|
On March 20 2011 22:52 Blueblister wrote:
Ok, then it's the rules that's the problem. It's not OK to reward a player for disconnecting.
Were can u read the full set of rules?
Because the players didn't have time to wait for 2 more to be found and they agreed on only 3 judges.
The rules are not a problem. A problem would have been Boxer having to regame when he was in such a convincing economic and military lead (check the replay, units, production buildings, resources, Nazgul's sim). When the tide of who makes the most mistakes can sway between the 2 players on a game by game basis it's wrong to reset the mistake counter and go from 0 when one was clearly doing way better for the game that ended in a disconnect.
I mean what chance would a protoss with ~20 stalkers, 5 zealots, 1 colossus, 13 phoenix have against ~40 marauders, 10 marines, 5 vikings, 3 medivacs, 2 ghosts (army after the next warpgate production cycle). With the terran being ahead on upgrades (2-1) and more money. And even with mistakes we're not talking about bronze level play where Boxer wouldn't have capitalized on his huge advantage - 30+ more supply in army only to go higher for the following production cycle.
|
On March 20 2011 09:10 IPS.ZeRo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 09:07 thragar wrote:
Since Tyler and Cloud formed opinions, is there any chance we can see them? In particular, I would like to see why Cloud thought it would be a regame. Cloud didn't think it was regame. That was just an illustrative example. They didn't say what tyler and cloud actually thought.
For sake of discussion and transparency we will say that Tyler thought it was over and Cloud thought it was a re-game.
I'm pretty sure transparency means that they're exposing that Cloud thought it was a re-game...
|
On March 20 2011 22:49 terrorist112358 wrote:
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.
The decision itself is not bad, it's quite good.
But the rule is bad, it should not exist in that form. As you said, you can't punish the player who did not disconnect.
|
On March 20 2011 22:52 Blueblister wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 22:46 Aflixion wrote: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:
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. Ok, either it's the rules that's the problem or the call of judges . It's not OK to reward a player for disconnecting. Rules should by default only be able to benefit the player who has done nothing wrong. As such a better rule would be to replace an "an absolute advantage" with Show nested quote +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! Were can u read the full set of rules? Edit: wait a minute .... updating...
The rules say that the disconnecter only gets a win if he was within reasonable judgement, the winner of the game. Any other way it's either a regame or loss.
|
On March 20 2011 22:49 terrorist112358 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Wrong again. I just went through the first 25 pages of the thread and found the following:
One warning and temp ban for a troll post
Two warnings for misrepresenting facts presented in the OP
None of these people were warned or banned for respectfully disagreeing with the result of the decision. Reading on, I found ONE person banned for being a blatant, obvious troll and explicitly asking to be banned (warrants an auto-ban).
If you want to criticize the decision or the rules, that's your choice, but since you're asking us to present sound, logical arguments, please do so yourself as well.
|
On March 20 2011 22:30 Aflixion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 21:46 terrorist112358 wrote:
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.
Ad hominem is only valid if I criticized you instead of the post. I criticized both. You claimed that professional teams have control over everything. I proved that they don't. You said that the disconnect is the same as a broken down bus or plane. I agree. But the you add that it excludes it from punishment. But that is only your oppinion with weak base. The team could've gone to the match much sooner to prevent a broken bus to cause a no-show. Or they could've picked a different/more reliable service. Boxer could've gone to a place with a core network connection, etc. The professional leagues have decades of experience with this. And there is big $$ in it. If that setup didn't have a logical and legal base, it would've been replaced ages ago.
|
On March 20 2011 23:04 clusen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 22:49 terrorist112358 wrote:
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. The decision itself is not bad, it's quite good. But the rule is bad, it should not exist in that form. As you said, you can't punish the player who did not disconnect.
