|
On March 20 2011 21:22 Aflixion wrote:Show nested quote +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!).
This is a classic non sequitur fallacy. You create a point out of something that isn't true. The professional sports teams also do not have absolute control over anything. The bus or plane that they're using to get to the match may break down for example (and many more similar things). Such fallacies may work on most posters here, but some may actually see through it. So please be honest with your posts. Thank you.
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.
You did not understand my logic as a whole, but rather just a part. For the case you're describing there is the institute of a GG which every professional player should follow if he feels that he is going to lose no matter what he tries. If he doesn't GG, it means he wants to try something to come back. And this right must not be taken from players. And if he refuses to GG even with last building standing, then such a player would loose all his credit and would not be allowed to participate in such tournaments any further. But this should be covered by a general rule that must be present in every tournament (and it is present in professional sports): exploting the rules is a basis for a disqualification.
|
On March 20 2011 21:24 Krehlmar wrote:
I think Liquid Nazgul made it pretty clear, even with a simulation to explain the decition.
I think the protoss might've come back but it was highly unlikely to be fair.
edit nvm, nothing to see here, move along people, move along 
|
Lots of sports have judges decisions, especially combat sports. Just look at MMA, judges regularly decide there what's going to happen ^^ I honestly think the criticism that has been dealt is very poor, and I feel that it is absolutely not fair to BoxeR to re-play this game. He absolutely had it, and one of the best players in the world(the best protoss I'd even say) voted against his own race, give it a rest guys =/
|
On March 20 2011 21:46 terrorist112358 wrote:
You did not understand my logic as a whole, but rather just a part. For the case you're describing there is the institute of a GG which every professional player should follow if he feels that he is going to lose no matter what he tries. If he doesn't GG, it means he wants to try something to come back. And this right must not be taken from players. And if he refuses to GG even with last building standing, then such a player would loose all his credit and would not be allowed to participate in such tournaments any further. But this should be covered by a general rule that must be present in every tournament (and it is present in professional sports): exploting the rules is a basis for a disqualification.
But then you have the Problem to set this exact moment, when a player should "gg" or otherwise lose his credit. Is it when he has no units left ? Or only 3 buildings ? 1 Building ? No CC, Hatch, Nexus ? What if he has 1 building but a way stronger army than his opponent ? I think such a rule would produce other problems.
Edit : Or at least other discussions
|
On March 20 2011 21:40 ropumar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 21:04 n0ise wrote: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 ^^ 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.
You seem to be missing the point. What does "hard decisions can ever occur" mean? Why would hard decisions ever occur, unless they're perfectly crystal clear? If something is certain to 3 people but questionable to 5, then that action shouldn't be taken. Obviously the higher the number gets, the more probable is for someone to disagree - but in the case of "awarding someone who lost a win" 5 not only seems like a well rounded number, but the decision itself is hard enough that it should be taken only and only if it is obvious to all the 5 members of the panel. As is, pretty much, the case (from my understanding).
Again. This is not a "zomg must take unanimous decision!". It's a way of deciding the most normal course in an already difficult circumstance. The standard, easy, decision of remaking is already there. The panel just has to judge the situation, there is no obligation to agree on something extreme.
|
On March 20 2011 21:46 terrorist112358 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 21:22 Aflixion wrote: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!). This is a classic non sequitur fallacy. You create a point out of something that isn't true. The professional sports teams also do not have absolute control over anything. The bus or plane that they're using to get to the match may break down for example (and many more similar things). Such fallacies may work on most posters here, but some may actually see through it. So please be honest with your posts. Thank you. Show nested quote +
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.
You did not understand my logic as a whole, but rather just a part. For the case you're describing there is the institute of a GG which every professional player should follow if he feels that he is going to lose no matter what he tries. If he doesn't GG, it means he wants to try something to come back. And this right must not be taken from players. And if he refuses to GG even with last building standing, then such a player would loose all his credit and would not be allowed to participate in such tournaments any further. But this should be covered by a general rule that must be present in every tournament (and it is present in professional sports): exploting the rules is a basis for a disqualification.
