This is what makes Team Liquid such a great organization to manage a tournament. I've never seen such professionalism being implemented at a tournament like this. Great job Team Liquid staff.

CurLy[]

United States759 Posts

March 20 2011 19:32 GMT

#883

Wow.. what a thorough post. You guys are making organizations like MLB NFL look like amateurs <3

Murderotica

Vatican City State2594 Posts

March 20 2011 20:01 GMT

#884

I have to give major props to TL for doing everything "By the book," which makes sense since they wrote the book xD And what a great book it is. Three cheers for fair tournament moderation!

Klogon

MURICA15980 Posts

March 20 2011 20:07 GMT

#885

As much controversy that this decision will inevitably generate, I honestly do not think you guys could have handled it any better. Big props to you TSL staffers. ;D

Deadeight

United Kingdom1629 Posts

March 20 2011 20:48 GMT

#886

Handled brilliantly, great to see the thought that went into the decision and it seems a really fair way of doing it.

Nazguls explanation, especially with the simulation, was really coherent. The simulation backed up the argument so it doesn't come across as just educated guess work.

One question though, were it a Liquid'TLAF player involved, would you exclude any TL staff from the decision? It sounds like each player can veto one panel member, and there may be more than one TL staff panel member.

scrubtastic

1166 Posts

March 20 2011 20:54 GMT

#887

This is a really good explanation and ruleset you got here. /respect to the TSL administration.

I also liked the "unit simulation" to really drive the point home.

MaxField

United States2386 Posts

March 20 2011 21:19 GMT

#888

I really appreciate how ope you are with the decision. It really stinks that this had to occur, but i am glad it could have been decided upon in such a professional manner. Good job TL!!

AliuS.19

5 Posts

March 20 2011 21:31 GMT

#889

As with any sport, it's up to you to keep the victory from being determined by the officials. However, there are times when they will decide the match, and, in such cases, you have agreed by your participation to abide by their decision. All things considered, I think everyone is handling this extremely well.

carrion

United Kingdom87 Posts

March 20 2011 21:34 GMT

#890

Teamliquid.net - more professional than real sports

GhettoSheep

United States150 Posts

March 20 2011 21:36 GMT

#891

On March 20 2011 05:56 barth wrote:
This is overwhelmingly professional. Good job everyone, makes me proud to be a TL member.

This.

thebiglebowski

United States11 Posts

March 20 2011 22:24 GMT

#892

I hope that nightend feels this was fair. The panel did an excellent job in my opinion.

Ghad

Norway2551 Posts

March 20 2011 22:42 GMT

#893

There is just no substitute for great information flow, and TL is setting an example for the other tournaments. This level of transparency is very commendable.

Mista_Masta

Netherlands557 Posts

March 20 2011 22:43 GMT

#894

I think TL has showed great professionalism in this entire process of dealing with a disconnect. It is very unfortunate, but these things happen. I think there is no better way to deal with this than to ask several experts whether a re-game is in order, and only award a win/loss when all agree.

By the way, given the rules, it wasn't a smart decision by NightEnd to veto any of the judges, since a bigger number of judges means it's less likely they will unanimously give him the loss (at that point he was clearly at a disadvantage - the judges were not going to give him a win). For this reason, I agree with what was said before, that there should always be a fixed number of judges - for instance always 5 and 2 forced vetoes, instead of the choice to veto.

rocketfuel

Canada1 Post

March 20 2011 23:27 GMT

#895

if we had governments that ran this effectively the world would be saved!

caileen

Sweden28 Posts

March 21 2011 00:07 GMT

#896

Well handled by the TL staff. I personally think that this is one of the most professionally handled decisions ever in e-sports. And criticizing this decision comparing a SC2 game to other sports is not fair in my opinion. Since in a SC2 game you will reveal your tactic and a re-game will possibly leave you without a tactic and change the way your opponent plays i.e. scouts earlier or goes for an cheesy all-in that works because you are off your main build/plan for this map and perhaps forget to scout behind the tall grass or something along those lines. That is part of why I think this decision was good. Also boxer is a solid player and is not known for choking so thats another reason for him not dropping a game that was an almost certain win.

Also, tl mods = gods... <3

frogmelter

United States971 Posts

March 21 2011 00:15 GMT

#897

On March 21 2011 04:00 Zato-1 wrote:
Nice to see this situation being handled so professionally and transparently.

Exactly what I was thinking

I hate it when rulings are made but they don't give anyone the reasoning besides "trust us we know what we're doing"

Thanks for being awesome teamliquid

Mids

Sweden19 Posts

March 21 2011 00:34 GMT

#898

When I first saw the replay, I didnt know what to think,all I saw was 9gateways and minerals in the bank and thought if he helt on and backed off and got 9more stalkers into the group it would be a closer battle, but then I realized the expo would go down, and if he tried to defend it, the units would be killed (as excellently proven by nazguls simulation)

Generally theres always a chance to come back, but we have to remember that these are really really top tier players, and a small advantage seems to hold up into a win. (most likely the reasoning in the decision in the power-outage between flash and Jaedong)

TL handled it great, just the fact that there is a panel makes the ruling more justyfied!

benefluence

United States158 Posts

March 21 2011 00:37 GMT

#899

Is it possible for HotBid's comment on using tournament players as judges to be added to the OP? I feel like that is an important piece of information that a lot of people aren't likely to see when it sits in the middle of a 45 page thread.

Fiel

United States587 Posts

March 21 2011 00:45 GMT

#900

While I do agree with the result, I cannot agree with how the result was made due to a reasonable suspicion of bias in the panel members.

Liquid`Nazgul may be biased (other Liquid players are in the tournament; He might want to have the best players progress through the tournament since it's his site)
oGsMinchul may be biased (oGsMC is in the tournament; wants his friend to win)
mouz.MorroW may be biased (is in the tournament himself!; wants to face weaker players)

I am not saying that their opinions in this thread were biased toward Boxer (nor am I saying that the panel members actually want the aforementioned things to happen). I am merely stating that the suspicion of bias is present against the panel members. In having a panel of reviewers make an important call there should be no reasonable assumption of bias regarding anyone on the panel. These assumptions of bias weakens the overall decision the panel makes. So it is imperative that no panel member can have this assumption of bias against them.

But who could reach that level of bias?

- It can't be the casters.
- It can't be anyone who has a team mate in the tournament.
- It can't be anyone who is in the tournament.
- It can't be by popular vote

Also, the members representing the panel must have a solid amount of experience in the game and much knowledge regarding how the battlefield is laid out. So a top tier player is needed. Also, there must be players from all over the globe so the panel cannot be too biased for or against their own country.

If I could select any people on earth to be in this panel, I would select the following:

July (Z) (KOR)
Socke (P) (GER)
DIMAGA (Z) (UKR)
Maka (T) (KOR)
If he weren't casting, I would also elect to have Day9 on the panel.
Whoever is refereeing the games.

The logistical challenge of having a panel ready to do this is hard. I feel for the Liquid team. It seems like this takes a lot of work, and I do appreciate that. I'd hate for this to be their only Achilles heel. But I also want things to seem fair to all, and the people selected for the current panel have suspicions of bias regardless if they arrived at the correct conclusion. I hope that this doesn't happen again.