In the first match between Boxer and Nightend an unfortunate disconnect situation arose -- Boxer was disconnected from the game near the 19:00 minute mark. This topic will be used as an explanation of the situation to create as much openness as we can about our rules and administration. We hate it when organizations make rulings without being able to explain them properly and feel it is a requirement to a successful tournament.
We want to advise you to carefully read this topic if you are going to consider making a post. This is a very sensitive and tricky subject and anyone arguing with a lack of knowledge of the situation will quickly be warned or banned. It is difficult enough already without ignorance involved.
From our rulebook that has been sent out and agreed upon by every player:
Disconnects In the event of a disconnect the referee will ask the players about what they think the result of the game should be (regame/win/loss). If both players can agree on the result then that result will stand. If both players cannot agree on the result a panel of 5 TSL staff and/or informed people will be called to make a decision. Players will have the opportunity to veto any of the members of panel if they have good reason to do so (e.g. bias). One of the following courses of action will be taken by the panel. The decision reached by the panel is final.
1. A disconnecter can be identified If all five people on the panel can identify an advantage for the non-disconnecter he will be awarded the game. If all five people on the panel determine that the disconnecting player has the game absolutely won, the disconnecter will be awarded the win. If not, a regame will be issued.
Let's first explain the rules a little more in depth here. The rulebook is five pages and just lists simplified versions of the rules, it doesn't go super in depth.
If you disconnect and are losing you get the loss. Rules regarding disconnecting should first and foremost prevent cheating. When playing in a big tournament the rules should always give a loss when a disconnecting player is at a disadvantage.
If you disconnect and are winning (with exception of point 3), you can't get a win otherwise people can start discing the moment they gain an advantage in the game. Since the disconnect was not his fault, the non-disconnecter should not receive a loss when he still has a chance to come back.
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." This operates from the mindset that a player will make all the mistakes in the world that can be expected from a professional level player. So missing EMPs and other micro mistakes can definitely happen but right clicking units and not touching them for five minutes can't. It is important to keep in mind that our standard is NOT that the game must be mathematically over 100%.
Prae.NightEnD vs SlayerS_BoxeR
When word of the disconnect came in we took a look at the replay and talked to the players. Both players wanted the panel to decide the outcome.
The Panel's Decision
The panel will view the replay and decide whether one player had the game absolutely won. The decision by the approved panel members must be unanimous. This means if the panel does not award the disconnecting player a win, then 1, 2, 3, 4, or all 5 did not believe the disconnecting player had an "absolute advantage."
When the panel does unanimously agree that the disconnecting player should be awarded the win, then we will do our best to present their opinions to you.
The Panel Members
When disconnect situations happen we ideally go looking around for top players that play the same races as the players or generally have what we consider a good understanding of the game. In this case we approached Liquid`Nazgul, Liquid`Tyler, MYM.Cloud, mouz.Morrow, oGsMC. NightEnd vetoed Tyler, Boxer vetoed Cloud. While we were looking for more panel members, both players agreed to a 3 man panel instead of 5. We want to thank everyone for stepping up and helping us out.
The Ruling
All three approved panel members said this game was "absolutely won". We can't say this enough but you need to remember that this is within the settings of a professional game and not mathematically 100%. That means if the player made all the mistakes that can be potentially expected from a professional from the point of the disconnect on, he still would have won.
When watching this game it is important that you put the replay on 18:49. This is absolutely crucial.
When the replay nears the end it's clear that Boxer in a huge advantage. Supply 162 vs 138, superior expansions superior upgrades and very close to sniping off an additional nexus. I'm of the opinion that Protoss often has a chance to come back into games by sitting back and massing up a Protoss ball at which point a Terran may make a big mistake lose a 200/200 battle and lose the match.
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.
This makes it a battle of 19 Marauders, 4 Marines, 2 Ghosts against 15 Stalkers and 1 Zealot. The two cannons are already under attack when the game ends at 18:49 and will get a few shots off before they die. Even though the Marauders are not full HP they have a lot of hitpoints and the medivacs will heal them a bit more before the battle starts and the medivacs die. The Terran units are 1-1 against the 0-0 of Protoss. Although the Forge is far on the Protoss upgrade it's not far enough to play a role in this battle. Even though this is only a part of the Terran army with much more at home it will be enough to easily win the battle against the Stalkers and kill the nexus, because the Phoenix can't do anything. The gateways all have about 60% cooldown to go. There is a colossus in production and it's not yet (almost) done and has a very long walk ahead.
Many people will see this fight at Nightend's third and believe there is a chance for him to hold. There is no chance. The Terran will win the battle without any micro. When these armies fight, even with 0 EMPs, there will be 10+ marauders left over even if probes are pulled. Here is a simulation, with exact hit points and upgrades:
This replay simulates the battle under the assumption that Boxer is a total noob
Boxer had 3 EMP rounds we assumed he got zero off
Boxer's medivacs His medivacs get very few heals off whereas in reality they would have some healing to do before the battle start, and then some more healing to do when the phoenix get attacked by the vikings
The Nexus dying is a fact and this game will continue on with 3 mining bases against 1. The one base of NightEnd has 4565 minerals left, Boxer has a base with 3428, one with 6655 and then an unmined base coming up.
Comebacks with 1 base to 3 bases are rare. I would say that a Protoss even with a templar archives with storm and energy upgraded and charge/blink done loses that game 99% of the time. But Nightend did not even have any of these upgrades.
The reason why this is not possible in the game between Nightend and Boxer is that Nightend has a single robotics, no templar archives and no blink or charge. His only option is gateway units and building single Robotics units. To seal his fate Boxer is upgrading air attack and ground attack.
[At the time of disconnect] The Protoss player did not have High Templar tech.
He did not have charge upgrade, or blink upgrade.
His Phoenixes had been hit by EMP, and did not have the mana to use their anti gravity-ability (with the exception of two).
The Terran player had more marauders than the Protoss player had stalkers, and had medivac and ghosts together with his force.
The Terran player was in a situation he could have chosen to destroy the Protoss's third Nexus and retreated to regroup, or simply chosen to end the game straight up.
Also, Terran had completed his fourth command center
while Protoss did not even have many Collossi, and did not have the ability to build High Templars.
Without even the twilight citadel upgrades, I thought it was an irreversible situation.
First of all Boxer has a clear economic advantage. He's running on 3bases just like Nightend but he has the gold base and with the mules it becomes quite a bit more. The 4th cc almost completed and would have been up and running pretty shortly after this disconnect.
Let's just assume Terran backs off, sets up 4th base and keep macroing. How does Protoss deal with this? He has a ton of phoenixes without high enery and also such a low colossus number (and with 1 robo it would too slowly grow to make the phoenixes really useful. On top of things the ghosts pretty much nullify them anyways). Next I see the upgrades. Toss have lower basic upgrades but also no blink, no charge, and no high templar tech even.
He sits on 3 bases, he gets outmacro'd. He tries to take a 4th, Terran would crush that just because Protoss has no real strenght at this point of the game without these upgrades or high templar.
When I watch this from a Protoss perspective and ask myself, what is my strength here, what do I have going for me right now? All that he really has is a high gateway number and high mineral count. But again a ton of zealots is not really going to be useful without charge. And once charge would in theory be done Terran would have had a huge army and secured 4bases. and still, protoss wouldnt have had high templars to combine with his zealot heavy army.
If I was the Terran here, I would have backed off after that scan. Secure my 4 bases. Keep upgrading and keep making simple marine marauder medivac ghost. Kept on top of things to scout when Toss moves out to take a 4th base and when he does I would run it over easily with my big advantage. If toss were to just be happy with 3-bases and prepare an all-in to kill me, same scenario. I can still crush his army.
It would actually take a long time for Protoss to get the army he needed to actually do anything this game and this is all assuming Terran would just back off and wait for protoss to make a move. If Terran just secures 4bases, destroys the rocks etc. and attacks afterwards. 1-2 minutes after this time stamp what will Protoss have?
When TvP goes 200 food like this in big colossus vs bio battles, like 99% of the time the winner of the battle wins the game, just because it takes a huge amounts of resources and time to replenish your army.
I think Nightend would been able to save his 3rd base and let the game go on, but in 1-2 minutes ahead Terran will have a lot larger army while Protoss still only gets 1 more colossus than the one now that is about to pop and thats not going to be enough to defend Terran's future attacks. In general I think PvT favors Protoss the longer the game goes. But just because he doesn't have high templar tech on the way, charge or blink (or high forge upgrades) and only 1 robo. He has really nothing in the future that will deal with this strong bio ball. And the Terran just keeps building bio and knows that Protoss wont have any high tech stuff to deal with it.
Also I just want to explain the eco advantage I talked so much about. The thing is that he has a ton of SCVs in his main base that were to be transfered to the 4th base. And running on that gold is also so very crucial and he can drop all the mules there for sick econ. And theres no real threat of a Protoss attack coming anytime soon too. And then look at Protoss, sitting on 3base natural base is running out and his 3rd is 1/3 out. He has can't really secure a 4th base anytime soon (which would be the gold) and even when he puts it down it takes so long time to build.
The only thing I didn't go over now I think are all these phoenixes. Phoenixes don't really do anything in a game like this except for take care of drops (which Boxer was not at all in need of doing) and protecting the colossi from vikings (which they are not arguable so good at doing in the first place, hence lost that 200 food battle in a pretty shocking way). They have no energy, so they can't really go harass and get back into the game that way, and even if they did Boxer has plenty of access to all the ghosts he want with all the gas he has saved up, plus the ghosts he already has which have quite a lot of energy saved up. Just imagine this freeze frame without these 11 phoenixes and +2 phoenixes on the way. What does Protoss really have? It just seems like Protoss has something going for him with all those phoenixes but in reality they wont go useful until the toss gets 4+ colossus anyway.
In fact if I was Terran from here and had maphack I would have just stopped viking production completely and just mass up a sick bio army before the colossus number got too high and just gone for it. Toss can't have a lot of colossus in time (I'm 100% sure), he can't get amulet in time to save him and all these gateway units remember, they need charge and blink and really sentry support to be a match in a cost efficiency battle.
If I was Terran in this game I would just feel on top of the world in fact. Just the thought of winning a 200 food battle vs a colossus player makes me grin, it's not a high templar Protoss where he just amulet his way back into the game with a few warpins. I don't know how else I can explain this, you can't just lose 5 colossus, have only 1 robo and be in good shape.
Another little pointer I just wanna throw out there is that the Terran has queued up units in every single rax, and that's something you always must look out for when your analysing like this. Same with mule energy (chrono boost much less important).
Terran was clearly in an advantage and that call was easy to make. But when I had to pick if it was enough ahead or not ahead enough for a rematch that's when it gets hard. I do my really best and I try analyze everything. just in your normal TvP you do have comebacks with medivac drops, awesome high templar storms, blunders and beautiful moves left and right but this was the sort of game where its pretty straight forward, macro-oriented and the type of armies that doesn't really surprise you.
Bio ghost vs chargelot high templar, there you have some impossible fights to predict I would call it rematch I think. But here really I don't see a possibility for Protoss to get out of the unit composition hes in. It's not like you get 13 phoenixes and then say, hey ok lets switch to high templar out of the blue sky with no real economy to back it up, nope, he had to stick with massing colossus off 1 robo and gateway units simply just to stay in the game and survive.
And it's not like you can think of Boxer attacking into that and making a huge blunder and losing his advantage would be a factor. If toss had charge or blink, then yes, if he had energy for lift then yes. I see it possible Boxer attacking into that, zealots warp in and Boxer trying to kite away but phoenix kills all air and start lifting stuff up, stalkers blinking up and cleaning up. But now, no, he has nothing going for him. A more aggressive player than myself probably thinks, how would Protoss stop me attacking and kiting that 3rd base until i wear him down eventually? I'd have units streaming in and he would only be able to warp in stalkers and zealots. Normally I would say, my dear friend, when you have this clear lead,
Just back off and take 1 minute to embrace the fact your ahead in economy but in this case I would salute him and say, yes, you can probably wear Protoss down like that, as long as you make sure your 4th base is secured from that 3 o clock pylon. Else he might kill your economic lead while your slowly wasting a bit too many units.
Normally in SC2 comebacks are very possible to make when you get into these super micro intensive scenarios. Or even the multi-prong or element of surprise factors. But colossus phoenix vs bio viking is alot like ZvZ roach battle. Elements of surprise or multi-prong is pretty much out of the question, and the micro is pretty much straight forward without too many different possibilities of outcome. And the winner almost always wins the game.
The reason I milked this to death was just because these players thought I was cut for the job, I did my best and I hope everyone can understand. Also I can relate from a player point of view, there's nothing that's more frustrating when you have a disc and you have some admins who judge if you were ahead/behind enough and I hope I didn't let them down.
I would also like to say that I have never been a Boxer fan, I respect the macro type of play (like Flash) that is opposite of what Boxer usually does. So this is not some fanboy decision.
What did we learn and what will we do better next time?
Sending the replays out before vetoing process
We sent out the replay to our panel members before confirming their participation with the players. Even though we were going to give them the option to veto players we did not operate enough from the thought that this would actually happen. As such, Tyler and Cloud were sent the replay and were vetoed off. 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. To be absolutely clear, we asked the players to veto and they veto'd before Cloud told us his opinion.
Players okaying a panel of less than 5 members
We understand that players are anxious and have time schedules and this influences them in their decisions. In the future we will form the a panel of five regardless of whether the players agree to be judged by a fewer number.
A message from Praetoriani and NightEnd
We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around.
Moderating this topic
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.
We hope everyone realizes that we did our actions in pursuit of what we believe is the fairest result. This situation is very unfortunate and will result in a lot of criticism regardless of what decision we come to. We can only hope that disconnections like this one do not happen in the future, but if they do we promise to continue treating them with professionalism and care.