You accuse him for fallacies when your own first post is clearly wrong on multiple accounts. (Not allowed to disagree for one; did you even read the op?).
|
On March 20 2011 21:48 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 21:24 Krehlmar wrote:
I think Liquid Nazgul made it pretty clear, even with a simulation to explain the decition.
I think the protoss might've come back but it was highly unlikely to be fair. The simulation is just hypothetical though and shouldn't be considered as 'evidence'. There are some huge flaws with it. - two marauders would/could be lifted - 26 probes should be added to the fight. Probes that Nightend could immediately replace from his soon to be mined out bases. This is a huge one. - He assumes Nightend would pick the fight immediately. Had he been able to dance a bit for 10 seconds by using his nexus/probes as decoy he would have been 1-0 instead of 0-0.
The simulation does send the probes and does lift 2 marauders -,-
Obviously your third point is where all the discussion stands - in *some time* Nightend would have gained 50 energy+ on all his pheonixes, would have had a warp-in round of 9 Gateways and would have gained +1. *Some time* being somewhere around 20 seconds, I suppose. There are differences even between the members of the panel, where Morrow states that he is unsure if the T army could've taken the Nexus down, and says that he himself would've backed down to macro. But oh well, it is what it is.
|
Boxer had 28 marauders at that point, 10 more queued, 4 vikings queued, 6 marines queued. 6 marauders, 3 marines, 2 vikings would have been on their way when NightEnd's warpgate CDs would have been done (all his gates were ~20s to go).
NightEnd had 15 stalkers, 1 zealot, 9 useless phoenix, 2 useful ones. A colossus that had a long way to move was just about to finish as were 2 more phoenix. He didn't even have enough resources to get those warpgates producing properly unless he skipped the next colossus.
In the sim Boxer was left with 12/19 marauders, without using EMPs. If he retreats he has 2 fully mining bases, 1 being gold, 1 more pretty much done, 5 vikings, 34 marauders, 10 marines, 3 medivacs by the time NightEnd can even produce anything else. Plus a decent amount of resources and another round of units already queued (paid for).
NightEnd would be left with 2 bases, 15 stalkers, 13 phoenix and 1 colossus. And enough gas to make 1 more colossus and mostly zealots from his next warpgate cycle.
If Boxer engages it's safe to assume he could trade all those units for the expansion and quite a bit of NightEnd's next warpgate cycle (mostly zealots). Still leaves him with 15+ marauders, a couple of vikings protected by a planetary and turrets vs at most 1 colossus and some zealots and 13+ phoenix. Most sensible choice would be to just kill the current army and retreat, stays on 25+ marauders but loses all air.
No matter how you go about it NightEnd has to choose between teching and army at this point. Teching would prevent most colossus production, army prevents teching. Just army means Boxer wins (he only needs to build units and upgrades, which he's doing quite nicely on his current income). Teching means Boxer wins cause of lack of army from toss for the following 4-5 minutes. The situation may not be 100% win but in game 3 NightEnd was in a similar position, maybe even better and still lost.
The decision seems reasonably fair.
|
On March 20 2011 21:22 Aflixion wrote:
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!).
In professional sports, teams and players do not have full control over whether their equipment is ready for a match or not. The analogy can be made with hockey player's sticks breaking or tennis player's raquet's randomly breaking. If a player's raquet breaks during a rally does that player get an opportunity to win a point because a panel of judges says he/she would've hit a cross-court winner because they analyzed the trajectory or force of the ball?
I believe it would be unfair, unacceptable and unreasonable to punish a player for getting a loss because his opponent got a random disconnect.
Again, I'm not bashing TL or being a troll. My personal opinion is that the line has to be drawn somewhere. I believe the best method for the next online tournament is to follow what is already tested and true - that is a professional sport (which is something e-sports is striving to become).
On March 20 2011 21:22 Aflixion wrote:
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.
