|
On March 21 2011 09:45 Fiel wrote:
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.
I agree with this (and most of the rest of your post) entirely. I think TL handled this very professionally and I was very impressed, especially by the openness - most organisations would have kept this kind of thing behind closed doors. However, no system is perfect and this is an improvement that needs to be made IMO. For the sake of the peace of mind of everyone nobody participating in the tournament or involved with the players should be involved in this decision.
The only small point of difference I would make is that other current pro players are not necessarily the best people to be panel members. They may have personal grudges against/be close friends with the players involved, or be close rivals, since they spend a lot of time in the same professional "space" as the players. There are plenty of other people with a similar level of game knowledge who are not pros either because of career choice or because their mechanics, reflexes etc are not up to a pro standard. Casters like Tastosis, the Korean commentators and other well respected community contributors come to mind. Obviously this pool of people is not huge given the relative smallness of the scene and how young it is (not many ex pros etc) but I think it's something worth bearing in mind.
|
Brilliant write-up, very professional. The decision is clear and well made.
|
On March 21 2011 09:45 Fiel wrote:
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.
Why would you select 2 zerg players in a TvP game? What makes you think that they have more knowledge in that matchup than the players playing the races actually being played? That, itself, already makes me disregard your opinion as a valid argument.
Also, what's with you people and always bringing up Day9 in everything? Day9 is a good caster and all but I don't believe he is qualified to judge this.
|
I just wanted to say thank you for the transparency you guys provided with this decision. This is by far the best I could have imagined a situation like this being handled.
|
Was cloud's explanation/opinion ever released? I'm sorry but I didn't check through the 40-something pages because I thought there might be a savior here that might be able to point me to an existing post.
Pretty please?
|
I just watched all of Day 1 and I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the transparency that the TSL staff has shown. It's really nice to have all of this out in the open.
I also find it interesting that Boxer said that he wanted to have the panel reach a decision. I would think that he viewed himself as being ahead and had the game practically won. It's really in his best interest to say that he won the game in the off chance that Nightend agrees with him.
|
Glad that you guys actually responded to this issue in a timely manner and allowed everyone to view the entire rules and process. I am so glad that you reach out to "top players that play the same races as the players or generally have what we consider a good understanding of the game." This ensures the best outcome! The last thing I would want to see is a single observer/referee deciding the outcome of a match. Kudoz to everyone at Team Liquid for a job well done!
|
I was curious about this match as I heard about it during the Justin TV Invitational and after analyzing it and reading all the opinions as well as watching the replay many times, the decision was clear. With all the factors mentioned already by the panel and the pheonixes being rendered almost completely useless (this being the biggest factor I believe), the right decision was taken. Great job Team Liquid, getting oGsMC to the panel is simply genius.
|
ya, although i will favor boxer to win in every match no matter who he plays against (why wouldn't i?) he CLEARLY had that game won, no doubt it my mind that one of the greatest starcraft players of ALL TIME would botch such a clear lead. Even before the 200/200 armies engaged I KNEW for a fact that boxer would come out ahead easily. How sexy was the scan on the protoss army right before boxer engaged it to que up vikings to attack the colossus and also to drop the emps. protoss didnt have that game at all the entire time in my opinion, he didnt harass and that's not something you should do against anyone. let alone BOXER!
|
On March 20 2011 07:11 FreezerJumps wrote:
Thanks for the thread. I don't really have the time to go through 18 pages, but in case no one's mentioned this, will Cloud be on future panels, if the need arises? He has disagreed with the panel here, and would have reversed a decision which seems 100% correct to almost everyone. This puts into question his game knowledge and his place on this panel. I don't mean to be too harsh on him, but his opinion could well have cost Boxer this series.
I know Cloud's game knowledge must be very high for him to have been chosen for the panel, but in order to convince the TL community of this, can his justification for his decision be released? If the strength of his arguments don't match those he's opposing, I don't think he should be considered for future panels.
I want to say that I have nothing against Cloud, but his decision would have caused a HUGE problem for the TSL, if Nightend had proceeded to win the series. I am also not saying that I don't think anyone who disagrees with the majority must be removed from the judging system, but his expertise should be questioned in this instance, as he disagrees with absolutely conclusive arguments from the other panel members.
On March 20 2011 12:06 adeezy wrote:
I don't know what mym cloud said. But I can help feel that if he had an argument to the contrary of what was presented, I'd have to think he's possibly biased. Especially considering the standpoint he had of having Koreans in the nasl (in which he was against it since he says they don't do anything to participate in our scene, along with other reasons).
Of course I don't know because we didn't get to see what they said but I just hope they don't choose a panel who don't have bias or prejudice because it's a possbility
On March 21 2011 11:51 han_han wrote:
Was cloud's explanation/opinion ever released? I'm sorry but I didn't check through the 40-something pages because I thought there might be a savior here that might be able to point me to an existing post.
Pretty please?
