EPTFor the record, I have never witnessed such a baller decision in any sport event in my life. Most of the tournaments have zero tolerance towards different scenarios like disconnects which is cowardness if you ask me.
[TSL] Day 1 Disconnect Situation - Page 47
| Forum Index > PokerStrategy.com TSL3 Forum |
|
BigPanda
Sweden7 Posts
For the record, I have never witnessed such a baller decision in any sport event in my life. Most of the tournaments have zero tolerance towards different scenarios like disconnects which is cowardness if you ask me. | ||
|
mansnicks
Latvia120 Posts
Godd decision  | ||
|
Rango Fett
United States5 Posts
TL;DR:by my logic, viewing all possible ways to decide a DCed game, the current one is best, with the only argument being for how to choose the panel. First: This particular outcome was fair because the rule was clearly stated and given to both players before they entered the tournament, so to NOT go by the written rule would be unfair, the only argument for this particular situation is concerning the panel selection, but I will leave that alone. We will only discuss options for how the game could be changed moving forward. RIDICULOUS OPTIONS WE WON"T CONSIDER: DC results in both players automatically losing, DC results in player who DCed automatically winning, DC results in a coin flip decision, DC results in both players winning. VIABLE (rational to some degree) OPTIONS: OPTION: DC always results in a re-game. I think we can see that this is sub-optimal, as a person losing could DC in order to get a new chance at winning. This leaves us with two possible choices, which come down to an argument of values, which I will discuss afterwards: OPTION 1:DCer automatically loses: Pros: Simple, black and white, no human judgement involved. Cons: Potential for someone to sabotage a players connection, player skill has zero factor in the decision i.e. a bronze level player could defeat Boxer in this same game if Boxer DCed. OPTION 2: Panel of judges: Pros: decision based on the game at hand, will result in regame if the result is in the 0-~85% sure range (being generous to the doubters, there),keeps tournament moving. Cons: potential for judge bias/corruption, doesn't allow for the possibility, of a comeback in some situations. Of the two options, I prefer 2, and I feel the only real argument to be made here is over panel selection, which I think could be made at the beginning of the tournament and have the players know ahead of time what the panel could be. I do acknowledge that there is rational arguments for Option 1. Disqualifications happen in all sorts of sports, false starts in Track, wearing jewelry during some events, etc... There are several sports that use the panel of judges as well, such as boxing and others. I don't think I missed any options there, and would greatly appreciate feedback, as this is my first post. | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
| ||
|
Smurphy
United States374 Posts
On March 22 2011 03:13 Rango Fett wrote:TL;DR:by my logic, viewing all possible ways to decide a DCed game, the current one is best, with the only argument being for how to choose the panel. First: This particular outcome was fair because the rule was clearly stated and given to both players before they entered the tournament, so to NOT go by the written rule would be unfair, the only argument for this particular situation is concerning the panel selection, but I will leave that alone. We will only discuss options for how the game could be changed moving forward. RIDICULOUS OPTIONS WE WON"T CONSIDER: DC results in both player losing, DC results in player who DCed winning, DC results in a coin flip decision, DC results in both players winning. I think I misunderstood your post. I read it several times but couldn't find the relevant information. Under "Ridiculous options we won't consider" you list "DC results in player who DCed winning." Isn't that what happened? | ||
|
perestain
Germany308 Posts
However, I have a mixed feeling about the result. In sports, its not about who has an advantage on paper, but about actually PLAYING IT OUT. Thats the excitement of sports, that there is a possibility for upsets and comebacks etc. Otherwise you wouldnt need to actually play any games but rather know the outcomes in advance. Considering this I don't see how a regame would have hurt the situation, even if the some of the best players think nightend had "no chance" to come back. It is quite obvious that boxer is a much much much more popular figure than nightend and that there is obviously more interest in him staying in TSL. By saying this I'm not suggesting that the analysis from the panel was necessarily biased, it actually appeared very careful and objective But rulings by a panel will always be prone to errors and subjectivity. And while this was the most transparent and professional one I've yet to come across, it appears that, if you value true sportsmanship, a case of a wrong decision resulting in a rematch is clearly much better than a case of a wrong decision resulting in a default win. Therefore I believe a regame should be the way to go in these situations in general. Even if its boxer and he is about to crush his not as well known opponent from wc3.. | ||
|
TemplarCo.