By your logic, in a basketball game, if a final shot is made to win the game, and it's 1cm from going into the basket and a falcon swoops in and knocks the ball out then a panel of judges analyzes from replays if the ball was going in or not and determines the winner? The key point is that the defending team or the player that did nothing wrong should not be penalized for a loss.
I feel like this is an extreme and shouldn't be used to support an argument. In fact, it stresses even more so that the player who was awarded an loss was undeserving of that loss. The mere fact that because this wasn't an extreme case like the quoted above drives home the point that with such a subjective decision, it's unfair to award a loss to a player who did nothing wrong.
Again, I'm not bashing TL. In fact, I applaud TL for dealing with the situation with such professionalism for the rules and establishments they already had in place. However, for future considerations, I feel like having the player disconnecting being awarded a loss is much better for sc2 to grow as a professional sport.
On March 20 2011 21:22 Aflixion wrote:
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 understand and read that. This thread is about criticising the process by providing coherent arguments and examples (basically don't be a idiot troll). I am saying that I disagree with this process and that for future tournaments, the system should be changed.
The panel review that isn't looking for 100% certainty that one player won the game, but looking for certainty beyond a resonable doubt works. There is no doubt. However, the problem I see with this system is that it is suited way more for a system of law or in judicial system. SC2 is aspiring to be a professional sport. And I think this is where the key difference is.
|
On March 20 2011 21:48 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 21:24 Krehlmar wrote:
I think Liquid Nazgul made it pretty clear, even with a simulation to explain the decition.
I think the protoss might've come back but it was highly unlikely to be fair. The simulation is just hypothetical though and shouldn't be considered as 'evidence'. There are some huge flaws with it. - two marauders would/could be lifted - 26 probes should be added to the fight. Probes that Nightend could immediately replace from his soon to be mined out bases. This is a huge one. - He assumes Nightend would pick the fight immediately. Had he been able to dance a bit for 10 seconds by using his nexus/probes as decoy he would have been 1-0 instead of 0-0.
Check sim, all probes were added, 2 marauders were lifted. Result, 12 marauders left without any usage of EMP.
Had the engagement happened, even at 1-0 Boxer would have most likely ended up on a higher amount of marauders and the phoenixes reset to 0 energy.
If he had danced he would have lost a few probes/cannons that also helped slightly. And Boxer would have probably retreated since colossus would have been there. Minimal loss for NightEnd anyway.
NightEnd was just too cash starved to afford anything but rebuilding army and some upgrades, and we saw how that army composition did for him in all the engagements (lol EMP). Not to mention the starting disadvantage (Boxer was left with a much bigger standing army, easier to get 200/200).
|
On March 20 2011 22:04 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 21:48 Longshank wrote:On March 20 2011 21:24 Krehlmar wrote:
I think Liquid Nazgul made it pretty clear, even with a simulation to explain the decition.
I think the protoss might've come back but it was highly unlikely to be fair. The simulation is just hypothetical though and shouldn't be considered as 'evidence'. There are some huge flaws with it. - two marauders would/could be lifted - 26 probes should be added to the fight. Probes that Nightend could immediately replace from his soon to be mined out bases. This is a huge one. - He assumes Nightend would pick the fight immediately. Had he been able to dance a bit for 10 seconds by using his nexus/probes as decoy he would have been 1-0 instead of 0-0. Check sim, all probes were added, 2 marauders were lifted. Result, 12 marauders left without any usage of EMP.
Yeah sorry, mental blackout from my part.
|
On March 20 2011 21:57 n0ise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 21:40 ropumar wrote: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. You seem to be missing the point. What does "hard decisions can ever occur" mean? Why would hard decisions ever occur, unless they're perfectly crystal clear? If something is certain to 3 people but questionable to 5, then that action shouldn't be taken. Obviously the higher the number gets, the more probable is for someone to disagree - but in the case of "awarding someone who lost a win" 5 not only seems like a well rounded number, but the decision itself is hard enough that it should be taken only and only if it is obvious to all the 5 members of the panel. As is, pretty much, the case (from my understanding). Again. This is not a "zomg must take unanimous decision!". It's a way of deciding the most normal course in an already difficult circumstance. The standard, easy, decision of remaking is already there. The panel just has to judge the situation, there is no obligation to agree on something extreme.