Several quotes taken from the thread. I full-heartedly agree with these. If you are a member of the TeamLiquid community, and you do truly want transparency and fairness, then Cloud should have to justify his opinion, and you should continue to voice your opinion until he does, or until TL at least acknowledges the request and respectfully denies posting his opinion (for whatever reason, they have the power here).
I understand that we shouldn't attack people who are more skilled than us at the game for their decisions, but I tend to agree with the decision that was made with very litlte doubt, (I was top 200 NA when I played more actively, however less active because of school lately), and those who did vote a BoxeR win seemed convinced beyond any doubt at all that it was a win. I am completely shocked that Cloud came to a different decision, to be honest.
For the sake of moving on and, more importantly, avoiding a shit-storm later, Cloud should be required to post his justification for that decision. The wrong decision would have been made (subjective, sure, but I've seen no other professionals come out to defend Cloud here, I feel he's a very very small minority on this one) if he was not veteod. I'm shocked that any player could see that game and say that it's a re-game, but perhaps I am missing something.
I mean no disrespect to ClouD here. I only wish that we have a fair and balanced tournament for all participants, and that any judges used on panels are making sane decisions free of bias. This should have been a very clear cut case. It's no Flash vs Jaedong MSL Finals. Boxer was clearly winning that game. What we need is a discussion that either disproves this, or somehow justifies Cloud for making a decision such as this. Otherwise, I will remain very questionable, if not even offended, by Cloud's intended decision in this case. A regame would have been a travesty.
|
Maybe I shouldn't expect any different, but I'm always impressed by how professional you guys are. Your openness and clear communication is just great.
|
Great decision from TL. No dispute here. None
I, too, would like to see Cloud justify his opinion. Btw, I am not familiar with MYM.Cloud nor his accomplishments, but I would like to hear his opinion.
One question, say 4 out of 5 panel members agree that re-game is not necessary while a 5th member missed a crucial point that the other four members noticed, and decide on a re-game in opposition of the other four, will a re-game be issued regardless?
|
I dont understand the discussions in here o_O I think it was a clear win for BoxeR. Literally no way NightEnd would have won that game.
|
I havn't read through the entier thread so forgive me if this has already been mentioned, I've only gotten through about the first 10 pages.
TSL admins have handled this situation very well I have to say, but I do have one minor criticism, since you've included pretty much all info, can you also include each player's reasons for vetoing the respective board members that they did? I'm sure its not that this is secret but rather was simply forgotten about.
|
On March 21 2011 15:33 1a2a3aPro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 07:11 FreezerJumps wrote:
Thanks for the thread. I don't really have the time to go through 18 pages, but in case no one's mentioned this, will Cloud be on future panels, if the need arises? He has disagreed with the panel here, and would have reversed a decision which seems 100% correct to almost everyone. This puts into question his game knowledge and his place on this panel. I don't mean to be too harsh on him, but his opinion could well have cost Boxer this series.
I know Cloud's game knowledge must be very high for him to have been chosen for the panel, but in order to convince the TL community of this, can his justification for his decision be released? If the strength of his arguments don't match those he's opposing, I don't think he should be considered for future panels.
I want to say that I have nothing against Cloud, but his decision would have caused a HUGE problem for the TSL, if Nightend had proceeded to win the series. I am also not saying that I don't think anyone who disagrees with the majority must be removed from the judging system, but his expertise should be questioned in this instance, as he disagrees with absolutely conclusive arguments from the other panel members. Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 12:06 adeezy wrote:
I don't know what mym cloud said. But I can help feel that if he had an argument to the contrary of what was presented, I'd have to think he's possibly biased. Especially considering the standpoint he had of having Koreans in the nasl (in which he was against it since he says they don't do anything to participate in our scene, along with other reasons).
Of course I don't know because we didn't get to see what they said but I just hope they don't choose a panel who don't have bias or prejudice because it's a possbility Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 11:51 han_han wrote:
Was cloud's explanation/opinion ever released? I'm sorry but I didn't check through the 40-something pages because I thought there might be a savior here that might be able to point me to an existing post.
Pretty please? Several quotes taken from the thread. I full-heartedly agree with these. If you are a member of the TeamLiquid community, and you do truly want transparency and fairness, then Cloud should have to justify his opinion, and you should continue to voice your opinion until he does, or until TL at least acknowledges the request and respectfully denies posting his opinion (for whatever reason, they have the power here). I understand that we shouldn't attack people who are more skilled than us at the game for their decisions, but I tend to agree with the decision that was made with very litlte doubt, (I was top 200 NA when I played more actively, however less active because of school lately), and those who did vote a BoxeR win seemed convinced beyond any doubt at all that it was a win. I am completely shocked that Cloud came to a different decision, to be honest. For the sake of moving on and, more importantly, avoiding a shit-storm later, Cloud should be required to post his justification for that decision. The wrong decision would have been made (subjective, sure, but I've seen no other professionals come out to defend Cloud here, I feel he's a very very small minority on this one) if he was not veteod. I'm shocked that any player could see that game and say that it's a re-game, but perhaps I am missing something. I mean no disrespect to ClouD here. I only wish that we have a fair and balanced tournament for all participants, and that any judges used on panels are making sane decisions free of bias. This should have been a very clear cut case. It's no Flash vs Jaedong MSL Finals. Boxer was clearly winning that game. What we need is a discussion that either disproves this, or somehow justifies Cloud for making a decision such as this. Otherwise, I will remain very questionable, if not even offended, by Cloud's intended decision in this case. A regame would have been a travesty.