On March 20 2011 05:50 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: TSL GUYS LISTEN
this was the by far best possible way to handle this. im amazed. casters dont know it, wheat spawns outta nowhere and explains the situation in a nice a comprehensive way.
We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around."
no stones=no points to criticize?
also this:
On March 20 2011 05:56 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: gonna quote myself from the day1 thread here:
On March 20 2011 05:50 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: TSL GUYS LISTEN
this was the by far best possible way to handle this. im amazed. casters dont know it, wheat spawns outta nowhere and explains the situation in a nice a comprehensive way.
Really awesome to see the amount of preparation and thought put into situations like this. The fact that the d/c had almost no effect on the flow of the tournament, and the amount of thought put into a thread like this beforehand really shows the amount of professionalism of the TSL.
Definitely agree with the ruling, and awesome to see a thread like this thoroughly explaining it.
edit: Just noticed Nazgul ran the battle through a BattleSim map. That is pretty awesome!
Super professional. I was super disappointed when the DC happened because I expected that like any other tournament, some sort of blanket rules would be applied and the game would be replayed or boxer would be given a loss.
But instead, an awesome process was used and the judgement of great players was applied. To anyone who knows the game at a high level, it is obvious there is no way boxer would lose that game.
Personally I would rather have seen a regame. Everyone can make mistakes, even Boxer when he is at an advantage so Nightend should have been given at least a chance. It's not even a live tournament.
Thank you, i do agree that Boxer had it won. It was unfortunate that nightend wouldn't get a chance to try a comeback, but it was most likely not to happen. Even with those pheonix, it would not have been accomplishable by nightend.
Ok I guess now that I see how through of a process this is I'm more ok with the ruling and seeing how they had the vetoes and very very good players on the panel.
As BeMannerDuPenner said in the Live Thread, I too am amazed by the way you guys handled this. From my perspective as a viewer, things could not have been done better by yourself TSL guys.
And now the thread explaining the decision in details. Amazing job sirs. Thank you very much for that. Really
Very logical call, thank you panel. Out of curiosity, how delayed are the games? As in, how long did the panel have to analyze the situation and write their decision before the stream casted the game?
Sound like you guys handled this very professionally. I agree with decision and its nice to see you guys have such an in depth process for d/c's set up. Thanks for the hard work and I look forward to the rest of the tournament, it has been good so far.
I absolutely agree with the decision, and it's good that TL has a panel to help make a decision on the winner. It sucked at the MLG tournament in Orlando when Triggers Down (Halo 3) was only a milisecond away from winning, but someone's xbox crashed, allowing for a rematch. Triggers Down went on to lose against a nobody. But things happen, hopefully Nightend won't get discouraged from the loss! GL to the rest of the players in the tourney!
We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around.
I don't think they understand the concept of no comment.
Well.. with all those col gone his main had to be mined out so he was basically on two blue base and boxer was on two blue/one gold.
He had massed marauders and vikings vs some energyless phoenix.
What was he gonna do? Pump out stalkers? Well.. with all those col gone his main had to be mined out so he was basically on two blue base and boxer was on two blue/one gold. He had massed marauders and vikings vs some energyless phoenix. What was he gonna do? Pump out stalkers? f
It was a good decision, a tough one obviously that might be controversial, but it at least makes sense. Morrow's explanation IMO is very thorough and accurate.
I'm gonna have to agree with the decision that was made. If MC doesn't think that the toss coulda won, and this is a guy assuming the toss can do godmode moves, then I really don't think he had any chance.
Very mature and professional by TL I love the fact that TL does not go for the "easy way out" but instead try to go for the "most correct one" It will be easy to just force a regame.
Quite a disappointing response by Prae and Nightend. If you want to " no comment" then don't comment. If you want to put a statement protesting the decision with logical arguments then do so. Don't be passive aggressive about it.
Very nice, judging something like this is akin to like judging diving in a swim competition, or gymnastics where you have a panel and no solid to call a win or a loss.
I am absolutely blown away by the amount of professionalism that Team Liquid showed with this match. I don't mean it because I don't expect TL to show it (so far from the truth) but the fact that they went above and beyond to defend their reasoning for the call on the match, to show the community it wasn't just a "Ehhhhh, screw it. Grats BoxeR".
I'm really impressed at not only how fast this decision was made but how in-depth the explanations are. Nazgul's explanation looks like a thesis on the disconnect. Wild. Great job TL.net
Wow, such a great response and anticipation in the event of a disconnect. Brilliant move and why the TSL is always going to be the best run RTS tournament.
Thanks for the explanation. I personally disagree and would have liked to see a re-game (Nightend won the initial skirmish and could have put some big hurt on Boxer right after; what it the DC happened then?), but the above-board nature of Liquid's handling of this is nothing but praiseworthy. Well done, dudes.
good way to deal with it. thanks for the clarification. this kinda helped me to cool down, since i never like to give the not DCing player a loss, even if he is way behind.
Very professional, very convincing. Handled it about as well you could, too bad the players could not agree to a win/regame/loss amongst themselves, which is always the most painless way to go about things.
That said, did Boxer give a reason for vetoing Cloud without knowing his judgement to regame? I'm surprised he would even know him (or anyone besides Minchul on that panel).
I think how well this was dealt with is another valid reason why live casts with replays make so much more sense than the games being streamed live for these big online matches.
This was handled fantastically by tl.net. GJ. This supports the use of replay casting over live casting, allowing the TSL 3 to be perfect in every way. Thanks guys!
While this is never an easy situation to handle your approach is pretty good.
I would suggest your panel members to not be players involved in the same tournament for the future.
Please note I am not implying the people chosen were not impartial when reviewing the situation, but for the players and the judges sake they should not be forced to be in that position
Great decision, boxer was very obviously far ahead. Also, great job TL, this very solid and thorough ruleset makes this kind of situation a lot less awkward and controversial than it could be, gratz.
On March 20 2011 06:01 qwert_ wrote: why not replay it anyways like they do in gsl?
sure, boxer had an advantage, but in case he had been able to keep his 3rd alive, the game would've continued.
GSL disconnects tend to happen early game where it's pretty hard to determine if someone is winning, so it's the best choice. It's completely different when a game is 20 minutes old.
I think the potential winner of this game is way more obvious than MSL finals - decision I also agreed with. So yeah, good decision imo. Very profession reasoning for the decision aswell. Well done. However, it's never totally fair in a situation like this, but that's just how it is when shit happens - which it does.
First of all, i really appreciate the idea of transparency of the process which is shown here but i for my part dont like the descision.
I just want to give some impressions why i come to this conclusion:
I think with this decision you take away the possibility from nightend to still win the game. He may not have been in a very good position at the moment but its not sure that he couldnt win or that Boxer makes a mistake which costs him the win, you just cant say that there is no possibility of Nightend winning. I think that a regame would have been the better decision.
I want to thank the TSL staff, for having rules already in place for situations like this. Too often I see tournaments where situations similar to this arise, and the administration has no idea how to deal with it because they did not set any rules beforehand.
Thanks for the explanation, and that was definitely the right decision. Anyone who argues against it either doesn't understand the game or is trolling.
Appreciate the explanation. Nazgul was particularly convincing. I have absolutely no problems with this. TSL ahead of the curve on everything as usual.
Cross severs will have these issues. It just something tourney like TSL have to deal with. TL admin did a great job of explaining what i thought was going on too. The rules was stated and all people agree to it. This was a VERY FAIR decision.
what a good explenation :D increndible how near this tourney is to the community ! TeamLiquid tries everythin to make a perfect tournament and right now, its perfect :D Morrow gave a huge explanation, i thin he is a really smart person.
BUT: Think of Boxer dropping a minute before, it would have been a sure regame, so sad timing for nightend
Reading this is like reading the opinions in case books one reads during law school. Nicely done -- as I would expect from a professional e-sports event <3 Artfully and effectively well done!
Well. The reasoning is sound. If even MC states that this is not really working out for protoss I guess its okay. For me the biggest point are the emp'd phoenix's and a player like Boxer would not let such a chance go to waste.
Thanks for the quick and well explained decision. I was sceptical as to the call but held judgment. After viewing the replay I fully agree with TLs' decision. Great job guys and looking forward to seeing how this series pans out.
Ok, I have to say I think this was generally handled very well, and I agree with the decision to hand Boxer the win. However I think approaching other players in the tournament for the decision was a very dumb move. Even though I feel sure they voiced their objective opinions, leaving the result of the game up to people with vested interest in the result is not a good idea.
The fact that the panelists each wrote explaining their decision goes a huge way to lending credibility to this decision. I applaud TL's admins for handling this so professionally. DJ Wheat was the perfect neutral spokesman.
Props to everyone involved for making the best of a bad situation, and good luck to NIghtEnD in game 2.
I liked your transparency. Definitely deserves all the credit and that makes the decision fair, whatever would have been. As a suggestion, make before the games a panel of 10 referees, so you can always pick 5 even if players veto 2 and you can't find some referees due to busy schedules.
Handled absolutely perfectly. TL had rules in place and agreed upon before the outset of the tournament and followed them without changes. I was also extremely impressed with the panel explanations, especially Morrow's. Great professionalism on all accounts.
I honestly had no idea on how the panel would turn out (I assume it would've been TL mods) but to get that kind of quality on your panel, I must say that this is very very professionally done.
Kudos to TL You guys apparently prepared for any possible worst-case scenarios that could happen
I really respect the way you (TL) have handled this, asking pros to comment on the match and basing the verdict on that is fantastic.
I don't like that the disconnect happened but I do agree with the pros' opinions that BoxeR was in the lead at the time and it would have caused a shitstorm if there was a rematch and the game went the other way.
Words cannot show how much appreciation and respect Team Liquid would have gained because of this.
Sure people can say that the replay of the match is the easy way out. There are no criticisms, no doubts and no arguments. However, that will annoy the player who has got the obvious lead because he knows he had the game won. The same scenario happened in Tyler vs Painuser at MLG and a replay was decided which caused so much uproar.
The fact that there was no beating around the bush and a clear cut decision was taken is good enough. But the explanations provided in this thread is just outstanding. As someone has already said, each explanation is like a thesis and Nazgul also has a simulation attached which explains his decision.
Great job by the admins and the players on accepting the decision and moving on. Much respect for TL and TSL would've been gained by this.
No complaints. It would be very easy to look at the game for 10 seconds and give the win in most situations, but the effort and impartiality shown here is fantastic. Great job everyone, especially to the professional players for giving a detailed reason for their opinion.
While I don't think it happened here, I think it is kind of weird that some of the people chosen for the panel (MC, Tyler) are also in the tourney. While I think MC at least made the right decision here I could see something weird happening in the future where some panelist/player makes a decision in order to make the tournament easier for him. For example, if MC had thought that playing Nightend would have been easier than playing Boxer, he could have said to replay the game rather than giving Boxer the win, thereby increasing his chances in the tournament.
Once again, I don't think that he made the decision based on that but I do think that could be a problem in the future.
The steps taken by the staff to follow the rules and create a panel to vote is perfectly fine and I agree with their decision made as it was a decision that had to run through multiple layers in order to go through.
What I DO NOT AGREE WITH is the fact that Chill was actually whooping and hollering that Boxer got the win in game one. As a caster in front of 35,000 people, he should NOT be cheering for any decision based off of a disconnect, Day[9] was saying "It is unfortunate that a disconnect happened but the decision was made", that is the correct process to be taking as an unbiased caster but why is Chill cheering that Boxer got a win after he disconnected? This is mind bogglingly bad on his part.
I do think that, absolutely, the ruling made beforehand is very smart, to create a panel of similar raced players to take a vote that needs to be passed unanimously is smart, on the other hand, I think that, like some have earlier stated, that the panel should not consist of any players in the tournament, rather, top players outside of the TSL3 player pool who have the knowledge to make a decision (Nazgul is a good choice for example).
I am severely disappointed in how Chill reacted on stream to the decision, but so is the state of what happened.
Watching it in the stream, I would've said that it was still open. But I didn't realize that none of the phoenix (except two) had energy to lift off. So, yeah. Good job and thanks for the long explanation.
Thank you for the prompt response and the detailed reasons for giving the win to boxer. I hope the rest of the games go smoothly but any situations will be handled just as promptly.
doing this with replays is better, you have a clear mind instead of doing it on the spot since its live. IDK if this is done already, but you should send the replay without saying the game number
EDIT how long did they wait before they played the 2nd game?
I do however feel like the decision was not a good one. You can list numbers all you want, but the truth is, you will never know if BoxeR might have made some mistake during the walk/attack toward Nightends third base.
You will never know 100% what the out come could have been, so I think it should clearly have been a regame. I honestly don't think it was a fair decision and put Nightend into a horrible mind set going into the next game.
It's just not fair to ASSUME that BoxeR would not have made some mistake, there was a possibility of a come back. Was it a small possibility, yes.
Also I do not understand how you can use PLAYERS IN THE TORUNY as a referee on the panel. How would there not be any bias, when you can decide who you want to play next/eventually in the toruny?
On March 20 2011 06:05 Insurrectionist wrote: Ok, I have to say I think this was generally handled very well, and I agree with the decision to hand Boxer the win. However I think approaching other players in the tournament for the decision was a very dumb move. Even though I feel sure they voiced their objective opinions, leaving the result of the game up to people with vested interest in the result is not a good idea.
If the explanations didn't make sense I would agree with you. As long as they stay objective I have no issue with how it was dealt with.
On March 20 2011 06:04 okum wrote: My only complaint is that players in the tournament shouldn't be used as referees.
Yeah, I believe this should be changed also. I agree with the ruling, but think the TSL staff should try to find players who have no stake in the tournament in the future. While I respect all of them, I still think it has the chance to introduce a bias into the ruling, no matter if they try to remain impartial.