Mexico2870 Posts
| ||
|
chocopan
Japan986 Posts
I don't have sufficient game knowledge to comment on the actual panel decision. But the process is fair, and that has to be sufficient. I also think it is to TL's great credit that they have clear rules, and a clear post like this one which is entirely transparent about their reasoning. Tech failures like this are always terrible for tournaments and again whatever opinion one might personally have about the merits of this determination in particular, I think TL's managing of the issue was exemplary. As Tasteless never tires of telling us, the medium of our sport is technology and technology fails. Having a clear, fair and open procedure organized and agreed to by all in advance is the best approach. | ||
|
leejas
United States440 Posts
| ||
|
theredone
United States49 Posts
| ||
|
Leviance
Germany4079 Posts
The variables of panel decisions are exacly that, variables. We need constants. Added with the fact that Team Liquid is so overly concerned about cheating/abusing and doesn't cast live to prevent any little small possibility of abuse it seems very hypocritical to let players that play in the very same tournament judge the outcome of a game in such tournament. It's double standards. No matter the explanation texts. If there's possibility to abuse it should be ruled out, this is how TSL wants to present itself, yet does a such a panel decision. If a team leads 5-0 in a soccer game and there is a big storm making it impossible for the game to be continued, the game doesn't count, it will be regame. It's just a rule to deal with this situation, it's unfornutate for the leading team, but it is generally accepted, any other decision can be argued over but this is an objective one, and a constant. So back to TSL, this is an online tournament, disconnects are not like storms (unlike in offline tourneys) because there is possibility to influence them by the players. And if it establishes as a basic rule, that disconnect equals loss - it will become just that - a rule. While it is unfortunate for a ingame winning player, every other way of handling it has ALSO its unfortunates, so there can't really be argued with "well it sucks for the player who was winning so this rule is stupid". But it would be a constant rule who players would be aware of, and everyone has just to deal with it. Set in stone. Disc = loss. Unfortunate or not. In an offline setting disc should equal regame. So expecially in mind with TSL always emphasizing the fairness and awareness of cheating/abuse, the panel system that was used is hypocritical and gives room for abuse (by the judges AND by the discing player) that just wouldn't be there if there is a constant (disc = loss) rule that everyone has to accept when entering the tournament. Please think about this. Every solution to disc has stuff to argue about, also this, but we shoul apply the one that is objective and constant, someone will always be unfortunate no matter what rule is applied, so let's make this objective and constant unfortune instead of a system that gives the smallest possibiliy of abuse. | ||
|
tuestresfat
2555 Posts
| ||
|
adrian2986
Romania1 Post
| ||
|
Yunarc
United States314 Posts
On March 22 2011 20:38 Leviance wrote: While I agreed with the panel decision at first, now after a few days I completely changed my mind. It should be a set-in-stone rule that whoever disconnects loses the game no matter the circumstances in online tournaments. The variables of panel decisions are exacly that, variables. We need constants. Added with the fact that Team Liquid is so overly concerned about cheating/abusing and doesn't cast live to prevent any little small possibility of abuse it seems very hypocritical to let players that play in the very same tournament judge the outcome of a game in such tournament. It's double standards. No matter the explanation texts. If there's possibility to abuse it should be ruled out, this is how TSL wants to present itself, yet does a such a panel decision. If a team leads 5-0 in a soccer game and there is a big storm making it impossible for the game to be continued, the game doesn't count, it will be regame. It's just a rule to deal with this situation, it's unfornutate for the leading team, but it is generally accepted, any other decision can be argued over but this is an objective one, and a constant. So back to TSL, this is an online tournament, disconnects are not like storms (unlike in offline tourneys) because there is possibility to influence them by the players. And if it establishes as a basic rule, that disconnect equals loss - it will become just that - a rule. While it is unfortunate for a ingame winning player, every other way of handling it has ALSO its unfortunates, so there can't really be argued with "well it sucks for the player who was winning so this rule is stupid". But it would be a constant rule who players would be aware of, and everyone has just to deal with it. Set in stone. Disc = loss. Unfortunate or not. In an offline setting disc should equal regame. So expecially in mind with TSL always emphasizing the fairness and awareness of cheating/abuse, the panel system that was used is hypocritical and gives room for abuse (by the judges AND by the discing player) that just wouldn't be there if there is a constant (disc = loss) rule that everyone has to accept when entering the tournament. Please think about this. Every solution to disc has stuff to argue about, also this, but we shoul apply the one that is objective and constant, someone will always be unfortunate no matter what rule is applied, so let's make this objective and constant unfortune instead of a system that gives the smallest possibiliy of abuse. Actually to use your situation in a soccer game if a team is leading and a half of soccer has been played, the game counts and there is no regame. Also you can't compare soccer to starcraft, if a player has a max army vs a 50 supply army that should not be a regame, but you want it to be. In this situation there was no doubt that Boxer would have won, even if he played awfully. Your also going to make them play another game where someone could disconnect again or lag could affect the game making it even worse. The admins made the best decision there was and if you look at Naz's report you will see no chance of a comeback. It was the correct decision and a player should not have to regame if they would have won in the first place. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10751 Posts
When i saw the disconnect i was like: "WTF, Nightend got lucky like fuck with that Disco". Then i heard of the ruling and the world was fine again. Good job. | ||
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
A) Sticking with the procedure listed in the rules and B) Presenting the whole situation to the viewers. | ||
|
theSAiNT
United States726 Posts
How was the panel chosen? The rest of the process seems transparent and objective but as some people have pointed out, there is a serious conflict of interest when panel members include competitors or players associated with competitors in the tournament. | ||
|
Faveokatro
80 Posts
If a team leads 5-0 in a soccer game and there is a big storm making it impossible for the game to be continued, the game doesn't count, it will be regame. I've never, ever heard of such a ruling. Can you cite an instance (Devoted soccer/football fan for a decade now)? I can't even remember a game where weather conditions caused the game to terminate on the spot - and no rec games no not count. The TL decision was sound. Honestly, if 4/5 players decided the game was over that would have been good enough for me personally. Playing P myself and while my game sense is nowhere near the top, there's really just no way I could see P coming back. No upgrades, no TC tech, no Templars, 1 Colossus... The only unit he can make which are effective against mass marauder would be zealots, and they'd never land a hit without charge OR sentries. You can argue that NightEnd had a chance until you run out of breath, but it doesn't change the fact that Boxer would have to afk for at least 90 seconds to make it a game. Also - For those who keep saying if Boxer pulled back it would have been a game again, he would have remaxed in about a minute and even 1A2A3Aing into NightEnd's base would have been GG. | ||
|
Devise
Canada1131 Posts
| ||
|
pyrestrike
United States235 Posts
 It does suck for Nightend too, but at least the decision making and the rules were crystal clear. | ||
| ||
