently for how the next tournament should be 'ruled' or drawn up. My personal opinion is that whoever disconnects should get a loss immediately. Yes, it is 'directly' not their 'fault' that that person D/Ced. ..... It is the onus of the player/participant of a sports tournament to be totally healthy (not injured), find the best connection possible, bring their best keyboard/mouse, be as lag free as possible, find the best ISP with least chance of disconnecting, etc.) Perhaps e-sports, following a model similar to what TL has established, will work out one day. However, I believe that in order for e-sports and sc2 to become as big as a 'true sport' it'll have to follow a model similar to one that is already tested and true. It's really hard to formuate what I'm trying to say into words but I hope it makes sense. I understand what you are saying (I think). My problem with the auto loss is that a disconnect really can be no one's fault. Two players can be prepared as well as they can equipment wise, and battle.net has a hiccup. To me, the analogy would be more like a spectator throwing something unto the field and disrupting play. (Or maybe more like if a tennis racket broke, I don't know the rules but I hope that player can get another racket instead of being told he just lost a game/tournament/whatever) It isn't the fault of the disconnecting player, and so he shouldn't be punished for it. | ||
| ||