Man, other sports organisations could really learn from the professionalism and transparency on display here.
FIFA anyone? :lol
Literally the only question I have is whether the players gave reasons for vetoing the proposed panel members they did (Nightend -> Tyler; Boxer -> Cloud).
From the stream it looked to me like Nightend could possibly come back if he had waited for the phoenix energy and then engaged. Tyler came back to win a game vs strelok with a bigger disadvantage just from his perfect decisions and strelok's mistakes.
However I haven't analyzed the replay in depth like the panel seems to have done, and Nazgul's arguments and proof to back it looks very complete and professional and should make it an open and shut case.
Still, would like to know if the players gave reasons to veto the judges...
Wow, that was a pretty amazing manner of handling the situation. I especially liked not only the diversity in the members judging, but the depth behind their decisions. Thanks for this. My heart really sunk when the D/C happened, but I couldn't be happier with the manner in which it was handled.
On March 20 2011 06:11 Rayansaki wrote: From the stream it looked to me like Nightend could possibly come back if he had waited for the phoenix energy and then engaged. Tyler came back to win a game vs strelok with a bigger disadvantage just from his perfect decisions and strelok's mistakes.
However I haven't analyzed the replay in depth like the panel seems to have done, and Nazgul's arguments and proof to back it looks very complete and professional and should make it an open and shut case.
Besides, Nazgul is never wrong.
Tyler had better upgrades, NightEnd was behind on that along with everything else.
You will never know 100% what the out come could have been, so I think it should clearly have been a regame. I honestly don't think it was a fair decision and put Nightend into a horrible mind set going into the next game.
I don't think they ever said it was 100%... But it was very close to that. And that's why the decision was made.
I cant really complain when the 3 arguments for the Boxer win are very well explained. Plus the simulation is also nice too.
Overall so very well handled, obviously as best as they could.
I can see an argument for having an outside panel of judges, that would be nice. Hopefully that's not needed in the future.
Nice to get official comment on the issue. Personally, I have nothing to contribute with other then saying it's sad when stuff like this happens. And as a unbiased viewers (allthough, BoxeR beeing huyped to hell) I just want to see great games, which I have done tonight, I am happy to the degree I can with the solution . Also, keeping in mind that ite round it happened, it wasn't such a big issue, but if it were in the semi- og pure finals, the case (for the players) would be different.
One question that is not 100% clear in the op: Are the panel members allowed to discuss their decision with each other? I guess they are not, but wanted to make sure.
By listing the rules that were agreed upon ahead of time by the players would have been enough explanation. Rules are rules and even if people might not think they are fair, the rules still need to be followed.
However I am greatly impressed by the explanations offered by the panel when there didn't really need to be.
Also I thought there was nothing wrong with Chill's reaction. I think that is why he was not part of the decision and he didn't even know about the dc ahead of time. Chill can be as biased as he wants because he did not have any influence on the outcome.
Very well handled by TL, absolutly professional. The "non-comment" from Praetoriani implicates that they are not so happy with the decision of the Panel, but I think they were right. *thumbs up*
It's very unfortunate that this happened, but this was dealt in a very professional manner. I love the entire process of it, as well as the pros' assessments. They were very thorough and they made their points completely clear.
But in future, I'd try to avoid using in-tournament players or players who have connections to playing players. This would ensure that no panel member is favoring someone unfairly.
Wow, just so impressed by how professional every aspect of TL's tournaments are. Good decisions, and explanations. Really appreciate how you take the time to explain in depth to the community how the decision was made.
We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around.
I got a question, I read this topic as carefully as I can and there is this:
"If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won then we will rule it a win for the disconnecting player."
Then there are 3 Pannel members saying
Nazgul: "A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win" Morrow: "I think Nightend would been able to save his 3rd base and let the game go on..."
Then this rule to award Boxer should not be taken under consideration. Otherwise we will see everyone dc'ing after winning huge battle...
Also big question why players that take part in this tournament are taken to panel, I can understand Cloud, Nazgul but all the rest are playing in this tournament and that is there is a big chance that Morrow will face the winner of this game in Ro8. Imo Panel member should be take from pros out of "circle of interests"
I got to say TL.net is doing great job with this post, its very hard decision, and I admire how professional this trying to be. Sure, Boxer was ahead by far, but still I don't think win was "absolute" and 100% won for Boxer.
I also have to agree with decision. The arguments are far too strong. Both players accept these rules when they join the tournament, so it is fair game. It sucks to not see a clear winner, but I accept the decision wholeheartedly. Good job.
I wish I could hear a reason why the players vetoed certain judges. Also, any of the people claiming that there could be cheating in these situations are very uncouth. These are professionals and they don't want to win a tournament or game by cheating. That is just a joke.
Just because NightEnd didn't get to play the game out doesn't mean he didn't get a chance to help shape the outcome. He got to veto part of the panel. At least there was a provision to still give the players some say in the event of a disc. Really can't ask for much else imo.
On March 20 2011 06:16 Grumbels wrote: What the no-comment from Nightend says is that he will lose game 3 to BoxeR, I mean, he wouldn't care otherwise, would he?
Would love to know when the decision is made as well.
Although, pretty sure the decision is made before that. Otherwise how will they know whether to play game 3 or not.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, and given the rules in place, it seems like it was handled very well - I do agree that in the original size of the panel should be maintained if this is handled the same way in the future.
Having said that, I don't think it's EVER a good idea to award a win for a DC. I understand that a lot of great players looked at this and decided that they didn't think there was any way to recover. However, that is a slippery slope. Even in this case, at least 1 of the original 5 dissented, and that should give anybody pause. My opinion is that a DC should either be a win for the non-DC player, or a rematch if a panel decides that the game was even or the DCing player was ahead.
On March 20 2011 06:16 Grumbels wrote: What the no-comment from Nightend says is that he will lose game 3 to BoxeR, I mean, he wouldn't care otherwise, would he?
Pretty sure the decision is made before that. Otherwise how will they know whether to play game 3 or not.
I don't know when these games were played, but considering all the analysis done by Nazgul it would have taken at least a day to put it together. They would know that regardless of anything, BoxeR wouldn't have been rewarded a loss. Nightend wins game two, so therefore they would also know they could play game three and have it always count, and then just wait for if they would need to play a game four.
Then this rule to award Boxer should not be taken under consideration. Otherwise we will see everyone dc'ing after winning huge battle...
I don't think you should doubt the integrity of progamers in this tourny. Every competitor is very well respected and i'd be highly shocked if anyone decided to do this.
The handling of this unfortunate incident was done extremely well. Very professional and I am sure every fan/observer appreciates TL for posting all of this information on how it was decided. Thankyou TL :D
I'm really impressed by how this decision was handeled, but there's still some doubt in my mind...
there is NO way that anyone can know what either Boxer or Nightend were going to do next, either player could have made a big mistake for example, he could have just decided to retreat after seeing the stalkers, a bad decision to be sure, but still a possibility ...
Perhaps what can be a different way to deal with these horrible situations is to, very much like Nazgul's simulation, recreate the situation both players were in, and just let them play it out. This would be a lot of work of course, but would also serve to appease both viewers and players.
I'm not saying a mistake was made, but wouldn't this be more fair?
On March 20 2011 06:16 Grumbels wrote: What the no-comment from Nightend says is that he will lose game 3 to BoxeR, I mean, he wouldn't care otherwise, would he?
I was thinking that myself.
Also I think it's definitely a bad choice to allow players whose tournament future is influenced by the decision to make the decision.
On March 20 2011 06:17 Bulkers wrote: I got a question, I read this topic as carefully as I can and there is this:
"If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won then we will rule it a win for the disconnecting player."
Then there are 3 Pannel members saying
Nazgul: "A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win" Morrow: "I think Nightend would been able to save his 3rd base and let the game go on..."
Then this rule to award Boxer should not be taken under consideration. Otherwise we will see everyone dc'ing after winning huge battle...
Also big question why players that take part in this tournament are taken to panel, I can understand Cloud, Nazgul but all the rest are playing in this tournament and that is there is a big chance that Morrow will face the winner of this game in Ro8. Imo Panel member should be take from pros out of "circle of interests"
I got to say TL.net is doing great job with this post, its very hard decision, and I admire how professional this trying to be. Sure, Boxer was ahead by far, but still I don't think win was "absolute" and 100% won for Boxer.
You need to add context of those quotes; just cherry picking the sentences out of their paragraphs make it seem like those were their only statements to support picking boxer. They used it as saying that what they had said up to that point wasn't enough justification, so they proceeded to expand as to what made it an "absolute" win. Absolute is not 100% - things can happen in any match. I'd have to say absolute is a 95% chance of winning though.
Morrow basically covered all bases and his explanation at the end regarding all the intangibles aka:
- Not a boxer fan. [ although confusing lol ] - Also a player who understands the frustrating nature of dcs. - Also UNDERSTANDS the gravity of being asked and selected to be on a panel like this.
Morrow deserves lots of respect for covering all the bases like that and taking it so seriously. Naz is the only other person I've seen in the community who does this but its basically a given at this point that he is on panels like this.
The difference in MC and Morrows explanation is astounding. [ Although both correct ] and even as a korean I prefer Morrow's method.
I'm really impressed with the way they handled this situation. I think allowing the players to veto is a good idea to prevent any bias they might feel is there.
The explanations were very well done and represent very respected people in the starcraft community.
Then this rule to award Boxer should not be taken under consideration. Otherwise we will see everyone dc'ing after winning huge battle...
I don't think you should doubt the integrity of progamers in this tourny. Every competitor is very well respected and i'd be highly shocked if anyone decided to do this.
Progamers would cheat, just like TSL2 you would be surprised.
That was actually a surpringingly good way to deal with an unfortunate situation. I would have prefer a re-game, but the way that TSL deal with this is actually better than most others.
Then this rule to award Boxer should not be taken under consideration. Otherwise we will see everyone dc'ing after winning huge battle...
I don't think you should doubt the integrity of progamers in this tourny. Every competitor is very well respected and i'd be highly shocked if anyone decided to do this.
Yeah, it's not like anyone would cheat at dreamhack or artificially inflate his stats to qualify to TSL2, everyone here is honest.
On March 20 2011 06:17 Bulkers wrote: I got a question, I read this topic as carefully as I can and there is this:
"If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won then we will rule it a win for the disconnecting player."
Then there are 3 Pannel members saying
Nazgul: "A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win" Morrow: "I think Nightend would been able to save his 3rd base and let the game go on..."
Then this rule to award Boxer should not be taken under consideration. Otherwise we will see everyone dc'ing after winning huge battle...
Also big question why players that take part in this tournament are taken to panel, I can understand Cloud, Nazgul but all the rest are playing in this tournament and that is there is a big chance that Morrow will face the winner of this game in Ro8. Imo Panel member should be take from pros out of "circle of interests"
I got to say TL.net is doing great job with this post, its very hard decision, and I admire how professional this trying to be. Sure, Boxer was ahead by far, but still I don't think win was "absolute" and 100% won for Boxer.
On Nazgul's comment: It's because Boxer was beyond a "huge advantage". There's simply no way nightend could have reversed that save for boxer killing his own units.
On Morrow's comment: He then explains that regardless of that, boxer would have ended the game a few minutes later. And even if it continued, Boxer would have had such a huge eco/tech/macro lead that it was unsurmountable for nightend.
That veto system seems weird, TL should scrap it. And they should not ask people involved in the tournament to participate in these decisions.
Apart from that, great decision, great transparency, we all love TL.
On March 20 2011 06:17 Bulkers wrote: I got a question, I read this topic as carefully as I can and there is this:
"If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won then we will rule it a win for the disconnecting player."
Then there are 3 Pannel members saying
Nazgul: "A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win" Morrow: "I think Nightend would been able to save his 3rd base and let the game go on..."
Then this rule to award Boxer should not be taken under consideration. Otherwise we will see everyone dc'ing after winning huge battle...
Also big question why players that take part in this tournament are taken to panel, I can understand Cloud, Nazgul but all the rest are playing in this tournament and that is there is a big chance that Morrow will face the winner of this game in Ro8. Imo Panel member should be take from pros out of "circle of interests"
I got to say TL.net is doing great job with this post, its very hard decision, and I admire how professional this trying to be. Sure, Boxer was ahead by far, but still I don't think win was "absolute" and 100% won for Boxer.
just stop posting. it's great how you take little snippets from their analysis completely disregarding the context.
yeah you missed this obviously: "All three approved panel members said this game was "absolutely won""
this thread alone shows just how professional the TSL truly is.
I only have one suggestion: don't have tournament players in the panel. It will just lead to discussions about how they made their decision in order to manipulate the brackets to their favour. In this case it was no problem, because it was really obvious, but if there's a tighter decision in the future, there might be a lot of rage about it.
Given the statement produced by NightEnd and his team, I worry that the result is a foregone conclusion, why make a arguably provocative statement like that if you end up ultimately not being hurt by the decision. Hopefully that isn't the case.
Regardless, I question the release of information, in particular, a statement from the team and player prior to the completion of the series. A little patience and allowance for the finishing of the series would to me seem the smart route to take.
Otherwise I think it has been handled wonderfully.
There really isn't a way to avoid conflict of interest in this situation. I agree it should be minimized but there will always be an issue with the panel members' race (T,Z,P), nationality (foreigner vs Korean), and team. The veto system is obviously in place to mitigate this problem, but it'll always exist as the panel is going to be human for the foreseeable future.
Another thing to take into account is that the panel should always include elite players or well respected members of the community, and elite players will generally be part of the tournament, so there's no real way to avoid it. Not to mention you need people to AGREE to be part of the panel, and that limits selection even further. This was the best way I could think of to handle the situation, and the fact that both players agreed to make it a panel decision only bolsters my confidence in the handling of the situation.
