|
On March 20 2011 23:39 Blueblister wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 23:26 terrorist112358 wrote: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:
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. I also agree with terrorist. While I myself load players who only nags without saying anything constructive, it's 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.
There is no democracy on a discussion forum, you abide by the rules that are set for you. Stop thinking you have any rights on the internet on someone else playground. There's a reason you have to agree to follow the forum's rules when you sign up, should read them before clicking "I agree" next time, should be an eye opener as to how much freedom of speech you actually have here.
On March 20 2011 23:40 nudal wrote:
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.
Why, Boxer was so far ahead I doubt even NightEnd thought he had any chances after watching the replay. He was simply too far behind, mostly from the colossus count perspective. Unlike the first round of getting 200/200 Boxer was already 30 army supply ahead (most of those marauders which you can't argue, destroy gateway units), better upgrades and a lot better on the economy side (4th was done when he dced so on the way to getting 3 mining bases, he had a ton of gas and ~2k minerals/1k gas in already paid for units - check his production buildings) while NightEnd had 2 bases mining and barely enough gas for another colossus and a few stalkers.
|
If MC says Boxer should win, then Boxer should win, the other 2 options are non important.
All hail the Brotoss president !
|
On March 20 2011 06:04 okum wrote:
My only complaint is that players in the tournament shouldn't be used as referees.
This.
The solution was fair, fast and professionell but like okum said it would have been better to use a panel without involved players.
And yeah I know that this wouldn't be that easy to realise but it would be a bit better.
|
After watching the Vod it was a clear win for Boxer. No question as he complete defeated Nightend's max army and emp'd the phoenix.
|
Disconnecting or otherwise crashing from a game is always going to be an issue so long as computers and networks are fallible systems, and some kind of system needs to be in place that is fair to all parties involved.
Yes in these situations you have to be hyper aware of the possibility for abuse, and walk a very fine line between fairness and risking an advantage for someone disconnecting. Short of requiring all members to either be in the same room or have some kind of webcam system up following the wires and showing what they're doing IRL, I don't see how it'd be possible to ever be 100% sure, and neither of those are particularly good options.
So, that all said, a transparent judging method where players can pick out perceived bias, which only awards wins that were absolutely guarenteed, seems like the best possible method for a bad situation, and I'm happy to see it.
|
Rules are rules, if the players are given them and agree to them, then that's that. Didn't know what to do about it at first, then read the OP and have decided; happy with the panel's decision. Game 1 to the Emperor.
|
On March 20 2011 10:00 VuFFeR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 09:46 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 09:39 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 09:27 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 09:21 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 09:12 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 09:06 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:55 Vorenius wrote:On March 20 2011 08:46 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:43 JackDino wrote:
[quote]
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs. You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame. Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell? In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true. And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s EDIT: I only just realised you have 12 posts total >_< Nvm, then. Enjoy you ban. You cant have 100% certainty to win in sc2 only in "very few" scenarios (im sure there would be a way to work around that) besides i doubt any pro gamer with a sponsor would ever do that, it wouldn't exactly be good publicity. That he had won the game (100%) certain was an opinion, not a fact. If you refuse to comprehend that, then there is no point in discussing this. Ps. Why should i get banned for giving my opinion? That's what the forum is here for now isn't it? EDIT: @JackDino: there is no point in argueing about what would happen in an offline tournament. Simply because this isn't. Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong. No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that. Exactly the same thing could've happened at an offline tournament. The only problem here is you thinking people dc on purpose, which is why there is a panel. If you would actually read the OP properly(You really haven't done that), you would know that dcing when you're winning wouldn't give you a win. You want as little people as possible to judge yet you want to judge when to and when not to judge. The people in the panel are professionals, if a single 1 of them would've said nightend could've won they would've rematched, a single one. If you would understand when people can and can't win you might make it up there. Life isn't fair, better get used to it. I have read the OP. Cheap shots aren't gonna get you anywhere. God i hate arguing with people who aren't interested in understanding eachother. There is no "winning" in this arguement if that's what you are looking for. We just have two way of seeing things. That being said. BoxeR could (if he had known about this rule) have dc'ed deliberately to avoid that 1% chance of losing - even with the panel. You gotta take these things into account. Even if they are only hypothetical. Being a pro sc2 gamers doesn't neccesarily make you good at taking these kinds of decisions. They "can" be biased. I'd much rather watch BoxeR than NightEnd myself - if i were given the choice to let BoxeR go through... hell i would do it. Mainly because i'm such an irrational bastard. ^_^ - anyways ... only wasting time on this debate. I've made my point clear and so have you. I just hope that TL reevaluate the rules. Good night. The reason it's impossible to understand you is because you keep contradicting yourself, using different standarts that are fine according to YOU yet saying OTHERS aren't allowed to decide those exact things. I see, my point is simply too advanced for you  Jokes aside. Tbh. the only thing there is to understand is that i want to minimize the use of judges to the absolute minimum. To be VERY specific. And in this situation i didn't see the need for one, because there still was a chance of NightEnd winning. I think this game still was to uncertain to judge on. I think it should be even more obvious who is gonna win, before you go away from a rematch. I'm talking like 20 marauders vs 1 probe and a nexus. To me that would be okay to judge in BoxeR's favor. This game was still too open. Eventho' a panel said otherwise. - I know my opinion isn't "mainstream", but that's really how I feel. I'm not trying to piss anybody off, but this would just make so much more sense in "my" head. - In and ideal world we wouldn't need judges, but we do. The least we can do is to try to minimize the use of them. EDIT: Typo
According to you, I guess the court system should also enact rules to have 100% DNA match, fingerprint match, about 20 witnesses with identical stories to get a conviction.
Also, why would Boxer leave when he had the lead? It is more likely that Boxer got drop hacked by NightEnd than Boxer left the game so he could get an autowin.
|
After reading the post and looking at the rules I have one concern:
It seems like it may be a good idea to avoid players competing in the tournament, they have an apparent conflict of interests. While I am sure the judges tried to be impartial, the fact that they may have to play one of these players later on could easily influence their vote towards whom they would rather play.
So my suggestion is just to keep your criteria for judges but add "and who are not competing in the tournament where the match was played."
|
On March 20 2011 23:49 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 23:39 Blueblister wrote:On March 20 2011 23:26 terrorist112358 wrote: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:
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. I also agree with terrorist. While I myself load players who only nags without saying anything constructive, it's 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. There is no democracy on a discussion forum, you abide by the rules that are set for you. Stop thinking you have any rights on the internet on someone else playground. There's a reason you have to agree to follow the forum's rules when you sign up, should read them before clicking "I agree" next time, should be an eye opener as to how much freedom of speech you actually have here.
Well, web sites based in democratic countries has to comply with national law. I'm not sure how much the national law regulates this type of censoring but your probably right that this is lawful from a pure legal perspective.
On March 20 2011 23:48 zeru wrote:
If you disagree with the decisions for no reason, can't suggest any way to do it differently, it just means that you don't understand the decision or haven't thought it through. You contribute nothing, your opinion doesn't matter because you simply disagree for the sake of disagreeing.
If you have a valid reason for disagreeing then you should explain it, not simply state that you disagree. TL is known for trying to maintain a high level quality posting standard.
Thats not true, identifying a underlying problem is valuable in itself. Even if you do not have the time or ability to find a solution yourself someone else might be able to. Furthermore just informing others of your opinion also has a value in itself. Therefore, I've created a topic for it here.
|
If it required the whole panel to be unanimous in order to award a win, why would Nightend veto anyone? Bigger panel = bigger chance for a regame... He knew he was somewhere between a little and a whole boatload behind, so I personally wouldn't have vetoed anyone just to put more odds on my side.
Clutch veto by Boxer though!