I disagree, Cloud was vetoed from the panel, so his opinion shouldn't matter more than Incontrol or Artosis opinion here.
If you round up every single pro out there, no doubt will there be quite a few who would be of the opinion that it should have been a re-match. But they weren't on the panel, and I'd assume the majority still agree with the panels reasoning. And that's why there's a Veto system, so that players don't have to be judged by someone who they might have a grudge with.
In my opinion, it was a mistake to reveal Tylers and Clouds opinions, in the OP, for the same reasoning as my first sentance.
|
As many others have said already, thank you for acting professionally, taking this seriously, and spending the time to explain yourselves to the community.
|
This is cleary a good, if not the best, way to handle a situation like this. There's much to learn from this and I'm happy that this community has the mature mindset to deal with it. Thanks for being awesome TL!
|
The handling of the situation seems reasonable given the rules agreed to beforehand, but I disagree with the overall ruling. Imagine if this was the final game in the championship set, and boxer had made the decision to pull back, after seeing nightend's army, RIGHT BEFORE the disconnect. Would the game still have been called a win for boxer? If it wouldn't have been, then it shouldn't have been in this game: there should be no difference between a championship ruling and a ro32 ruling, and it is certainly possible (if unlikely) boxer would have pulled back given the situation.
As such, perhaps the rules governing a disconnect should be altered in some way to make awarding a win to someone who disconnects even more difficult.
|
had some doubts at first, but nazgul's and mc's opinions convinced me that the ruling was correct, and very professionally argumented. great handling of the situation indeed.
i however do not agree with the rules regarding these kind of situations.
i would only allow judging a game in favor of a player if there is a food/worker difference of at least 40% or something like 50% food difference with 15% worker/base differential, 35$ food difference with 25% worker/base differential, you get the idea, create a more objective system.
situations like boxer-nightend should be a re-game, because a game at this level has other factors into it besides the army/worker ratios and current positions. there is the incomplete but more important issue of player scouting and decision making, and you can't math that out. ofcourse from the omniscient presence of the observer will make things look clear-cut.
boxer was taking another base. after losing so many units in that 200 confrontation and having some lag, and being the safe player that he is, he may have chosen to retreat to be 100% secure; the ruling decides to judge the outcome of the match assuming an attack on the 3rd base as the disconnect occured.
yes, boxer would have won if he attacked into the third, but the ruling didn't address the other option. the ruling was made on what the panel would have done in the situation judging from the omniscient observer pov under no pressure. they made a decision based on incomplete information, and when you open up the option of ruling a game in favor of one or another player even under objectionable circumstances (aka not a devastating difference, which in this case would have meant the third nexus already being down at the time of the dc). like in law, if there's reasonable doubt..
either way, this sort of open-end rules/rulings are sure to always entail controversial outcomes, which you can't afford at later stages in such a tournament that is prone to further connection problems.
tldr: good ruling, but you should always regame disconnects particularly in a tournament prone to connection issues, unless in cases where the win is obvious even if the player with the advantage is assumed to make mistakes above and beyond what panel members arbitrarily define as reasonable mistakes to make at the pro level.
i believe it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the game was won by boxer, but rather the ruling was made based on a well argumented but arguable 90+% probability that it would have been. i believe the rules need to be tweaked to only allow ruling wins on 99%+ odds of victory (which in this case boxer clearly did not have, since subjective factors such as stress, lag, and other decision making factors may have led to a different situation that wasn't and couldn't have been mathed out due to incomplete information and subjectivity of the panel members' omniscient pov).
|
Norway28756 Posts
I'm sorry, but you are off-base. boxer is thought to have a 99%+ chance of victory in this game. 91% would certainly be a regame, 95% would be a regame. he is given a win because based on how the game looks at the time boxer disconnects, it is believed that boxer would win every single time they replayed it from that moment. like, 100 out of 100 times. essentially, even if boxer plays the worst game he has played in the past 6 months, he would still win. this is the criteria this ruling bases itself on. no, the game is not 100% mathematically over, if boxer stops playing for a minute or so, a comeback can happen, but there is nothing boxer can do indicated by any game any person has ever watched him play that would mean he would lose this game. there just aren't any possible ways for nightend to make a comeback, he is on almost pure gateway tech against superior economy, superior army, superior tech and superior upgrades..
seriously I cannot stress this enough: this ruling is based on the assumption that boxer plays the rest of the game as badly as he ever could be expected to play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