You can't punish the player disconnecting either, not too much at least. The rules are clearly in favor of the player that doesn't disconnect but when the game is in the state it was for them you can't just default to auto-loss or regame (other sports games that end due to circumstances other than the teams' fault are stopped with their current score, no regame - any further decisions are taken by a panel of judges - actually regaming is extremely rare).
|
On March 20 2011 23:04 clusen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 22:49 terrorist112358 wrote:
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. The decision itself is not bad, it's quite good. But the rule is bad, it should not exist in that form. As you said, you can't punish the player who did not disconnect.
Well, yes. I can agree with this.
|
This is just professional. Gj guys.
|
On March 20 2011 23:08 terrorist112358 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 22:30 Aflixion wrote:On March 20 2011 21:46 terrorist112358 wrote:
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. Ad hominem is only valid if I criticized you instead of the post. I criticized both. You claimed that professional teams have control over everything. I proved that they don't. You said that the disconnect is the same as a broken down bus or plane. I agree. But the you add that it excludes it from punishment. But that is only your oppinion with weak base. The team could've gone to the match much sooner to prevent a broken bus to cause a no-show. Or they could've picked a different/more reliable service. Boxer could've gone to a place with a core network connection, etc. The professional leagues have decades of experience with this. And there is big $$ in it. If that setup didn't have a logical and legal base, it would've been replaced ages ago.
And even with all these preventive measures, a disconnect can still occur. It's not reasonable to assume that a player will never disconnect, so the punishment for a disconnect must be reasonable. Automatically awarding a loss or a re-game (at most), regardless of the in-game situation, is not reasonable considering the fact that the disconnect can still happen despite a player's preparation.
Edit: added underlined part
|
Norway28553 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.
Additionally, while I don't question the analysis of MC and Morrow, it does seem extremely odd to allow other participants of the tournament to make such a decision. It could easily open the process up to accusations of corruption, when there's no reason that players in the TSL need to be involved.
this policy fully takes into consideration that a player can make mistakes that can cost him the game. wins are only awareded to the disconnecting player if the disconnecting player would win the game even while constantly making mistakes. e.g. ; the simulation of the battle featured the marauder army simply stimming and attack moving, no micro, no emps, no nothing. It does make the assumption that the disconnecting player is not magically going to stop playing for 3 minutes, but boxers macro could severly slip, his micro could be nearly nonexistant, and his decisionmaking wrong - he'd still win the game. intentionally disconnecting in a scenario like this would be far, far more likely to result in a regame and possibly a loss than not disconnecting would..
basically, by continuing to play, you are continuing to play at the best of your ability. by disconnecting, the outcome of the game is determined evaluated by how you are estimated to play if you were playing at the worst of your ability.
|
I actually, even before a decision was made, knew that Boxer had won the game. I completely agree with the final decision of the panel. That game had 3-5 minutes left at best and whatever happened Boxer was clearly in the lead.
|
Excellent job TL staff, and really good OP.
As far as people comment on "hey if I'm ahead I can just disconnect", try to think it through. Assume you're a progamer and you play all day. You're somewhat confident in your ability to play, especially if you are ahead (enough so that it would warrant - in your opinion, a 5-0 vote in your favour). Would you risk a re-game from that situation, being so far ahead? Maybe the refs don't agree, maybe your opponent has some tech/units/base you haven't scouted. It doesn't make ANY sense to do it on purpose. NONE at all.
|
On March 20 2011 23:07 Aflixion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 22:49 terrorist112358 wrote: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. Wrong again. I just went through the first 25 pages of the thread and found the following: One warning and temp ban for a troll post Two warnings for misrepresenting facts presented in the OP None of these people were warned or banned for respectfully disagreeing with the result of the decision. Reading on, I found ONE person banned for being a blatant, obvious troll and explicitly asking to be banned (warrants an auto-ban). If you want to criticize the decision or the rules, that's your choice, but since you're asking us to present sound, logical arguments, please do so yourself as well.
I don't have sound arguments? You're the one who accuses someone but fails to read the whole thing. What about these two:
Rule #3 states...
"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.""
Then Nazgul states the following...