On March 20 2011 06:17 Bulkers wrote: I got a question, I read this topic as carefully as I can and there is this:
"If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won then we will rule it a win for the disconnecting player."
Then there are 3 Pannel members saying
Nazgul: "A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win" Morrow: "I think Nightend would been able to save his 3rd base and let the game go on..."
Then this rule to award Boxer should not be taken under consideration. Otherwise we will see everyone dc'ing after winning huge battle...
Also big question why players that take part in this tournament are taken to panel, I can understand Cloud, Nazgul but all the rest are playing in this tournament and that is there is a big chance that Morrow will face the winner of this game in Ro8. Imo Panel member should be take from pros out of "circle of interests"
I got to say TL.net is doing great job with this post, its very hard decision, and I admire how professional this trying to be. Sure, Boxer was ahead by far, but still I don't think win was "absolute" and 100% won for Boxer.
There's a reason their explanations don't end after what you've quoted. If you read on, you'll see exactly why each of the judges did think that the game was 100% over at that point, even though the game may have dragged on for some time after the time of disconnect. It's also important to note that as such a decision is very difficult to make at this level of play, it's hard to find people knowledgeable enough to make such a decision -- that's why there are going to be panel members drawn from the tournament itself as they represent the highest level of foreigner play.
Professionally handled guys, did the community proud. Just might want to indicate that panel members came to their conclusions without communicating with eachother (something I'd assume given all the other professional aspects of the production). Super well done guys. Made by far the best of a bad situation. To Nightend and Prae, sorry about the situation but if you have no comment, then have no comment. No need for petty parting shots
Really commendable response from TL. I really enjoyed reading the thorough analysis from the pros. Really terrible response from Praetoriani. Their comment of "no comment" is just passive aggressive and really pathetic. I would understand if they said they disagreed with the decision, but to say that you disagree but you think it's pointless to say that you disagree is... pointless.
Very well done TeamLiquid. Although in this particular instance the decision was not too hard to make with the giant advantage boxer had, this transparency and the clear professionalism with which you handled the situation are very commendable.
The best part is the transparency TL showed by saying that, despite the 2 members being vetoed, Cloud would have voted for a regame. They could have easily omitted that and avoided more flack, but chose not to do so in order have all of the facts on the table.
Seems like a fair process. Obviously there's gonna be boxer-bias accusations, but that's just stupid. One thing I would like to suggest is that players in tsl3 should NOT be on such a panel for tsl3. Just common sense. Don't think that was a problem here.. but just a good standard to have imo.
It's not like it would be a problem to get some other people of similar caliber.
I think, as unlucky as this situation is, it was handled 100% perfectly - you'll never be able to make everyone happy and the way you guys did it, I agree completely.
What I like the most is the full transparency. It's not like "hey, we had a secret vote, just gotta believe us, we know we are right". No, you reveal the people responsible for the decision, and, furthermore, you reveal their reasoning behind it. Big props to all of you involved in resolving this.
On March 20 2011 06:22 Catch]22 wrote: Yeah, it's not like anyone would cheat at dreamhack or artificially inflate his stats to qualify to TSL2, everyone here is honest.
On March 20 2011 06:17 Bulkers wrote: I got a question, I read this topic as carefully as I can and there is this:
"If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won then we will rule it a win for the disconnecting player."
Then there are 3 Pannel members saying
Nazgul: "A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win" Morrow: "I think Nightend would been able to save his 3rd base and let the game go on..."
Then this rule to award Boxer should not be taken under consideration. Otherwise we will see everyone dc'ing after winning huge battle...
Read further into the explanations. A large advantage alone is not enough to award a game, but this was not simply a large advantage. Because Nightend didn't have any Citidel or Templar tech and had only 1 Robo, there was just no way stalkers/zealots would overcome marauders/marines/medivacs on their own.
Also big question why players that take part in this tournament are taken to panel, I can understand Cloud, Nazgul but all the rest are playing in this tournament and that is there is a big chance that Morrow will face the winner of this game in Ro8. Imo Panel member should be take from pros out of "circle of interests"
I can understand that. I would only guess (I'm only a spectator too) that it was a combination of players available on a moment's notice and based on an evaluation of their actual game knowledge. What I mean by that is that there are lots of highly ranked players who don't understand the game as well as the players on that panel. Nony, MC and MorroW might have an interest but they also demonstrate the absolute highest game knowledge available today.
"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.
After reading the whole OP id have to say the rules govening DC's are fair, the reasoning behind the decision is sound and the panel is more than qualified (dont think anyone can argue against that point) Its a shame to see a DC at this level in a major tournament but it was handled properly imo.
Although i wouldn't call it an ABSOLUTE advantage, I would give an advantage to Boxer. However the game wasn't over. Under certain circumstances NightEnd could still come back IMO. Small chance, but not an absolute advantage for boxer. If he backed off/Nightend defended then NightEnd had COMPLETE AIR CONTROL (almost 9 lift-ups ready), abusing phoenix mobility he could've come back (of coarse with a certain small chance of this happening)
NightEnd pushed it to the panel, yet allowed the panel to be decreased from 5 voters down to 3? Why would he do that? Did he know that only 1 of the 5 had to rule a re-game for him to get one? Did he fully understand how the panel functioned? Why would he not accept a loss, and then right away increase the chance that he would get one by accepting a 3-man panel? Doesn't make sense to me.
On March 20 2011 06:26 I_Love_Bacon wrote: The best part is the transparency TL showed by saying that, despite the 2 members being vetoed, Cloud would have voted for a regame.
I think it's interesting that the sole possible Terran panel member was vetoed by BoxeR and that member felt it was a re-game, perhaps BoxeR felt like he could have lost it and that other Terrans could come to the same conclusion somehow? Or maybe he just doesn't know who Cloud is & it's a coincidence....
On March 20 2011 06:17 Bulkers wrote: Then this rule to award Boxer should not be taken under consideration. Otherwise we will see everyone dc'ing after winning huge battle...
No. The point of this was that Boxer was in such a position that he in all likelihood would have won. It wasn't just a huge battle; the game was virtually won by Boxer, which is what every panel member took the time to explain. If players get in that position in a match, it is actually more advantageous to play the game out than to disconnect on purpose, since disconnecting adds immediate ambiguity, whereas playing on is nearly a guaranteed win. That's the entire point of the rule.
On March 20 2011 06:27 imaROBOT wrote: 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.
it's also not fair to take a near 100% sure win away from a player because his internet dies. I think they made the right decision.
On March 20 2011 06:26 I_Love_Bacon wrote: The best part is the transparency TL showed by saying that, despite the 2 members being vetoed, Cloud would have voted for a regame.
I think it's interesting that the sole possible Terran panel member was vetoed by BoxeR and that member felt it was a re-game, perhaps BoxeR felt like he could have lost it and that other Terrans could come to the same conclusion somehow? Or maybe he just doesn't know who Cloud is & it's a coincidence....
I think it's more of the latter. Boxer has probably never heard of Cloud or knows who he is.
On March 20 2011 06:27 imaROBOT wrote: 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.
It's becoming clear that you haven't read the OP at all. Their rulings take into account normal mistakes on the pro level, and the simulations run by Nazgul feature extremely sloppy play by the Terran.
My goodness, my compliments to the TSL admins and the panel. This is what happens when the people in charge actually care about what they're doing. Thank you.
One thought that might be worth something (or not, but I'm saying it anyways): would it be possible to pre-approve a panel? Ask seven players, two get vetoed, and you're set if disaster strikes. It seems like that would ensure you don't need to settle for a three member panel.
But, seriously, the thorough explanation of the admins and the panelists is fantastic and should be a model for all other tournaments.
Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
I wasn't convinced about the decision as it did not look that obvious to me and was therefore very looking forward to see the explanations - I'm convinced now.
Great props to the TSL team for dealing with this in a very, very great manner. I feel sorry for NightenD as he must be feeling wronged (as most people would in that situation) but sc2 remains, to a certain extent, a game of numbers at a certain level (when constant macro/micro are not really variable anymore but simply present).
MC explained it pretty simply, same arguments as Nazgul pretty much. Coming from MC - a protoss particularly know for his PvT, it would be foolish to assume one can read that kind of situation better than him.
On March 20 2011 06:27 imaROBOT wrote: 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.
All 3 judges agreed that boxer had "absolutely won", that he had that "absolute advantage" which is more than the huge advantage nazgul speaks of. I think you are misunderstanding the text. Nazgul states "A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win. " and then proceeds to explain why he thinks boxer doesn't have a "huge advantage" but an "absolute advantage", giving him the win in TSL handbook standards.
Good decision. Just seeing how this whole thing was handled shows the advantage of casting replays over a live online tourney. Since we'd still be waiting for a decision if this had happened live.
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament.
On March 20 2011 06:27 imaROBOT wrote: 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.
You are quoting Nazgul wrong. Do it right.. like this:
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.
On March 20 2011 06:27 imaROBOT wrote: 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.
It's becoming clear that you haven't read the OP at all. Their rulings take into account normal mistakes on the pro level, and the simulations run by Nazgul feature extremely sloppy play by the Terran.
Trust me I read the whole post. Keep ASSUMING things so your argument looks better.
BTW the video was not in the post when first read it. They had a replay link instead, so after the EDIT.. I would say they made a good decision, but you can never count someone out 100%.
What if BoxeR for some reason turned around and did not attack the Nexus? You DON'T KNOW! That's all I'm saying about this.
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament?
I would agree it would be optimal if the panel were all people not competing in the TSL, but I would also say that the skill level of the competitors makes them the most qualified to judge the likely outcome of the game.
The point of these rules are to make it not worth risking a loss by purposefully disconnecting when your ahead, because you have to be at the point where you WILL win, or they will award a regame. If your far enough ahead to be awarded a win, then you can pretty much A move the enemy and win anyway. The point of the rules are that you can only lose by pulling your net cable, you have nothing to gain. I think the rules are fine. DCs are unfortunate but in an online tourney unavoidable.
EDIT: I didn't quite read the OP's description of the simulation fully, apologies for that. I still think it should have gone to a regame out of pure principle that it was unintended.
I think it should have gone to a regame. I noticed several flaws with the way the simulation was played out which made it more one-sided for Boxer than you think.
1) It looks like the units were just 1+A'd into each other.
2) Notice that the Phoenixes quickly took out the Medivacs, only picked up 1 or 2 Marauders and then flew past the army entirely with a few Stalkers still left. I don't think NightEnD is stupid enough to just leave the Marauders the hell alone after that with a gigantic amount of energy left on them. Plus I think he could have won that engagement had he pre-lifted a lot of the Marauders at the start.
Did you actually read the OP? The phoenixes IN-GAME had energy for two lifts ONLY, so the simulation would only lift 2 units.
I think it should have gone to a regame. I noticed several flaws with the way the simulation was played out which made it more one-sided for Boxer than you think.
1) It looks like the units were just 1+A'd into each other. Aside from when one of the judges said attack the Photon Cannon unstimmed and Stim once the army engages.
2) Notice that the Phoenixes quickly took out the Medivacs, only picked up 1 or 2 Marauders while engaging the Medivacs and then flew past the army entirely doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL with a few Stalkers still left. I don't think NightEnD is stupid enough to just leave the Marauders the hell alone after that with a gigantic amount of energy left on them. Plus I think he could have won that engagement had he pre-lifted a lot of the Marauders at the start.
He couldn't because 9 out of 11 phoenixes available had been recently drained of energy by perfect EMPs.
I think it should have gone to a regame. I noticed several flaws with the way the simulation was played out which made it more one-sided for Boxer than you think.
1) It looks like the units were just 1+A'd into each other. Aside from when one of the judges said attack the Photon Cannon unstimmed and Stim once the army engages.
2) Notice that the Phoenixes quickly took out the Medivacs, only picked up 1 or 2 Marauders while engaging the Medivacs and then flew past the army entirely doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL with a few Stalkers still left. I don't think NightEnD is stupid enough to just leave the Marauders the hell alone after that with a gigantic amount of energy left on them. Plus I think he could have won that engagement had he pre-lifted a lot of the Marauders at the start.
THere was no energy on the phoenix they were at 30 at the time of disconnects with gosts having energy for emp
I think it should have gone to a regame. I noticed several flaws with the way the simulation was played out which made it more one-sided for Boxer than you think.
1) It looks like the units were just 1+A'd into each other. Aside from when one of the judges said attack the Photon Cannon unstimmed and Stim once the army engages.
2) Notice that the Phoenixes quickly took out the Medivacs, only picked up 1 or 2 Marauders while engaging the Medivacs and then flew past the army entirely doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL with a few Stalkers still left. I don't think NightEnD is stupid enough to just leave the Marauders the hell alone after that with a gigantic amount of energy left on them. Plus I think he could have won that engagement had he pre-lifted a lot of the Marauders at the start.
Did you not bother reading? None of the phoenixes had energy. That's why they only picked up 1 or 2 Marauders and then were pretty much useless.
I think it should have gone to a regame. I noticed several flaws with the way the simulation was played out which made it more one-sided for Boxer than you think.
1) It looks like the units were just 1+A'd into each other. Aside from when one of the judges said attack the Photon Cannon unstimmed and Stim once the army engages.
2) Notice that the Phoenixes quickly took out the Medivacs, only picked up 1 or 2 Marauders while engaging the Medivacs and then flew past the army entirely doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL with a few Stalkers still left. I don't think NightEnD is stupid enough to just leave the Marauders the hell alone after that with a gigantic amount of energy left on them. Plus I think he could have won that engagement had he pre-lifted a lot of the Marauders at the start.
He couldnt lift the marauders cos all the phoenixes were emp-ed. Only 2 had energy to lift. Trust them , they did everything possible to simulate things as closely as it were.
I think it should have gone to a regame. I noticed several flaws with the way the simulation was played out which made it more one-sided for Boxer than you think.
