|
This is... I have never seen such a professional and open ruling in a tournament. Regardless of what anyone might think of the decision there can be no doubt that everyone involved has strived to achieve the fairest and most respectful decision with an overwhelmingly degree of openness. MANY other tournament organizers in ESPORTS should follow this example.
Outstanding work.
|
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.
Why clutch veto? If you read op you will see that Cloud never was even asked what opinion he had. The part about Tyler and Cloud was hypothetical to show how the decision would be made. Cloud and Tyler never submitted or said anything about this game. IT WAS HYPOTHETICAL AND WRITTEN BY TL, IT IS NOT CLOUD'S OPINION.
|
On March 21 2011 00:54 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 00:47 Blueblister wrote:On March 21 2011 00:43 zeru wrote: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. If you don't even understand why you disagree yourself then don't post.
Well I'm done posting about the disconnection and censoring issue here. I've made my points. Again, thanks to the administrating for being so open in the decision making process, it will definitely help TSL to further improve.
|
On March 21 2011 00:54 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 00:47 Blueblister wrote:On March 21 2011 00:43 zeru wrote: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. If you don't even understand why you disagree yourself then don't post.
You seem to be using fallacies in every single post you write. You will not succeed in your little attempt to implicate that if someone doesn't have a solution, then he doesn't understand a problem. He absolutely understands why he disagrees. Finding another solution to the problem is however a completely different issue from understanding a problem. The Japanese understand very well what's going on with their reactor, what the problem is. They did from the start. Finding a solution to it on the other hand, is a long and difficult process. Arguing with such shortsighted and underhanded opinions as yours only supports me that I am right.
|
On March 21 2011 01:02 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +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. Why clutch veto? If you read op you will see that Cloud never was even asked what opinion he had. The part about Tyler and Cloud was hypothetical to show how the decision would be made. Cloud and Tyler never submitted or said anything about this game. IT WAS HYPOTHETICAL AND WRITTEN BY TL, IT IS NOT CLOUD'S OPINION.
Their opinions never reached NightEnd and Boxer.
For sake of discussion and transparency we will say that Tyler thought it was over and Cloud thought it was a re-game
Not many ways to interpret these statements, to be quite honest. I've no idea where the whole 'hypothetical' thing comes from.
|
On March 21 2011 00:59 ptz wrote: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.
Luck. Since nobody had said anything before veto it could only be luck. Comeback without templar tech or chargelots or blink stalkers when NightEnd didn't even have the economy to get those cause he was so so so behind in army? I simply don't see any way NightEnd could have turned that around without AoE. In the next 30s Boxer would be on 40+ marauders to NightEnd's 20 stalkers and gazillion phoenix and oh, 1 colossus.
This is not Romania mister, there's no reason to smell fish behind every decision. Veto doesn't require people to give reasons I suppose, or we would have had some. Best reason is prolly what even Boxer said, he considered he had 8:2 advantage, a terran being objective may have recognized that.
|
On March 21 2011 01:05 n0ise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 01:02 dakalro wrote: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. Why clutch veto? If you read op you will see that Cloud never was even asked what opinion he had. The part about Tyler and Cloud was hypothetical to show how the decision would be made. Cloud and Tyler never submitted or said anything about this game. IT WAS HYPOTHETICAL AND WRITTEN BY TL, IT IS NOT CLOUD'S OPINION. Their opinions never reached NightEnd and Boxer.
For sake of discussion and transparency we will say that Tyler thought it was over and Cloud thought it was a re-gameNot many ways to interpret these statements, to be quite honest. I've no idea where the whole 'hypothetical' thing comes from.
Yeah, my bad, I misunderstood "we will say" as "let's assume".
|
On March 20 2011 23:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Could you address the second point the poster made? I was very surprised to learn that players participating in the tournament were going to be asked to help decide who the winer of the game was. I understand that you want to get intelligent SC people to make these decisions and that usually means top players, but why not folks who simply know the game inside and out like, say, Artosis. Otherwise, it seems possible that players might (consciously or unconsciously) be biased because they know they might have to face one of these guys later.
|
|
|
On March 20 2011 23:35 zeru 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. If you had read the full OP it clearly states what not to do in this topic. They were warned because: Show nested quote +Here are the things you shouldn't do in this topic:
* Criticize the rules and administration without a suggestion on how to do it differently or better
* Criticize the players for leaving this in the hands of the TSL administration
* Any offensive post towards the panel members will result in a ban. Disagreeing with them is fine nobody is saying everyone should see eye to eye. Just make sure you don't cross the line because these people stepped it up and should be thanked and praised to help us out in a touchy situation.
* Incorrectly presenting facts that could be found in the OP or showing other signs of not reading the topic carefully.
LOL, instead of just posting the rules, pretending that they explain it, be more exact. You use fallacy in every post. Go ahead and tell us lower beings which rule did they exactly break and where? Or does it not fit into your little scheme?
|
|
|
I think the right decision was made but I have a problem with who was selected to be on the panel.
Its really bad to have players on the panel who are participating in the tournament. Its easy to see why Nightend vetoed Tyler because Tyler would have personal reasons as to why he'd want Boxer to win.