You are the one missing the point. we are simply disagreeing on the number of people required to achieve a fair decision. The same you saying 5, someone could say 7 is necessary, is completely subject opinion.
I could say:
"If something is certain to 5 people but questionable to 7, then that action shouldn't be taken"
5 is an arbitrary number, that is my point. And my suggestion that to change to 3 is better carry as much weight as your opinion that should stay the same or someone's that should be 7 or 9.
"Why would hard decisions ever occur, unless they're perfectly crystal clear?"
Crystal clear to whom? To 3 people? to 5 people? to 7 people? to you? to the whole starcraft community? to everyone that clicked on the youtube video where the commentary was show?... that is my point.
"Hard decision" would never happen if we required everyone to agree so every game would be rematched. Nothing is crystal clear to everyone.
The discussion is which is the best balance between incising the number to decrease doubt and ensuring that the rules be pragmatical.
|
On March 20 2011 21:46 terrorist112358 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 21:22 Aflixion wrote: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!). This is a classic non sequitur fallacy. You create a point out of something that isn't true. The professional sports teams also do not have absolute control over anything. The bus or plane that they're using to get to the match may break down for example (and many more similar things). Such fallacies may work on most posters here, but some may actually see through it. So please be honest with your posts. Thank you.
They do have absolute control over their own actions. Remembering to maintain and bring their equipment to a match falls in this category. As such, it is fair to punish them for not having their equipment. A bus or plane breaking down falls in the same category as random disconnects, which excludes it from punishment, but then the team wouldn't have shown up to the match in the first place. Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I certainly did not intend to deceive anyone with my post. So please do not use an ad hominem abusive argument ("So please be honest with your posts") to reject my conclusion. Thank you.
Show nested quote +
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.
You did not understand my logic as a whole, but rather just a part. For the case you're describing there is the institute of a GG which every professional player should follow if he feels that he is going to lose no matter what he tries. If he doesn't GG, it means he wants to try something to come back. And this right must not be taken from players. And if he refuses to GG even with last building standing, then such a player would loose all his credit and would not be allowed to participate in such tournaments any further. But this should be covered by a general rule that must be present in every tournament (and it is present in professional sports): exploting the rules is a basis for a disqualification.
I understood your logic perfectly, I simply applied it to a situation in which it would be laughable to contest the outcome of the game. Yes, obviously a well-mannered player would have GG'd long before that point in a game. However, simply because a player hasn't offered a GG yet and wants to try something to come back doesn't mean he has a chance to win. This is covered in the rules here: the disconnecting player is awarded a win if and only if the panel of experts unanimously believes the other player had no reasonable chance to win; otherwise, the game is discarded and replayed. For example: had Boxer disconnected a minute earlier in that game, it would have gone to a rematch because there was no clear advantage, let alone an "absolute advantage." But because he disconnected AFTER he gained an overwhelming (absolute) advantage, as found unanimously by Nazgul, Min Chul, and MorroW, he was awarded the win. This also prevents exploitation because of the extreme circumstances required to avoid a re-match. You have to have such an obvious, irreversible advantage (about to end the game) before you can abuse the disconnect policy, at which point it becomes much easier to simply finish the game.
|
Excellent job with the test-scenario Nazgul, its great that you (TL staff) explained and showed the route that you took to create your decision and also gave everyone the thoughts of the panel judge’s who are experts at the game and gave Incredible analysis on it, it would be pretty hard not to agree that you all handled it as best as humanly possible.
I myself agree 100% with the decision after watching the replay’s last minute several times, shown in the test-scenario even if boxer did not micro at all or use the three EMP’s he had available he would have won the skirmish that’s excellent proof there.