1) It looks like the units were just 1+A'd into each other. Aside from when one of the judges said attack the Photon Cannon unstimmed and Stim once the army engages.
2) Notice that the Phoenixes quickly took out the Medivacs, only picked up 1 or 2 Marauders while engaging the Medivacs and then flew past the army entirely doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL with a few Stalkers still left. I don't think NightEnD is stupid enough to just leave the Marauders the hell alone after that with a gigantic amount of energy left on them. Plus I think he could have won that engagement had he pre-lifted a lot of the Marauders at the start.
The Phoenixes had been EMPed. This was mentioned in the OP, there was only enough energy for 1 lift on 2 phoenixes. The rest didn't have enough energy for a single EMP.
I think it should have gone to a regame. I noticed several flaws with the way the simulation was played out which made it more one-sided for Boxer than you think.
1) It looks like the units were just 1+A'd into each other. Aside from when one of the judges said attack the Photon Cannon unstimmed and Stim once the army engages.
2) Notice that the Phoenixes quickly took out the Medivacs, only picked up 1 or 2 Marauders while engaging the Medivacs and then flew past the army entirely doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL with a few Stalkers still left. I don't think NightEnD is stupid enough to just leave the Marauders the hell alone after that with a gigantic amount of energy left on them. Plus I think he could have won that engagement had he pre-lifted a lot of the Marauders at the start.
read the OP. all but 2 phoenix had been EMP'd seconds earlier. the simulation was accurate in that account. would have been interesting to see the outcome between a moving T and focus firing P though.
I believe the decision was 100% correct. I thought it was over when NightEnD's army melted and wasn't really expecting a comeback. The explanations are also really solid, so very good job at handling a delicate situation.
I have one problem though... you could have posted this after the series and not after the match... reading Praetoriani's comment on the situation pretty much spoiled the results of the series since they clearly wouldn't have formulated it that way if NightEnD would have won
On March 20 2011 06:36 n00b3rt wrote: Only 1 complaint : you should have posted this thread after all the games had been casted. The reaction by Prae spoiled the result of game 3 ;(
Agreed. I had this same thought in chat.
Seeing what their "no comment" was and that they didn't want to "throw stones" let me know that the entire series did not go their way.
I am just surprised at the amount of nothing arguments popping in this thread. People arguing for the sake of arguing and saying that it is never 100% over until it actually is. If you are going to argue in a thread as professional as this, at least try to make the arguments sound as good as the original post is.
I am not a TL fanboy, just someone who can see how professionally handled this is. Nobody is saying you should not argue, but have respect for the original post and make the effort to prove why you think it might be the wrong decision.
When the admins have taken so much effort to validate their points, you have to take at least as much effort to invalidate them. Just saying it is never 100% over is not going to cut it.
So if Boxer had vetoed a different panel member, and Cloud had submitted his decision, then it would have been a re-game? Since that in order to award a win to the disconnecting player a unanimous decision is needed.
I think that the disconnection issue was handled wonderfully and professionally. The one minor comment I would make is that I think the statement from Praetoriana was sort of a spoiler that BoxeR would end up the victor. After reading that statement, it seemed strongly implied to me that NightEnD was going to lose the series. I would have probably released that statement after the series was completed. In general, very good job guys!
Very professional attitude from TSL here and i agree completely with the analyses of Nazgul, MC and Morrow.
That being said i wonder how long it took to completely analyse the situation and as such if it would be an appropriate system for something live like GSL. If it only took a few minutes then i think this sort of analysis would be a good idea for things like GSL and MLG.
On March 20 2011 06:27 imaROBOT wrote: 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.
People are really taking Nazgul's quote out of context. He is saying that the advantage alone isn't enough to award Boxer the win, but when you include the other factors that he goes on to list, such as no blink/charge or templar archives, then it is enough for him to award Boxer the game.
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
Thrill has a point about the referee panel being prepared in advance, preferably of players outside the tournament -- however, I am impressed and also consider this a very professional reaction by the TSL staff in part because they acknowledge they could have handled it better and intend to revise their process in the future.
I like the choice of top players as referees, the thorough decisions by the referees, the prepared and courteous approach taken by all involved... Very good job, TSL. You've raised the bar for foreign-run tournaments and I can only hope that future event organizers follow suit.
On March 20 2011 06:41 BlazingInferno wrote: I am just surprised at the amount of nothing arguments popping in this thread. People arguing for the sake of arguing and saying that it is never 100% over until it actually is. If you are going to argue in a thread as professional as this, at least try to make the arguments sound as good as the original post is.
I am not a TL fanboy, just someone who can see how professionally handled this is. Nobody is saying you should not argue, but have respect for the original post and make the effort to prove why you think it might be the wrong decision.
When the admins have taken so much effort to validate their points, you have to take at least as much effort to invalidate them. Just saying it is never 100% over is not going to cut it.
It's always funny when someone complains about worthless posts, while making one at the same time.
How are we supposed to match the effort in validating the fact that it wasn't 100% over? Am I going to make a simulation video showing what BoxeR might have done? No.
The point is I wish we could avoid disconnected, but we cant. Trying to argue what the two players were going to do next is impossible. You can make a video showing the outcome of a battle straight forward, but you don't know if they would have just moved right into each other.
An extremely professional explaination. Excellent ruling and deductions by the judges and I agree 100%. With this, there is no doubt that boxer deserved the win.
Regardless of the decision, I really appreciate the system you have in place to deal with situations such as this.
Even more than I appreciate the forethought of this system, I am overwhelmed with happiness that you guys decided to apply so much honesty and transparency to this post. When you mention cloud's decision to re-game, and openly indicate things that could possibly be considered mistakes on your part during this process, it shows a lot of the integrity of this site and this tournament.
I commend you all for your efforts and I believe this issue was resolved adequately.
Much love for TL, their Staff, the players who participated on this judging panel, and the TSL ♥
On March 20 2011 06:27 imaROBOT wrote: 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.
this should be bannable. people deliberately taking nazgul's quote out of context when his conclusion was obvious.
On March 20 2011 06:00 dtz wrote: Very mature and professional by TL I love the fact that TL does not go for the "easy way out" but instead try to go for the "most correct one" It will be easy to just force a regame.
Quite a disappointing response by Prae and Nightend. If you want to " no comment" then don't comment. If you want to put a statement protesting the decision with logical arguments then do so. Don't be passive aggressive about it.
Seconded. No comment means no comment, whether or not your opinion differs from the one that the TL panel made.
Applaud TL for the professionalism in this scenario.
Wow, even though while watching game live I was sure Boxer had g1 easily, reading OP and how much work and thought was put into this, I think no one should disagree with with your decission. Big props for effort of TSL staff. This tournament will be (IS!) the best Regards
good call, i love the battle sim thing, also, MC's explanation makes a lot of sense, the situation was irreversible, unless this was a bronze ladder game ^^
So if Boxer had vetoed a different panel member, and Cloud had submitted his decision, then it would have been a re-game? Since that in order to award a win to the disconnecting player a unanimous decision is needed.
Very professional by TL, though of course, the use of fewer panel members directly hurt Nightend's chances since he only needed one person to think it should be a re-game, while Boxer needed a unanimous vote.
Thank you to everyone at TL for the great process you have in place to deal with these unpleasant situations.
I personally disagree with the panel's decision, but I have every bit of respect for the process that was followed. I also know that the members of that panel have much much better understanding of the game and situation than I do.
On March 20 2011 06:17 SupastaR wrote: We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around.
oshit
If this quote is truly theirs, they should get punished. When you win you don't care what happened, I knew beforehand Boxer was going to take game 3 thanks to them.
Only thing I don't understand is why would Nightend veto anyone if an unanimous decision is required to award Boxer the game?
Vetoing only makes sense if the panelist was replaced. Maybe he doesn't fully grasp the implication of the panelist not being replaced, or was first asked to veto and then asked to accede to only 3 panelists.
If this is the case, the organizers should at least re-instate Tyler since it is clearly in Nightend's interest to hear Tyler if no other panelist can be found to replace him.
Regardless of how you feel about the interpretation, you've got to give credit to TL for being very thorough and clear in their responses. This was a very thorough review process that has a level of transparency I think all of us can respect. Anyone who thinks that TL didn't try their hardest to get a fair result is nuts.
Personally, I agreed with their decision when the game was aired and agree doubly so after reading this review. I'm really glad to see so much care taken with this tournament.
I thought it was a re-game until I find out only 2 pheonix have energy to lift. At that point it's impossible to come back as the pheonix were his only hope.
On March 20 2011 06:53 nexusil wrote: Only thing I don't understand is why would Nightend veto anyone if an unanimous decision is required to award Boxer the game?
Vetoing only makes sense if the panelist was replaced. Maybe he doesn't fully grasp the implication of the panelist not being replaced, or was first asked to veto and then asked to accede to only 3 panelists.
If this is the case, the organizers should at least re-instate Tyler since it is clearly in Nightend's interest to hear Tyler if no other panelist can be found to replace him.
^That's what we call a wrong decision. You are right though, he shouldn't have vetoed anyone to up his chances.
On March 20 2011 06:17 SupastaR wrote: We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around.
oshit
If this quote is truly theirs, they should get punished. When you win you don't care what happened, I knew beforehand Boxer was going to take game 3 thanks to them.
thb, I'm still not entirely sure what they are trying to say.
On March 20 2011 06:17 SupastaR wrote: We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around.
oshit
If this quote is truly theirs, they should get punished. When you win you don't care what happened, I knew beforehand Boxer was going to take game 3 thanks to them.
Actually you should be mad at TL for publishing the comment before the series was completely casted, not at them, it was an easy oversight to make though. I understand why TL posted this immediately after the first game instead of after the series though, it definitely helped keep people satisfied with the decision.
On March 20 2011 06:17 SupastaR wrote: We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around.
oshit
If this quote is truly theirs, they should get punished. When you win you don't care what happened, I knew beforehand Boxer was going to take game 3 thanks to them.
They weren't the ones who decided to put the thread up in its entirety before the series was over, nor did they force you to read it
On March 20 2011 06:27 imaROBOT wrote: 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.
this should be bannable. people deliberately taking nazgul's quote out of context when his conclusion was obvious.
LOL
Deliberately taking his quote out of context? Did you read the rest of that sentence. The only other thing he states is that the Terran army would win the battle because of numbers and the phoenix low energy.
My point being, that you don't even know if they would have attacked straight forward like that video shows. If you read my whole post I point out that I think they made the right decision in the end anyway, DUDE.
Your post should qualify for a ban, it's pointless and adds nothing to the topic. GTFO!
Definitely a great write up and explanation for the circumstances regarding the first game. It's unfortunate though that it had to end up being a decision based on a ruling, but that's how these things go. I guess we can only hope for less disconnects in the future so these situations don't arise again. A great job nonetheless on the decision and execution of explaining the process TL, this is a very professional move and I hope that more organizations and leagues follow suit in the future.
On March 20 2011 06:17 SupastaR wrote: We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around.
oshit
If this quote is truly theirs, they should get punished. When you win you don't care what happened, I knew beforehand Boxer was going to take game 3 thanks to them.
What? If anything, blame TL for publishing it before the games are done.
Kudos to TL for how they handled the situation. If anything, people should complain about the lack of stability of B.Net, which isn't really TL's fault. Let's just hope it won't happen again.
Each of the three panel members did a really good job of explaining the situation. As a protoss player, I had a fairly good idea that Nightend had lost and all three judges were able to confirm my feelings. A zerg player unfamiliar with PvT or a non-SC2 player may have been less comfortable with the decision, and Morrow did an amazing job with his thorough discussion and judgement, showing exactly why he thought the game was over.
Overall, I was impressed with how TL handled this situation. I loved the professionalism and preparedness of the crew, and it's good to see the tournament is in such caring hands.
I disagree, while i respect TL decision theres no way You could qualify this situation as absolutly won withaout a shadow of doubt. In fact later games prove that both players made a lot of questionable deciosion during the match. Boxer could throw his advantage away, no way that was a sure win.
And before someone quotes and rage, yes i did read the opinions of Nazgul and others, yes i know Boxer had huge advantage, but we all have seen many times better players than Boxer throw away even bigger advantages, no way that was a 100% win.
- putting in the Prae team comments kind of made me think that Boxer would go on to win the match - would probably be best not to have players that are in the tournament be on the dubious results panel, but obv appreciate that with time constraints it may not be that easy to work that out
On March 20 2011 06:17 SupastaR wrote: We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around.
oshit
If this quote is truly theirs, they should get punished. When you win you don't care what happened, I knew beforehand Boxer was going to take game 3 thanks to them.
Actually you should be mad at TL for publishing the comment before the series was completely casted, not at them, it was an easy oversight to make though. I understand why TL posted this immediately after the first game instead of after the series though, it definitely helped keep people satisfied with the decision.
My fault. My apologies to Praetoriani. Yes, I am mad at TL now. That's a huge blunder and the only reason they should not be banned is becasue the site and the tournament is theirs :D.
Now seriously, don't do this again, I'm sure I'm not the only one that lost the excitement after that.
On another point, I like the fact that there were some rules set in stone and I liked discovering that the caster hadn't watched the games before casting them. The only thing that needs improvement is the panel choice, they definetely should't be from the tournament.
I think, it should be taken into account the comebackness of the protoss race. SC is a game, a gamble, like in the first game of strelok vs tyler, 1 second and nice ff can turn the tide. dont take SC as a math formular.
I suggest in such close situation it has to be regame, not judge ruling, also i like this panel idea!
Seems like a good decision, since if anyone would be asked to make a bet at that point, without doubt 100% would agree that Boxer was severely favored to win.
On the other hand, I think everyone has seen crazier comebacks, so the decision nowhere near falls in line with the #3 If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won then we will rule it a win for the disconnecting player rule, in my books (it is, essentially, a 21 pop advantage). Pity that it kind of has to be "sold" in that way.
