EPTHowever there needs to be certain questions regarding the integrity of a judge. Bluntly speaking, the integrity of Cloud. Although he was vetoed off and his decision did not matter, he voted to do a re-game. This contradicts the unanimous decisions of the remaining 4 original judges. Unless he can explain himself and it can be found that it was not favoritism/bias, I believe he does not belong on the panel. The game had an obvious victor and I get the impression Cloud was infringing on his power as judge.
[TSL] Day 1 Disconnect Situation - Page 48
| Forum Index > PokerStrategy.com TSL3 Forum |
|
Tempestsc
Canada3 Posts
However there needs to be certain questions regarding the integrity of a judge. Bluntly speaking, the integrity of Cloud. Although he was vetoed off and his decision did not matter, he voted to do a re-game. This contradicts the unanimous decisions of the remaining 4 original judges. Unless he can explain himself and it can be found that it was not favoritism/bias, I believe he does not belong on the panel. The game had an obvious victor and I get the impression Cloud was infringing on his power as judge. | ||
|
GrapeD
Canada679 Posts
| ||
|
Mokaccino
Australia4 Posts
While watching the game, I was actually expecting a gg any second, when I saw the player left game message I thought Nightend raged quit haha, but then I saw Boxer's name and ended up confused... | ||
|
Viperzero
Australia70 Posts
On March 23 2011 07:38 Tempestsc wrote: However there needs to be certain questions regarding the integrity of a judge. Bluntly speaking, the integrity of Cloud. Although he was vetoed off and his decision did not matter, he voted to do a re-game. This contradicts the unanimous decisions of the remaining 4 original judges. Unless he can explain himself and it can be found that it was not favoritism/bias, I believe he does not belong on the panel. The game had an obvious victor and I get the impression Cloud was infringing on his power as judge. It was not stated whether he voted for a re-game or not, however it was stated for the purpose of conversation that if he had said such a thing, the following would have happened. For sake of discussion and transparency we will say that Tyler thought it was over and Cloud thought it was a re-game. To be absolutely clear, we asked the players to veto and they veto'd before Cloud told us his opinion. | ||
|
Navillus
United States1188 Posts
It was not stated whether he voted for a re-game or not, however it was stated for the purpose of conversation that if he had said such a thing, the following would have happened. The way they phrased that was sort of weird but I'm pretty sure because he says "for the sake of transperancy" he means that that is what cloud and Tyler actually voted. That said Tempest I don't think that Cloud is actually on any sort of panel, from what was said I think they convene a new panel for every time this happens based on races and such. So I don't think you need to worry about him biasing anything. | ||
|
Moletrap
United States1297 Posts
Very informative explanation. I like the way this was handled. | ||
|
Tempestsc
Canada3 Posts
| ||
|
bigDean636
United States23 Posts
Really cool that you guys posted everything involved in the process, though. | ||
|
Caltrop
Sweden34 Posts
I would also like to add that I like the panel-type voting. Judging from the answers of the players they have absolutely spent the time needed to make an informed decision, and when you use players of that calibre to begin with they can make the best informed decisions out there. | ||
|
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
On March 20 2011 21:03 dakalro wrote: Just to clarify, from the OP Cloud and Tyler never were asked for their opinions and never gave a decision/explanation, they were not part of the panel. The situation in the OP is only hypothetical, that is to explain how the decision making works. IT'S A HYPOTHETICAL: HAD CLOUD SAID REGAME AND TYLER WIN. Read OP carefully before posting shit like "I wanna hear why Cloud thought it should have been a regame". He never said that, he was never asked. You are wrong. Tyler and Cloud did have opinions, and they are as stated. Tyler thought it was win, Cloud thought it was regame. If the op had said "For sake of discussion let's say that Tyler thought it was over and Cloud thought it was a re-game" you could be right. But it actually said "For sake of discussion and transparency we will say that Tyler thought it was over and Cloud thought it was a re-game". It also says "To be absolutely clear, we asked the players to veto and they veto'd before Cloud told us his opinion." *edit* fuuuuu many pages later this was cleared up. Leaving this up just in case anyone else still thinks it was a hypothetical statement | ||