However boxer had every building with units que’d up the only building that was doing nothing was his factory, so that said if all his buildings are que’d what else BUT micro? Does boxer have to do?
Besides all that Nightend did not even have the buildings to make the upgrades that were necessary to come back, His gateways would not be ready again before the battle that decided his expansion was over.
|
The rules were fine in this situation but they weren't implemented correctly. First off it seems the panel only consisted of 3 judges in contrast to the 5 stated in the rules. Secondly the panel doesn't seem to have fully understood the rules.
1. A disconnecter can be identified
If all five people on the panel can identify an advantage for the non-disconnecter he will be
awarded the game. If all five people on the panel determine that the disconnecting player has the game absolutely won, the disconnecter will be awarded the win. If not, a regame will be issued.
At least two of the panel members just thought that Boxer had "an absolute advantage" but voted that Boxer had "the game absolutely won".
Having "an absolute advantage in the game" and having "the game absolutely won" is not equivalent.
|
On March 20 2011 22:41 Blueblister wrote:The rules were fine in this situation but they weren't implemented correctly. First off it seems the panel only consisted of 3 judges in contrast to the 5 stated in the rules. Secondly the panel doesn't seem to have fully understood the rules. Show nested quote +1. A disconnecter can be identified
If all five people on the panel can identify an advantage for the non-disconnecter he will be
awarded the game. If all five people on the panel determine that the disconnecting player has the game absolutely won, the disconnecter will be awarded the win. If not, a regame will be issued. At least two of the panel members just thought that Boxer had "an absolute advantage" but voted that Boxer had "the game absolutely won". Having "an absolute advantage in the game" and having "the game absolutely won" is not equivalent.
You quoted the simplified version of the rules that was given to the players. If you read on, you find this:
If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won then we will rule it a win for the disconnecting player. "Absolutely won" means that the player had the game won beyond all reasonable doubt and had an "absolute advantage." This operates from the mindset that a player will make all the mistakes in the world that can be expected from a professional level player. So missing EMPs and other micro mistakes can definitely happen but right clicking units and not touching them for five minutes can't. It is important to keep in mind that our standard is NOT that the game must be mathematically over 100%.
Thus, having "an absolute advantage in the game" does translate into having "the game absolutely won." All three of the panelists provided their explanations of why Boxer had the game absolutely won at the point of disconnect.
Edit: forgot to address issue of 3 panelists vs 5.
The administrators were searching for 2 more panelists to replace Cloud and Tyler, but the players asked for the decision to be made by 3 panelists due to time constraints and the amount of time it was taking to find 2 more. The administrators have already said that they will not grant this request for future disconnects, so it's a moot point now.
|
On March 20 2011 22:41 Blueblister wrote:The rules were fine in this situation but they weren't implemented correctly. First off it seems the panel only consisted of 3 judges in contrast to the 5 stated in the rules. Secondly the panel doesn't seem to have fully understood the rules. Show nested quote +1. A disconnecter can be identified
If all five people on the panel can identify an advantage for the non-disconnecter he will be
awarded the game. If all five people on the panel determine that the disconnecting player has the game absolutely won, the disconnecter will be awarded the win. If not, a regame will be issued. At least two of the panel members just thought that Boxer had "an absolute advantage" but voted that Boxer had "the game absolutely won". Having "an absolute advantage in the game" and having "the game absolutely won" is not equivalent.
No, you're choosing to make that distinction, they didn't. Considering their vote, no matter how they chose to word it they did think Boxer had the game absolutely won.
Learn to make a distinction between an action (their decision) that says something and some words which may or may not have been written by law experts. You're not exactly expecting they be 100% exact in their wording, are you, they don't go about writing explanation with "I have to write/make this perfect or it's not valid" in mind.
On second part, the players chose to go with 3 cause of time constraints.
|
I just want to say bravo to the TSL team. You guys are doing an amazing job. As a SC2 player, when Boxer left the game, it was clear that he was marching to victory. I was wondering what was the ruling tho. The ruling is very clear. No controversy, just unfortunate for Nightend that he didn't have a chance to battle back, even tho it was a lost battle.