Obviously, stripping away a very probable victory from Boxer just because of a disconnect wouldn't have been too fair either - out of three shitty solutions, TL had to pick one - and no matter what the choice, a shitstorm would've ensued regardless.
Bottomline, respect for treating the situation as professionally as you possibly could.
Wow, huge thanks to the TL staff for putting this decision up so fast. I'm so glad they respect us enough to do this. I would have hated to see this turn into a Fifa or MSL-style scenario where the results of bad/unusual/hard to make decisions are never explained.
I was also super impressed with the panel's reasoning. After reading what they wrote, it's hard to disagree with the decision.
On March 20 2011 06:07 Zlasher wrote: What I DO NOT AGREE WITH is the fact that Chill was actually whooping and hollering that Boxer got the win in game one. As a caster in front of 35,000 people, he should NOT be cheering for any decision based off of a disconnect, Day[9] was saying "It is unfortunate that a disconnect happened but the decision was made", that is the correct process to be taking as an unbiased caster but why is Chill cheering that Boxer got a win after he disconnected? This is mind bogglingly bad on his part.
I am severely disappointed in how Chill reacted on stream to the decision, but so is the state of what happened.
Is it possible to have Cloud explain his own view of it and why he thought regame? I know his vote didn't count in, just wondering because everyone of the panel is pretty convincing with their explanation, so i was curious about the one guy that thought regame.
While I feel like Boxer had that game in the bag it is still very unfortunate that we basically have the scenario that if Boxer didn't happen to veto ClouD, there would have been a regame.
If all five people on the panel determine that the disconnecting player has the game absolutely won, the disconnecter will be awarded the win
So there weren't 5 people agreeing on this but 3 (= 40% less). You guys already stated that you will never allow only 3 judges again - but now you did :/ just leaves a bit of a weird feeling
Thanks for posting the panel's reviews of the game as well. My jaw dropped like Day[9]'s and Chill's did when BoxeR dropped the game, and I would say this is a pretty fair and transparent way of resolving such an issue.
I'm not sure of the fairness of letting players see the panel's review before the veto decision, though. This precludes the concept of personal bias between the panel and the player, whereas seeing the reviews beforehand would cause the player to cast his vote based purely on the review. You mentioned in the OP as well that you didn't expect players to use their vetos when the rules were originally drawn up. Letting them know what reviews they are vetoing though, ensures a biased veto that would have upset a blind decision. For example, had BoxeR not chosen to veto Could, then it would have been a regame. However, if BoxeR had seen Cloud's review recommending a regame, then he most likely would have automatically cast his veto for Cloud, automatically giving himself a win.
I wonder if the people commenting against the decision bothered reading the great write ups by the judges....
Anyone remember the DC (power-outage actually) between Jaedong and Flash? I wasnt sure about the decision that game too, but the write ups clearly convinced me...
On March 20 2011 07:01 Longshank wrote: It's pretty sad, if Nightend hadn't been good sports by accepting a 3-man jury he could have been in ro16 right now.
On March 20 2011 06:09 imaROBOT wrote: Thanks for the explanation.
I do however feel like the decision was not a good one. You can list numbers all you want, but the truth is, you will never know if BoxeR might have made some mistake during the walk/attack toward Nightends third base.
You will never know 100% what the out come could have been, so I think it should clearly have been a regame. I honestly don't think it was a fair decision and put Nightend into a horrible mind set going into the next game.
It's just not fair to ASSUME that BoxeR would not have made some mistake, there was a possibility of a come back. Was it a small possibility, yes.
Also I do not understand how you can use PLAYERS IN THE TORUNY as a referee on the panel. How would there not be any bias, when you can decide who you want to play next/eventually in the toruny?
You didn't watch the YouTube simulation did you? A-Attacking Boxer's army towards the base would've won that fight with a large margin. It's not reasonable for example to assume that BoxeR might accidentally leave 2/3 of his army at home instead of boxing the whole group and attacking NightEnd's 3rd.
I hate people who make ignorant posts without reading the OP.
On March 20 2011 06:07 Zlasher wrote: What I DO NOT AGREE WITH is the fact that Chill was actually whooping and hollering that Boxer got the win in game one. As a caster in front of 35,000 people, he should NOT be cheering for any decision based off of a disconnect, Day[9] was saying "It is unfortunate that a disconnect happened but the decision was made", that is the correct process to be taking as an unbiased caster but why is Chill cheering that Boxer got a win after he disconnected? This is mind bogglingly bad on his part.
I am severely disappointed in how Chill reacted on stream to the decision, but so is the state of what happened.
What did I say? I don't remember doing that.
? I didnt get that at all- you both handled it fine, and it was good that DJ Wheat came in too.
On March 20 2011 06:17 SupastaR wrote: We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around.
oshit
If this quote is truly theirs, they should get punished. When you win you don't care what happened, I knew beforehand Boxer was going to take game 3 thanks to them.
Actually you should be mad at TL for publishing the comment before the series was completely casted, not at them, it was an easy oversight to make though. I understand why TL posted this immediately after the first game instead of after the series though, it definitely helped keep people satisfied with the decision.
My fault. Yes, I am mad at TL now. That's a huge blunder.
I thought the Goliath comment was a reference to the reputations of the people doing the judging.
Excellent handling of the situation by the TSL staff. First time I've seen this level of transparency regarding what would be a controversial decision no matter what verdict you reached.
On March 20 2011 07:02 Trobot wrote: Thanks for posting the panel's reviews of the game as well. My jaw dropped like Day[9]'s and Chill's did when BoxeR dropped the game, and I would say this is a pretty fair and transparent way of resolving such an issue.
I'm not sure of the fairness of letting players see the panel's review before the veto decision, though. This precludes the concept of personal bias between the panel and the player, whereas seeing the reviews beforehand would cause the player to cast his vote based purely on the review. You mentioned in the OP as well that you didn't expect players to use their vetos when the rules were originally drawn up. Letting them know what reviews they are vetoing though, ensures a biased veto that would have upset a blind decision. For example, had BoxeR not chosen to veto Could, then it would have been a regame. However, if BoxeR had seen Cloud's review recommending a regame, then he most likely would have automatically cast his veto for Cloud, automatically giving himself a win.
umm, what? I can't make any sense to your second paragraph.
On March 20 2011 07:01 Longshank wrote: It's pretty sad, if Nightend hadn't been good sports by accepting a 3-man jury he could have been in ro16 right now.
I disagree with the decision, as I had Nightend moving on in my bracket.
Jokes aside, I absolutely love how tsl didnt just make a regame cause there was a disconnect and provided a deep, good analysis of how and why this decision was made. Very open and professional.
What I would love to know is the timeline of this thing: Like: Did the players play all 3 games played in a row? Was there a break in between to get a ruling? Did they play a regame anyways in case the panel decided otherwise? etc.
Excellent decision and i like the fact team-liquid handled it so professionally!!
Of course it is not the ideal situation to have a disconnect and must be annoying for the non-disconnecting player. But with the excellent rules and panel i don't think anyone can argue with their decision to give the win to boxer.
On March 20 2011 06:53 nexusil wrote: Only thing I don't understand is why would Nightend veto anyone if an unanimous decision is required to award Boxer the game?
Vetoing only makes sense if the panelist was replaced. Maybe he doesn't fully grasp the implication of the panelist not being replaced, or was first asked to veto and then asked to accede to only 3 panelists.
If this is the case, the organizers should at least re-instate Tyler since it is clearly in Nightend's interest to hear Tyler if no other panelist can be found to replace him.
I believe that`s one of the reasons they stated Tylers ruling even though it wasn`t needed. Since he would have voted for a win, in this case it wouldn`t have made a diference, even though it was probally the better to do it. Since they wouldn`t hold a lower than 5 members panel again, this decision won`t be necessary again.
There isn`t really a way to critize the way TSL handles this situations, apart from the problems that they already said won`t happen again. I wish all sports related decision were this open and reasonable.
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
On March 20 2011 06:53 nexusil wrote: Only thing I don't understand is why would Nightend veto anyone if an unanimous decision is required to award Boxer the game?
Vetoing only makes sense if the panelist was replaced. Maybe he doesn't fully grasp the implication of the panelist not being replaced, or was first asked to veto and then asked to accede to only 3 panelists.
If this is the case, the organizers should at least re-instate Tyler since it is clearly in Nightend's interest to hear Tyler if no other panelist can be found to replace him.
From the OP:
While we were looking for more panel members, both players agreed to a 3 man panel instead of 5.
I'm guessing both of the players didn't want to/have time to wait for the 2 new panel members to be found.
The way they wrote it, was that it was intended to be 5 panel members, but the players agreed to using only 3, and in the future, players won't be able to make that decision, and they will use 5 panel members.
Have to say I'm quite impressed with the amount of thought and attention to detail Naz, MC and Morrow put into this tough decision. Major props to the TSL admins in my book.
If I was Nightend I would be really disapointed by this decision , but from a neutral point of view , Boxer had this game. It was even more one sided than the battle in game3 , and Boxer took this game without any problem. Thanks for the transparency and your professionalism , this tournament is awesome!
Congrats to TL for being professional about the whole thing, and extra kudos to the panelists for writing their analysis in such good detail.
As they said, Nightend had an inferior army and no access to tricky things (storms, templar, phoenix mana, charge/blink) that would give him a chance to come back.
As people have pointed out, while the veto mechanic is fair using a panel of 3 instead of 5 gives the advantage to the winning player (since only one person has to call for a regame). I imagine, with the consent of the players and the time issue of finding two more panelists, they did something everyone agreed was fair. The decision to include players from the tournament in the panel could potentially create conflicts of interest in the future, but in this case the panel's opinions were clearly written, seemingly fair, and compelling. Of course, if you're going to get the best players in the world to be your judges, and you're going to host a tournament with the best players in the world playing in it...
This incident also shows why bnet2 and the "all games must be played on our servers" attitude from blizzard is an albatross around the neck of competitive sc2. Private servers could be configured to have a much longer disconnect timeout, for instance, used with (if necessary) a Hamachi-like network adapter emulator that masks a physical loss of link from the game to allow a reconnect.
On March 20 2011 07:02 Trobot wrote: Thanks for posting the panel's reviews of the game as well. My jaw dropped like Day[9]'s and Chill's did when BoxeR dropped the game, and I would say this is a pretty fair and transparent way of resolving such an issue.
I'm not sure of the fairness of letting players see the panel's review before the veto decision, though. This precludes the concept of personal bias between the panel and the player, whereas seeing the reviews beforehand would cause the player to cast his vote based purely on the review. You mentioned in the OP as well that you didn't expect players to use their vetos when the rules were originally drawn up. Letting them know what reviews they are vetoing though, ensures a biased veto that would have upset a blind decision. For example, had BoxeR not chosen to veto Could, then it would have been a regame. However, if BoxeR had seen Cloud's review recommending a regame, then he most likely would have automatically cast his veto for Cloud, automatically giving himself a win.
umm, what? I can't make any sense to your second paragraph.
Basically: letting players cast their vetos when they know what they are vetoing precludes the idea that they'd veto based solely on who was reviewing the game. BoxeR, in this case, vetoed Cloud because, for some reason, he distrusted Cloud's ability to impartially review the game. However, had BoxeR seen the vote 4-1 in favor of his winning the game, he'd be inclined to automatically veto the 1 against his win, essentially overriding the entire consensus of the panel with a single vote.
I am very impressed with how well this was handled by TSL staff... even though I don't agree with the decision!
Making this post and having Wheat come on to give the explanation showed respect to the viewers and I appreciated it.
That said, I feel like it was not *impossible* for nightend to come back and thus the situation very unfortunately robs him of an opportunity to go for that comeback (and I also think that it is important that the disconnect was not on his end). Its more so a matter of principle than me believing that nightend had a realistic chance to win that game. I just feel that taking away an opportunity to come back from a deficit is worse than negating a very likely win.
But I was cheering for boxer anyways so I can't complain too much about the results very pumped for tomorrow's games!!!!!
On March 20 2011 06:03 Acaloth wrote: First of all, i really appreciate the idea of transparency of the process which is shown here but i for my part dont like the descision.
I just want to give some impressions why i come to this conclusion:
I think with this decision you take away the possibility from nightend to still win the game. He may not have been in a very good position at the moment but its not sure that he couldnt win or that Boxer makes a mistake which costs him the win, you just cant say that there is no possibility of Nightend winning. I think that a regame would have been the better decision.
Disagree, for the reasons highlighted by the judges. Listen to what Morrow stated, even if Boxer's skill degraded completely down to Bronze league in skill level, and just A-moved his entire army to take out the remainder of the toss bases, he still would have won.
You need to remember that impartiality is absolutely paramount here, the judges delivered their views in an absolutely pro fashion and favored neither player. Even if you could argue that MC would have been protoss-biased, even MC stated that the situation is non-salvagable. This is MC we're talking about - the latest GSL season winner.
As viewers we do not have nearly the vested interest in maintaining the same level of professionalism and impartiality, but in the event of a sticky situation, we should still do our best to not let our personal biases color our view of the situation.
On March 20 2011 07:02 Trobot wrote: Thanks for posting the panel's reviews of the game as well. My jaw dropped like Day[9]'s and Chill's did when BoxeR dropped the game, and I would say this is a pretty fair and transparent way of resolving such an issue.
I'm not sure of the fairness of letting players see the panel's review before the veto decision, though. This precludes the concept of personal bias between the panel and the player, whereas seeing the reviews beforehand would cause the player to cast his vote based purely on the review. You mentioned in the OP as well that you didn't expect players to use their vetos when the rules were originally drawn up. Letting them know what reviews they are vetoing though, ensures a biased veto that would have upset a blind decision. For example, had BoxeR not chosen to veto Could, then it would have been a regame. However, if BoxeR had seen Cloud's review recommending a regame, then he most likely would have automatically cast his veto for Cloud, automatically giving himself a win.
umm, what? I can't make any sense to your second paragraph.