I really got to give it to TL for the transparency. It's never easy in this type of situation and this is pretty much the best way to handle it, regardless of whether or not you agree with the decision itself. My only criticism is how some of the refs were players. I don't doubt that they acted objectively but with these types of ethics, it's best to avoid even the appearance of possible wrongdoing.
|
I knew the moment i saw boxer DC they would award him the game. if it was the other way around(nightend clearly in the lead) I'm not so sure since Nightend is not as huge a name as boxer. but then probably having to replay it would be more unfair to boxer than the loss to nightend so its whatever. its clearly sc2(blizzards) fault for not even having a reconnect function for custom games its utterly ridiculous. Im no expert but im pretty sure something like that is rather easy to implement
|
On March 21 2011 00:34 psychopat wrote:
If it required the whole panel to be unanimous in order to award a win, why would Nightend veto anyone? Bigger panel = bigger chance for a regame... He knew he was somewhere between a little and a whole boatload behind, so I personally wouldn't have vetoed anyone just to put more odds on my side.
Clutch veto by Boxer though!
I really got to give it to TL for the transparency. It's never easy in this type of situation and this is pretty much the best way to handle it, regardless of whether or not you agree with the decision itself. My only criticism is how some of the refs were players. I don't doubt that they acted objectively but with these types of ethics, it's best to avoid even the appearance of possible wrongdoing.
Yes this is another problem.
Players wasn't informed of the detailed rules. The administration should have objected when NightEnd wanted a veto and explained to him that his action could confusingly only be to his opponents benefit.
I applaud the transparency of the decision-making process though. I get the impression that the administration is very professional =D
|
|
|
I'm impressed with the transparency which took place for this decision. And I agree with the decision. People who are saying there should always be a regame should consider the alternative: what if they did an auto regame, and nightend won? Would that be fair to boxer, considering how much of an advantage he had built in the first game?
My only thought is I want to echo others' concerns that players in the tournament should not be on the panels regarding disconnects, as those players may have a stake in the decision.
|
On March 21 2011 00:43 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 00:34 Blueblister wrote:Thats not true, identifying a underlying problem is valuable in itself. Even if you do not have the time or ability to find a solution yourself someone else might be able to. Furthermore just informing others of your opinion also has a value in itself. Therefore, I've created a topic for it here. If you can't even explain why you think the way you do, and can't provide a valid, thought through opinion, you aren't providing any kind of valuable stand point that anyone is going to take seriously.
If a baby sits on something that is too hot it just cries without moving because it doesn't know what is hurting. This is still valuable as it alarms the child's father who can then come and solve the problem.
|
I'm impressed with the explanation. Every question I had about the decision was answered, clearly and transparently. I am however glad that you are going to require 5 referees on the panel in the future.
|
|
|
Considering that the panel had to be unanimous, clutch clutch veto by Boxer indeed.
Thanks for the transparency TL, unfortunate situation but at least the resolution was as fair and open as possible.
|
im really curious as to why Boxer vetoed Cloud and Nend vetoed Tyler.
The rules clearly seem to state that: "Players will have the opportunity to veto any of the members of panel if they have good reason to do so (e.g. bias)".
So for the sake of transparency, i want to know what the good reasons that Boxer and Nend gave to remove Cloud and Tyler from the process. This seems to be a huge point, since if Cloud was on the panel it would be a regame. So how did Boxer know to veto exactly the guy that denied him the win and what was the reasoning behind it? I smell fish in this
Also i wont comment on the "having the game absolutely won" part. There is no way you can say this unless the terran army is in the protoss main killing buildings. The way things were, the terran had a big advantage but you cannot say it was a 100% win. Comebacks have happened, and i dont find it fair to reward the disconecting player.
|
On March 21 2011 00:45 Double Letters wrote:
People who are saying there should always be a regame should consider the alternative: what if they did an auto regame, and nightend won? Would that be fair to boxer, considering how much of an advantage he had built in the first game?
Dood, if the game was played at a venue and the power went out, or if bnet went down and both players dc'ed, your argument would be completely valid.
As such, since Boxer ended up disconnecting and technically losing the game, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In a hypothetical 70-30% win scenario (if there is such a thing), the decision for a regame would have been completely fair. If both player dc'd, sure, you're right, but in our case, the only way to award anything than regame was a obvious winning situation for one of the players.
As it is also stated in the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