"A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win. "
This just goes to show that you will NEVER know for sure if the player with the advantage would have won. There will always be a possibility of a come back no matter how small the chance, it's still possible.
The game should have been replayed following the rules in the TSL handbook. The game was not won by BoxeR beyond all reason of doubt. Nightend had the gateways to remake his army, chrono boost stocked up, and BoxeR could have made some mistake.
It's not fair to award a win to a player because you are just ASSUMING he wouldn't have made a mistake.
User was warned for this post
absolutely wrong decision
User was warned for this post
They are just stating their disagreement. They're not being rude. Still, they were flagged. And you are really pulling dirty tricks for this discussion.
|
|
|
On March 20 2011 23:26 terrorist112358 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 23:07 Aflixion wrote:On March 20 2011 22:49 terrorist112358 wrote: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. Wrong again. I just went through the first 25 pages of the thread and found the following: One warning and temp ban for a troll post Two warnings for misrepresenting facts presented in the OP None of these people were warned or banned for respectfully disagreeing with the result of the decision. Reading on, I found ONE person banned for being a blatant, obvious troll and explicitly asking to be banned (warrants an auto-ban). If you want to criticize the decision or the rules, that's your choice, but since you're asking us to present sound, logical arguments, please do so yourself as well. I don't have sound arguments? You're the one who accuses someone but fails to read the whole thing. What about these two: Show nested quote +
Rule #3 states...
"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.""
Then Nazgul states the following...
"A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win. "
This just goes to show that you will NEVER know for sure if the player with the advantage would have won. There will always be a possibility of a come back no matter how small the chance, it's still possible.
The game should have been replayed following the rules in the TSL handbook. The game was not won by BoxeR beyond all reason of doubt. Nightend had the gateways to remake his army, chrono boost stocked up, and BoxeR could have made some mistake.
It's not fair to award a win to a player because you are just ASSUMING he wouldn't have made a mistake.
User was warned for this post
They are just stating their disagreement. They're not being rude. Still, they were flagged. And you are really pulling dirty tricks for this discussion.
I also agree with terrorist. I myself load players who only nags without saying anything constructive, but someone complaining in itself is not a good enough reason for bans. Free opinion is a democratic right.
If people are not allowed to criticize the rules and administration without a suggestion on how to do it differently or better in this thread, the OP should provide a link to a thread were it's possible to do so.
Edit:Bad, sloppy wording, clearified statement.
|
TL showed a lot of professionalism with their ruling, but i still think it was a wrong decision.
They should have analyzed the situation from the players' point of view and how frustrating it is to play a set in which situations like this occur. Taking a decision like this simply takes out the beauty and the pleasure out of the game.
|
On March 20 2011 22:17 ropumar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 21:57 n0ise wrote: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.
3 man panel is more than enough so the hard decisions (the ones that don't involve a re-game) can ever occur
First of all, I will say this again - hard decisions don't ever have to occur. Crystal-clear decisions have to. Second of all, I know it's the internets and all, but let's try not to argue unless we have to. Your statement implies that there's already a chance that if 4 judges are on the panel, the decision could not stand - which is something huge.
Next, the reason we're not just "throwing out numbers" is the following
For sake of discussion and transparency we will say that Tyler thought it was over and Cloud thought it was a re-game
Essentially, this is just an example of what I was saying before - Yes, ideally, you'd want as many people as possible to agree on the decision before taking it - since that's not feasible, I think 5 is the least required.
You say 3. I respect that. However, as I've tried to explain, please take into account the example that this very thread in which we're posting represents - there's a huge difference between 3 and 5. I'm not just randomly saying "Yeah, 6 guys and their moms sounds about right".
|
|
|
Eh, losing your entire army as P and having marauders clearing your third is not really a situation you can recover from. What are you going to do, throw unupgraded zeal/stalker at stimmed marauders from 1base income, with no sentries and only 2 lifts, and hope he goes afk?
Agree with the judges on this decision. Good show TL for releasing all the information on the process, as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