|
Afterstar
67 Posts
| ||
|
starcraft911
Korea (South)1263 Posts
| ||
|
Born)Slippy
Norway1904 Posts
| ||
|
Putain_De_Putois
France9 Posts
The one who pays the price is nightend whereas he is not in charge of boxer's deco. This is the point of a "game" as we have to remember starcraft is one : everyone has to be able to defend his chance, and contrary to his will, assume that nightend wasn't allowed to. In my opinion regame was definitely the good option to respect both players : in some way we can consider that boxer should even have been given the loss as it was his deco, but im afraid the decision was taken too quickly. 1day reflexion was not so much considering that this tournament could have meant much to nightend. I do really feel sorry for that unlucky guy who plays pretty well as he took one game to boxer. But a decision of remaking the game in question is still possible as there is 1week delay before next playday. The point is that admins have to recognize they may not have taken the best decision, but it definitely seems to me that there is no big issue in replaying that game. But anyway great concerning by the staff. | ||
|
Sami`
89 Posts
1. The panelists made one enormous assumption that their decision seemed to hinge on; there was going to be a battle @ 18:50. We don't know that is the case, Boxer could have turned around. A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win. The defining factor of why Terran is going to roll over Nightends army and expansion is because out of the 11 phoenix 9 are at ~30 energy. They are basically 18 supply of units that will take out the vikings and then the medivacs but can't touch the Marauder/Marine/Ghost except for two liftoffs. If there is no assumption that a battle will take place @ 18:50 then Nazgul's justification falls apart. Thats shaky ground to decide an absolute win on in my opinion. 2. Having only 3 judges should not have been allowed, I don't know whether TL sought Nightend's approval or whether he offered it but either way it was clearly to his disadvantage and changing judging rules under any circumstances after a tournament has begun just isn't acceptable. If the rules say 5 judges then there should be 5 judges - it should not be possible to change that. I love MC's panel report, its short, concise, to the point and states only facts (until his verdict). Also, damn... Korean is amazing - 324 characters for MC's report in Korean but 815 in English! How efficient. | ||
|
springtree
74 Posts
1. Disconnecting player was foreseen as losing the game (thus auto-lost) 2. Disconnecting player was foreseen as winning the game, so a rematch. In case 1, the detailed analysis by the panelists would be the solid argument that hopefully persuades the DC'er that he had bad luck, but with some thinking he might come to the conclusion that yeah, he would've lost too. In case 2, bad luck again, but shit happens, you just have to take it like a man/woman/thing and go do that again, without the DC this time. Hopefully. No amount of "you would have lost anyway" is going to appease a player who has his opponent DC in the middle of a game. | ||
|
zpnq
Australia4 Posts
On April 04 2011 01:01 springtree wrote: Late, but I've been thinking a lot about this one and I've gotta say I can't agree with this judgement. I do like how it was handled, but to be honest, the only fair ruling I can see is 1. Disconnecting player was foreseen as losing the game (thus auto-lost) 2. Disconnecting player was foreseen as winning the game, so a rematch. In case 1, the detailed analysis by the panelists would be the solid argument that hopefully persuades the DC'er that he had bad luck, but with some thinking he might come to the conclusion that yeah, he would've lost too. In case 2, bad luck again, but shit happens, you just have to take it like a man/woman/thing and go do that again, without the DC this time. Hopefully. No amount of "you would have lost anyway" is going to appease a player who has his opponent DC in the middle of a game. I agree. In both i think there should be an option for the "connected" player as to whether or not there should be a rematch. In Case 1. Disconnecting player was foreseen as losing the game (thus auto-lost), the "connected" player should be asked - Are you willing to play a rematch? If yes, then a rematch it is, if no then he takes the win. In Case 2. 2. Disconnecting player was foreseen as winning the game, so a rematch, the "connected" player should be asked - Do you want to play a rematch? If yes then a rematch it is , if no, then then win goes to the "disconnected" player. | ||
|
Weaklink123
United States159 Posts
| ||
|
freakdmg
Romania5 Posts
| ||
| ||