Just for fun;
Idra would have gg'd right after the big battle lost. I heard him say on his stream : "yeah i left cause i was a good 10 drones behind..." 
|
On March 20 2011 21:58 nam nam wrote:
You accuse him for fallacies when your own first post is clearly wrong on multiple accounts. (Not allowed to disagree for one; did you even read the op?).
Again a fallacy. You say I am wrong on multiple accounts while providing just one example? And even that example is incorrect. The start of this thread states that criticism of the process must not be stated without a different solution. That is wrong by default. However among the rightfully banned, people in this thread were flagged or banned even for polite disagreement with the result of the decision (I've read through it all). That is much worse.
My point is clear. The the disconnecting player should never get a win. The player that remained in the game and did nothing wrong should never get a loss. And finally, if there was a rematch, then or today before the second part, the viewers would only gain, not loose. And this thread would not be necessary.
Again, this was a bad decision and process by Teamliquid. And it does not matter much how many people come here to patt their backs. The truth is not in numbers. But even if it was, this thread was biased by the posting rules and I beleive many potential posters with negative opinions were scared off by the banhammer (rightfully so or not). And as someone else stated eralier, Boxer has many more fans out there than Nightend.
|
On March 20 2011 22:46 Aflixion wrote:
Edit: forgot to address issue of 3 panelists vs 5.
The administrators were searching for 2 more panelists to replace Cloud and Tyler, but the players asked for the decision to be made by 3 panelists due to time constraints and the amount of time it was taking to find 2 more. The administrators have already said that they will not grant this request for future disconnects, so it's a moot point now.
Thanks!
On March 20 2011 22:46 Aflixion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 22:41 Blueblister wrote:The rules were fine in this situation but they weren't implemented correctly. First off it seems the panel only consisted of 3 judges in contrast to the 5 stated in the rules. Secondly the panel doesn't seem to have fully understood the rules. 1. A disconnecter can be identified
If all five people on the panel can identify an advantage for the non-disconnecter he will be
awarded the game. If all five people on the panel determine that the disconnecting player has the game absolutely won, the disconnecter will be awarded the win. If not, a regame will be issued. At least two of the panel members just thought that Boxer had "an absolute advantage" but voted that Boxer had "the game absolutely won". Having "an absolute advantage in the game" and having "the game absolutely won" is not equivalent. You quoted the simplified version of the rules that was given to the players. If you read on, you find this: Show nested quote +
If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won then we will rule it a win for the disconnecting player. "Absolutely won" means that the player had the game won beyond all reasonable doubt and had an "absolute advantage." This operates from the mindset that a player will make all the mistakes in the world that can be expected from a professional level player. So missing EMPs and other micro mistakes can definitely happen but right clicking units and not touching them for five minutes can't. It is important to keep in mind that our standard is NOT that the game must be mathematically over 100%.
Thus, having "an absolute advantage in the game" does translate into having "the game absolutely won." All three of the panelists provided their explanations of why Boxer had the game absolutely won at the point of disconnect.
Thanks for the clearification.To move on my point is that rules should by default only be able to benefit the player who has done nothing wrong.
As I'm not a native reader I think the rules is slightly ambiguous in this part:
"This operates from the mindset that a player will make all the mistakes in the world that can be expected from a professional level player."
My premise is that two of the judges reasons that Boxer could have made practical mistakes that would lead to NightEnd turning the game around. If above statement means that the judges should presume that the disconnecting in this case do all the micro-mistakes that is reasonable from a progamer, then the rules are fine and some judges in the panel just misunderstood them (thats ok with me, things happen). If not, the rules should be change to make the judges presume that the disconnecting in this case do all the micro-mistakes that is reasonable from a progamer.
So in short either it's the rules should be changed or the call of judges were wrong. In either case it's not OK to reward a player for disconnecting.
Edit: Done updating.
Were can u read the full set of rules?
It's very important for every serious competition to have them readily available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