We all know PvP matchup is alot like rock paper scissors and Tyler has said many times it's his hardest matchup to win consistently. Obviously Tyler would prefer the Protoss player to be eliminated to decrease his chances of a PvP later in the tournament. I don't believe Tyler would've let this affect his decision as he's a decent guy but its ridiculous someone was put on the panel who has a legitimate reason to be biased to one of the players as it may benefit him in the actual tournament.
|
On March 21 2011 00:34 Blueblister wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 23:49 dakalro wrote: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.
Well, they may not be able to prevent you from voicing your opinion but they can sure as hell boot you from not following their rules or insulting them. Defamation is not completely protected by freedom of speech.
|
On March 21 2011 01:10 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 01:04 terrorist112358 wrote:On March 21 2011 00:54 zeru wrote:On March 21 2011 00:47 Blueblister wrote:On March 21 2011 00:43 zeru wrote: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. If you don't even understand why you disagree yourself then don't post. You seem to be using fallacies in every single post you write. You will not succeed in your little attempt to implicate that if someone doesn't have a solution, then he doesn't understand a problem. He absolutely understands why he disagrees. Finding another solution to the problem is however a completely different issue from understanding a problem. The Japanese understand very well what's going on with their reactor, what the problem is. They did from the start. Finding a solution to it on the other hand, is a long and difficult process. Arguing with such shortsighted and underhanded opinions as yours only supports me that I am right. All I'm saying is if you disagree with the decisions and the reasons the judges had to give boxer the game, you should state why you disagree, not just state that you disagree. It's as simple as that. It's simply pathetic to see people disagree with the decisions the judges have made and all the miss quoting that has happened in the topic. It's like looking at a bronze league player saying the builds MC's uses are complete garbage.
This is false analogy. Bronze league has nothing to do with this. I'm gonna make a list of fallacies you used. There is still plenty you didn't touch. But you're getting there.
People in this thread are massively stating their agreement with the decision without any reasons why. Yet you would like to remove the ability for the disagreeing people to do so. Why? Because you fear that it would show something you wouldn't like. There would be no reason for you to try denying it if you didn't fear it.
|
I'm amazed by how well this was handled. I didn't see the game but everything indicates that the TSL staff did the best they could to approach the situation fairly and ultimately made the correct decision to overcome an unfortunate event.
wp TSL
|
Am a big fanboy of boxer as Im guessing about 60% of posters here are if it was the other way around Im not sure if the reactions would be this placid.
|
|
|
There are obvious issues with a panel made of teammates and/or other tourney participants. Also, I find it distasteful that the person who disconnected can get a win in that situation - I would think the decision would be between re-gameing and awarding the win to the non-disconnector.
|
On March 21 2011 01:08 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 00:59 ptz wrote: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. Luck. Since nobody had said anything before veto it could only be luck. Comeback without templar tech or chargelots or blink stalkers when NightEnd didn't even have the economy to get those cause he was so so so behind in army? I simply don't see any way NightEnd could have turned that around without AoE. In the next 30s Boxer would be on 40+ marauders to NightEnd's 20 stalkers and gazillion phoenix and oh, 1 colossus. This is not Romania mister, there's no reason to smell fish behind every decision. Veto doesn't require people to give reasons I suppose, or we would have had some. Best reason is prolly what even Boxer said, he considered he had 8:2 advantage, a terran being objective may have recognized that.
Luck? That is your oppinion that it was luck? He still had to give a reason for his decision, i dont think he said "i feel lucky so im vetoing cloud, kthx." I still would like the official reason for the removal of cloud from the panel.
Also the fact that you dont see how a game can be turned around, doesnt mean it cant happen, or that others cant see it happening. Hence cloud voted for a regame. Apparently he, and perhaps others can see it. This is why you have to have at least 5 persons on a panel and an unanymous decision.
This is indeed not Romania, but i have my reasons to smell fish in the air. The rules state that you have to have a good reason to veto someone, so i doubt that you can just veto out of the blue. Or if you did, then you broke the rules. He happened to veto exactly the guy that would have said regame with no reason whatsoever. Damn, thats lucky.
Also, some food for thought, my romanian unbiased friend. Try to think that it was nightend with a huge advantage, and nightend disconnecting. Try to imagine the legions of boxer fans yelling that omg the emperor could come back with clutch drops and micro and stuff, after all he is the emperor. Try to imagine that the panel would be determined and that they would give the victory to a disconecting nightend. Wow, sorry, but i just can't imagine that happening, the internet would implode
|
NightenD could defend that expansion just by moving some probes and warping in 9 units after a few seconds. 76 probes from nightenD vs 64 from Boxer, 64vs64 after fight? NightenD after defending the attack had air superiority, 1 colossi rdy, 1 upgrade and good income. Boxer had better upgrades and thats all... I think Boxer could won that game later but not EASY and not even 75% probabilities favoring him. I think giving a game that close is only good when the guy who DC's is the one who lost a big fight, not the one who won, thats exploitable when the other guy can comeback -.-
I feel bad for NightenD. Ofc Im not as good as morrow & co, just my opinion after watching replay. Sorry for bad english :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