Basically: letting players cast their vetos when they know what they are vetoing precludes the idea that they'd veto based solely on who was reviewing the game. BoxeR, in this case, vetoed Cloud because, for some reason, he distrusted Cloud's ability to impartially review the game. However, had BoxeR seen the vote 4-1 in favor of his winning the game, he'd be inclined to automatically veto the 1 against his win, essentially overriding the entire consensus of the panel with a single vote.
On March 20 2011 07:05 Jetaap wrote: If I was Nightend I would be really disapointed by this decision , but from a neutral point of view , Boxer had this game. It was even more one sided than the battle in game3 , and Boxer took this game without any problem. Thanks for the transparency and your professionalism , this tournament is awesome!
If I was i Nightend position i would refuse to play second game I suppose we all should be greatfull that neither I nor anyone with mindest similiar to mine is playing in TSL.
On March 20 2011 07:01 Longshank wrote: It's pretty sad, if Nightend hadn't been good sports by accepting a 3-man jury he could have been in ro16 right now.
Lesson learned, don't be a nice guy
So you assume he would have won the regame?
actually, they would have just taken longer to find an additional 2 panel members since the rule of veto'ing a members would have been enforced by boxer if nightend enforced the 5 man jury rule. So cloud would have not been in the jury regardless, and it would have been up to the 2 additional panel members TL found and whether they agreed he had lost or not.
The only reason that didnt happen was because both players had time contraints on their schedule and couldn't sit around waiting for TL to find other panel members.
On March 20 2011 06:56 Dramborleg wrote: I did not like the decision.
"If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won"
Boxer did not have the game absolutely won. which is rule #3.
"Absolutely won" means that the player had the game won beyond all reasonable doubt and had an "absolute advantage." This operates from the mindset that a player will make all the mistakes in the world that can be expected from a professional level player. So missing EMPs and other micro mistakes can definitely happen but right clicking units and not touching them for five minutes can't. It is important to keep in mind that our standard is NOT that the game must be mathematically over 100%
On March 20 2011 07:02 Trobot wrote: Thanks for posting the panel's reviews of the game as well. My jaw dropped like Day[9]'s and Chill's did when BoxeR dropped the game, and I would say this is a pretty fair and transparent way of resolving such an issue.
I'm not sure of the fairness of letting players see the panel's review before the veto decision, though. This precludes the concept of personal bias between the panel and the player, whereas seeing the reviews beforehand would cause the player to cast his vote based purely on the review. You mentioned in the OP as well that you didn't expect players to use their vetos when the rules were originally drawn up. Letting them know what reviews they are vetoing though, ensures a biased veto that would have upset a blind decision. For example, had BoxeR not chosen to veto Could, then it would have been a regame. However, if BoxeR had seen Cloud's review recommending a regame, then he most likely would have automatically cast his veto for Cloud, automatically giving himself a win.
umm, what? I can't make any sense to your second paragraph.
Basically: letting players cast their vetos when they know what they are vetoing precludes the idea that they'd veto based solely on who was reviewing the game. BoxeR, in this case, vetoed Cloud because, for some reason, he distrusted Cloud's ability to impartially review the game. However, had BoxeR seen the vote 4-1 in favor of his winning the game, he'd be inclined to automatically veto the 1 against his win, essentially overriding the entire consensus of the panel with a single vote.
Except it doesn't matter because Boxer was not aware of anyone's decision when he cast his veto
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
How far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest?
You'd have to take into account foreigner/Korean bias, team biases, race biases, fan bias, etc.
On March 20 2011 06:23 Zim23 wrote: There really isn't a way to avoid conflict of interest in this situation. I agree it should be minimized but there will always be an issue with the panel members' race (T,Z,P), nationality (foreigner vs Korean), and team. The veto system is obviously in place to mitigate this problem, but it'll always exist as the panel is going to be human for the foreseeable future.
Another thing to take into account is that the panel should always include elite players or well respected members of the community, and elite players will generally be part of the tournament, so there's no real way to avoid it. Not to mention you need people to AGREE to be part of the panel, and that limits selection even further. This was the best way I could think of to handle the situation, and the fact that both players agreed to make it a panel decision only bolsters my confidence in the handling of the situation.
This is true, no matter how you cut it there's always potential for bias. Heck, you could try cutting out every single person that grew up with Boxer as a hero, if people were that concerned. However, everyone on the panel are big names in the SC community and I'm not sure they'd want to damage their reputation by intentionally trying to swing their judgement for one tournament (albiet a big one.)
Be that as it may, I'm very happy to see that the TSL is confident in their decision making and are open to criticism by making their process transparent. Obviously people can disagree with their ruling, but no-one can nay-say their professionalism and transparency.
On March 20 2011 07:02 Trobot wrote: Thanks for posting the panel's reviews of the game as well. My jaw dropped like Day[9]'s and Chill's did when BoxeR dropped the game, and I would say this is a pretty fair and transparent way of resolving such an issue.
I'm not sure of the fairness of letting players see the panel's review before the veto decision, though. This precludes the concept of personal bias between the panel and the player, whereas seeing the reviews beforehand would cause the player to cast his vote based purely on the review. You mentioned in the OP as well that you didn't expect players to use their vetos when the rules were originally drawn up. Letting them know what reviews they are vetoing though, ensures a biased veto that would have upset a blind decision. For example, had BoxeR not chosen to veto Could, then it would have been a regame. However, if BoxeR had seen Cloud's review recommending a regame, then he most likely would have automatically cast his veto for Cloud, automatically giving himself a win.
umm, what? I can't make any sense to your second paragraph.
Basically: letting players cast their vetos when they know what they are vetoing precludes the idea that they'd veto based solely on who was reviewing the game. BoxeR, in this case, vetoed Cloud because, for some reason, he distrusted Cloud's ability to impartially review the game. However, had BoxeR seen the vote 4-1 in favor of his winning the game, he'd be inclined to automatically veto the 1 against his win, essentially overriding the entire consensus of the panel with a single vote.
ok, but that's not going to happen, right?
Under the proposed retooling of the rules, it's entirely possible, and legitimate. Not every player is fair and decent.
On March 20 2011 06:09 imaROBOT wrote: Thanks for the explanation.
I do however feel like the decision was not a good one. You can list numbers all you want, but the truth is, you will never know if BoxeR might have made some mistake during the walk/attack toward Nightends third base.
You will never know 100% what the out come could have been, so I think it should clearly have been a regame. I honestly don't think it was a fair decision and put Nightend into a horrible mind set going into the next game.
It's just not fair to ASSUME that BoxeR would not have made some mistake, there was a possibility of a come back. Was it a small possibility, yes.
Also I do not understand how you can use PLAYERS IN THE TORUNY as a referee on the panel. How would there not be any bias, when you can decide who you want to play next/eventually in the toruny?
You didn't watch the YouTube simulation did you? A-Attacking Boxer's army towards the base would've won that fight with a large margin. It's not reasonable for example to assume that BoxeR might accidentally leave 2/3 of his army at home instead of boxing the whole group and attacking NightEnd's 3rd.
I hate people who make ignorant posts without reading the OP.
Guess what I hate. Ignorant people that just ASSUME things.
If you would have read the entire thread you would see that my next post explains that the video WAS NOT THERE when I read the OP. They original had a link to a reply, not a embed video. So who is really the ignorant one here...
Also you have saw that I agree with the decision. The game "looked" to be over with BoxeR in the lead obviously. I do think there is reasonable doubt, but it's already been decided.
I have noticed that most people were not convinced that the first game had a clear cut winner, until they were persuaded. A person who believes one player should win will always try to persuade you.
On March 20 2011 06:07 Zlasher wrote: What I DO NOT AGREE WITH is the fact that Chill was actually whooping and hollering that Boxer got the win in game one. As a caster in front of 35,000 people, he should NOT be cheering for any decision based off of a disconnect, Day[9] was saying "It is unfortunate that a disconnect happened but the decision was made", that is the correct process to be taking as an unbiased caster but why is Chill cheering that Boxer got a win after he disconnected? This is mind bogglingly bad on his part.
I am severely disappointed in how Chill reacted on stream to the decision, but so is the state of what happened.
What did I say? I don't remember doing that.
Pretty sure he just misinterpreted your response to Day's "Let's just pretend Boxer stomped through game 1 and is up 1-0" cheer.
You all handled this fantastically well and kudos to you for being very open with your decision making process and the changes you will make to this going forward.
My only suggestion would be to use panel members that are not participants in the tournament and are not on teams with any players in the tournament to avoid any appearance of impropriety (not that I believe there was any whatsoever). This may be impractical because you need people with a high level understanding of the game to be the ones making an informed decision, but just some food for thought.
On March 20 2011 07:02 Trobot wrote: Thanks for posting the panel's reviews of the game as well. My jaw dropped like Day[9]'s and Chill's did when BoxeR dropped the game, and I would say this is a pretty fair and transparent way of resolving such an issue.
I'm not sure of the fairness of letting players see the panel's review before the veto decision, though. This precludes the concept of personal bias between the panel and the player, whereas seeing the reviews beforehand would cause the player to cast his vote based purely on the review. You mentioned in the OP as well that you didn't expect players to use their vetos when the rules were originally drawn up. Letting them know what reviews they are vetoing though, ensures a biased veto that would have upset a blind decision. For example, had BoxeR not chosen to veto Could, then it would have been a regame. However, if BoxeR had seen Cloud's review recommending a regame, then he most likely would have automatically cast his veto for Cloud, automatically giving himself a win.
umm, what? I can't make any sense to your second paragraph.
Basically: letting players cast their vetos when they know what they are vetoing precludes the idea that they'd veto based solely on who was reviewing the game. BoxeR, in this case, vetoed Cloud because, for some reason, he distrusted Cloud's ability to impartially review the game. However, had BoxeR seen the vote 4-1 in favor of his winning the game, he'd be inclined to automatically veto the 1 against his win, essentially overriding the entire consensus of the panel with a single vote.
Except it doesn't matter because Boxer was not aware of anyone's decision when he cast his veto
There's no fucking way TL would allow the players to know the votes or reviews BEFORE the veto. That's would be past stupid.
Very transparent and fair process. I really wish that other tournaments would handle it in a similar way, because in the past their have been some really questionable decisions made in such situations by some tournament admins. So thumbs up to TL for handling such a difficult situation the best and most fair way possible. NightEnD has very few to blame himself, he played on par with Boxer, one of the Legends of StarCraft and he came very to win the series. This is something 99% of all StarCraft 2 player would be proud of, including myself. Game 1 was pretty much over when the disc happened, and NightEnD most likely knew it. He gave the right answer by winning game 2 and made game 3 very close, it just came down to the EMPs. I don't think this is the right place to discuss balance, I just think we saw to great players player SC2 in the highest level, where even the slightest mistakes can give your opponent the win. Today BoxeR got the better end and I'm sure that another time NightEnD will be the winner, he has a lot of potential and really showed it in the Qualifier and his games here.
On March 20 2011 06:07 Zlasher wrote: What I DO NOT AGREE WITH is the fact that Chill was actually whooping and hollering that Boxer got the win in game one. As a caster in front of 35,000 people, he should NOT be cheering for any decision based off of a disconnect, Day[9] was saying "It is unfortunate that a disconnect happened but the decision was made", that is the correct process to be taking as an unbiased caster but why is Chill cheering that Boxer got a win after he disconnected? This is mind bogglingly bad on his part.
I am severely disappointed in how Chill reacted on stream to the decision, but so is the state of what happened.
What did I say? I don't remember doing that.
i thought you reacted fine. He has overstated it, it was an intense time, and an intense decision about something we all care about a lot. Of course youre going to be excited or dissapointed if it doesnt go the way you want it to or think it should. Showing that excitement adds to the atmosphere.
great cast man. was truly epic. This TSL is going to be insane
On March 20 2011 07:02 Trobot wrote: Thanks for posting the panel's reviews of the game as well. My jaw dropped like Day[9]'s and Chill's did when BoxeR dropped the game, and I would say this is a pretty fair and transparent way of resolving such an issue.
I'm not sure of the fairness of letting players see the panel's review before the veto decision, though. This precludes the concept of personal bias between the panel and the player, whereas seeing the reviews beforehand would cause the player to cast his vote based purely on the review. You mentioned in the OP as well that you didn't expect players to use their vetos when the rules were originally drawn up. Letting them know what reviews they are vetoing though, ensures a biased veto that would have upset a blind decision. For example, had BoxeR not chosen to veto Could, then it would have been a regame. However, if BoxeR had seen Cloud's review recommending a regame, then he most likely would have automatically cast his veto for Cloud, automatically giving himself a win.
umm, what? I can't make any sense to your second paragraph.
Basically: letting players cast their vetos when they know what they are vetoing precludes the idea that they'd veto based solely on who was reviewing the game. BoxeR, in this case, vetoed Cloud because, for some reason, he distrusted Cloud's ability to impartially review the game. However, had BoxeR seen the vote 4-1 in favor of his winning the game, he'd be inclined to automatically veto the 1 against his win, essentially overriding the entire consensus of the panel with a single vote.
ok, but that's not going to happen, right?
Under the proposed retooling of the rules, it's entirely possible, and legitimate. Not every player is fair and decent.
I still don't see the problem. it says in the OP that in future the replays will only be sent to players who have not been vetoed, so there is no way for that to happen.
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.
I hope the NASL organizers are taking notes from the TSL. I'm really impressed by the organization of this tournaments: amazing casters, great stream and intelligent calls.
On March 20 2011 07:02 Trobot wrote: Thanks for posting the panel's reviews of the game as well. My jaw dropped like Day[9]'s and Chill's did when BoxeR dropped the game, and I would say this is a pretty fair and transparent way of resolving such an issue.
I'm not sure of the fairness of letting players see the panel's review before the veto decision, though. This precludes the concept of personal bias between the panel and the player, whereas seeing the reviews beforehand would cause the player to cast his vote based purely on the review. You mentioned in the OP as well that you didn't expect players to use their vetos when the rules were originally drawn up. Letting them know what reviews they are vetoing though, ensures a biased veto that would have upset a blind decision. For example, had BoxeR not chosen to veto Could, then it would have been a regame. However, if BoxeR had seen Cloud's review recommending a regame, then he most likely would have automatically cast his veto for Cloud, automatically giving himself a win.
maybe you should actually read the whole OP.
"To be absolutely clear, we asked the players to veto and they veto'd before Cloud told us his opinion."
Why can't you use a replay and a timing to re-make a custom game? Obviously this is on Blizzard, but would be really useful, although more for LAN tournaments as both players have to be on the honor system to not check their own replays to get scouting.
Still, with a game that won by Boxer, reloading at the disconnect time and let Boxer clean up would have stopped some of the complaining.
Props to Team Liquid though. Going out of their way to being fair and alleviating some of the whining.
Amazingly professonal and transparent, complete with youtube analysis and a slew of top level opinions. I was wondering if it was really "over" but this just blew me away, awesome job TL on this one!
On March 20 2011 06:07 Zlasher wrote: What I DO NOT AGREE WITH is the fact that Chill was actually whooping and hollering that Boxer got the win in game one. As a caster in front of 35,000 people, he should NOT be cheering for any decision based off of a disconnect, Day[9] was saying "It is unfortunate that a disconnect happened but the decision was made", that is the correct process to be taking as an unbiased caster but why is Chill cheering that Boxer got a win after he disconnected? This is mind bogglingly bad on his part.
I am severely disappointed in how Chill reacted on stream to the decision, but so is the state of what happened.
What did I say? I don't remember doing that.
Not so much words as it was a response of "WHOOOOO!!!" after Day9 said "And Boxer does take the first game after the decision was made" (paraphrased).
I mean either you were genuinely excited that Boxer gets the win due to the decision or you were trying to just keep the hype up and divert the attention from a disconnect, into keeping the attention for game 2, the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards that is what you were doing, which is very much reasonable.
On March 20 2011 06:07 Zlasher wrote: What I DO NOT AGREE WITH is the fact that Chill was actually whooping and hollering that Boxer got the win in game one. As a caster in front of 35,000 people, he should NOT be cheering for any decision based off of a disconnect, Day[9] was saying "It is unfortunate that a disconnect happened but the decision was made", that is the correct process to be taking as an unbiased caster but why is Chill cheering that Boxer got a win after he disconnected? This is mind bogglingly bad on his part.
I am severely disappointed in how Chill reacted on stream to the decision, but so is the state of what happened.
What did I say? I don't remember doing that.
Pretty sure he just misinterpreted your response to Day's "Let's just pretend Boxer stomped through game 1 and is up 1-0" cheer.
Yeah, I think this was it, which leads me to beleive more that Chill was just trying to keep excitement up for the series, instead of lamenting on a disconenct.
On March 20 2011 07:02 Trobot wrote: Thanks for posting the panel's reviews of the game as well. My jaw dropped like Day[9]'s and Chill's did when BoxeR dropped the game, and I would say this is a pretty fair and transparent way of resolving such an issue.
I'm not sure of the fairness of letting players see the panel's review before the veto decision, though. This precludes the concept of personal bias between the panel and the player, whereas seeing the reviews beforehand would cause the player to cast his vote based purely on the review. You mentioned in the OP as well that you didn't expect players to use their vetos when the rules were originally drawn up. Letting them know what reviews they are vetoing though, ensures a biased veto that would have upset a blind decision. For example, had BoxeR not chosen to veto Could, then it would have been a regame. However, if BoxeR had seen Cloud's review recommending a regame, then he most likely would have automatically cast his veto for Cloud, automatically giving himself a win.
umm, what? I can't make any sense to your second paragraph.
Basically: letting players cast their vetos when they know what they are vetoing precludes the idea that they'd veto based solely on who was reviewing the game. BoxeR, in this case, vetoed Cloud because, for some reason, he distrusted Cloud's ability to impartially review the game. However, had BoxeR seen the vote 4-1 in favor of his winning the game, he'd be inclined to automatically veto the 1 against his win, essentially overriding the entire consensus of the panel with a single vote.
Except it doesn't matter because Boxer was not aware of anyone's decision when he cast his veto
There's no fucking way TL would allow the players to know the votes or reviews BEFORE the veto. That's would be past stupid.
Actually, that would make it effectively have to be a 4-1 decision, which seems pretty fair to me though. But you are right anyways, idk why people are complaining.
I would love it if people who want to contest the ruling would quote the judges and why they disagree. "l0l, looked to me pretty even." or "Duh! Winning!" arent very convincing...
On March 20 2011 06:17 SupastaR wrote: We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around.
oshit
If this quote is truly theirs, they should get punished. When you win you don't care what happened, I knew beforehand Boxer was going to take game 3 thanks to them.
Actually you should be mad at TL for publishing the comment before the series was completely casted, not at them, it was an easy oversight to make though. I understand why TL posted this immediately after the first game instead of after the series though, it definitely helped keep people satisfied with the decision.
My fault. My apologies to Praetoriani. Yes, I am mad at TL now. That's a huge blunder and the only reason they should not be banned is becasue the site and the tournament is theirs :D.
Now seriously, don't do this again, I'm sure I'm not the only one that lost the excitement after that.
On another point, I like the fact that there were some rules set in stone and I liked discovering that the caster hadn't watched the games before casting them. The only thing that needs improvement is the panel choice, they definetely should't be from the tournament.
Where are you going to get people at MC's level waiting around to make decisions in a tournament they are not attending? Are you going to pay them to sit around for every TSL-evening?
I think this is as good as it gets, and I have never seen any better solution to it. Most tournaments tend to make a mess out of these things :p
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Thank you for being very open about the rules and the process for these types of situations. I agree that having 3 reviewers instead of 5 (even if the players are fine with it) is a little weird. I don't think it nullifies or changes the decision, but I too would like to always have a 5 member panel. If this sort of thing happens again, I would like to again see the panel's analysis of the situation as it provided a lot of insight into the process.
On March 20 2011 07:10 Dramborleg wrote: I have noticed that most people were not convinced that the first game had a clear cut winner, until they were persuaded. A person who believes one player should win will always try to persuade you.
Re-Game was more fair.
If they had access to the replay they might be convinced. I don't understand how "most people" here on the forums have any real importance in such a decision when you clearly can't get all information just watching the stream.
Woulda loved to see Idra be part of the panel to make a ruling on boxers game ^_^.
Good decision, I don't think it would have mattered who was on that panel, if they were progamers with a reasonable knowledge of the game, and they had any shred of integrity, they would have come to the same conclusion as this panel did. Once you read through the ENTIRE OP there is little to no argument you can make for Nightend to win the game short of Boxer taking all his units and putting them on move command into his army until they all die.
Look forward to future games!
Edit: I think if a GSL game had reached this point and suffered a DC the GSL would come to the same decision. All of the regames we have seen in the GSL have been early in the game, or at a point in the game where the two players were mostly even. Do not compare this DC to GSL DC's, the situations are completely different.
On March 20 2011 07:02 Trobot wrote: Thanks for posting the panel's reviews of the game as well. My jaw dropped like Day[9]'s and Chill's did when BoxeR dropped the game, and I would say this is a pretty fair and transparent way of resolving such an issue.
I'm not sure of the fairness of letting players see the panel's review before the veto decision, though. This precludes the concept of personal bias between the panel and the player, whereas seeing the reviews beforehand would cause the player to cast his vote based purely on the review. You mentioned in the OP as well that you didn't expect players to use their vetos when the rules were originally drawn up. Letting them know what reviews they are vetoing though, ensures a biased veto that would have upset a blind decision. For example, had BoxeR not chosen to veto Could, then it would have been a regame. However, if BoxeR had seen Cloud's review recommending a regame, then he most likely would have automatically cast his veto for Cloud, automatically giving himself a win.
umm, what? I can't make any sense to your second paragraph.
Basically: letting players cast their vetos when they know what they are vetoing precludes the idea that they'd veto based solely on who was reviewing the game. BoxeR, in this case, vetoed Cloud because, for some reason, he distrusted Cloud's ability to impartially review the game. However, had BoxeR seen the vote 4-1 in favor of his winning the game, he'd be inclined to automatically veto the 1 against his win, essentially overriding the entire consensus of the panel with a single vote.
ok, but that's not going to happen, right?
Under the proposed retooling of the rules, it's entirely possible, and legitimate. Not every player is fair and decent.
I still don't see the problem. it says in the OP that in future the replays will only be sent to players who have not been vetoed, so there is no way for that to happen.
Sending the replays out before vetoing process
We sent out the replay to our panel members before confirming their participation with the players. Even though we were going to give them the option to veto players we did not operate enough from the thought that this would actually happen. As such, Tyler and Cloud were sent the replay and were vetoed off. Their opinions never reached NightEnd and Boxer.
I read this as: Next time we'll get the players the opinions of the panel before we call for vetos. Upon rereading, it seems more as a 'we leaked the replay to two extra people.' :/
Just jumping in to say I'm impressed by the quality and depth of the rules. This goes to show how much brainpower and organization went into the planning of the TSL. The ruling looks fair and professional to me.
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.
I fully agree with you, awaiting fiercely for Cloud's review.
On March 20 2011 06:09 imaROBOT wrote: Thanks for the explanation.
I do however feel like the decision was not a good one. You can list numbers all you want, but the truth is, you will never know if BoxeR might have made some mistake during the walk/attack toward Nightends third base.
You will never know 100% what the out come could have been, so I think it should clearly have been a regame. I honestly don't think it was a fair decision and put Nightend into a horrible mind set going into the next game.
It's just not fair to ASSUME that BoxeR would not have made some mistake, there was a possibility of a come back. Was it a small possibility, yes.
Also I do not understand how you can use PLAYERS IN THE TORUNY as a referee on the panel. How would there not be any bias, when you can decide who you want to play next/eventually in the toruny?
You didn't watch the YouTube simulation did you? A-Attacking Boxer's army towards the base would've won that fight with a large margin. It's not reasonable for example to assume that BoxeR might accidentally leave 2/3 of his army at home instead of boxing the whole group and attacking NightEnd's 3rd.
I hate people who make ignorant posts without reading the OP.
Guess what I hate. Ignorant people that just ASSUME things.
If you would have read the entire thread you would see that my next post explains that the video WAS NOT THERE when I read the OP. They original had a link to a reply, not a embed video. So who is really the ignorant one here...
Also you have saw that I agree with the decision. The game "looked" to be over with BoxeR in the lead obviously. I do think there is reasonable doubt, but it's already been decided.
No I didn't read the whole thread (and why should I, there's 20+ pages), only up to when I saw a really questionable post. Anyways, after reviewing all the evidence, I can't really understand anyone else disagreeing with the decision now. Props to TL for comprehensive analysis and transparency behind the decision.
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
On March 20 2011 07:10 Dramborleg wrote: I have noticed that most people were not convinced that the first game had a clear cut winner, until they were persuaded. A person who believes one player should win will always try to persuade you.
Re-Game was more fair.
It was an unanimous decision that Boxer won the game by all 3 judges. If even one person disagreed and said Toss absolutely would have made a come-back and defeated Boxer soundly, despite all the disadvantages outlined, then sure I would agree with a rematch.
But that didn't happen. I put my faith and trust in the judges.
On March 20 2011 07:02 Trobot wrote: Thanks for posting the panel's reviews of the game as well. My jaw dropped like Day[9]'s and Chill's did when BoxeR dropped the game, and I would say this is a pretty fair and transparent way of resolving such an issue.
I'm not sure of the fairness of letting players see the panel's review before the veto decision, though. This precludes the concept of personal bias between the panel and the player, whereas seeing the reviews beforehand would cause the player to cast his vote based purely on the review. You mentioned in the OP as well that you didn't expect players to use their vetos when the rules were originally drawn up. Letting them know what reviews they are vetoing though, ensures a biased veto that would have upset a blind decision. For example, had BoxeR not chosen to veto Could, then it would have been a regame. However, if BoxeR had seen Cloud's review recommending a regame, then he most likely would have automatically cast his veto for Cloud, automatically giving himself a win.
umm, what? I can't make any sense to your second paragraph.
Basically: letting players cast their vetos when they know what they are vetoing precludes the idea that they'd veto based solely on who was reviewing the game. BoxeR, in this case, vetoed Cloud because, for some reason, he distrusted Cloud's ability to impartially review the game. However, had BoxeR seen the vote 4-1 in favor of his winning the game, he'd be inclined to automatically veto the 1 against his win, essentially overriding the entire consensus of the panel with a single vote.
ok, but that's not going to happen, right?
Under the proposed retooling of the rules, it's entirely possible, and legitimate. Not every player is fair and decent.
I still don't see the problem. it says in the OP that in future the replays will only be sent to players who have not been vetoed, so there is no way for that to happen.
We sent out the replay to our panel members before confirming their participation with the players. Even though we were going to give them the option to veto players we did not operate enough from the thought that this would actually happen. As such, Tyler and Cloud were sent the replay and were vetoed off. Their opinions never reached NightEnd and Boxer.
I read this as: Next time we'll get the players the opinions of the panel before we call for vetos. Upon rereading, it seems more as a 'we leaked the replay to two extra people.' :/
I don't see why it's such a big deal that they showed the other panelists replays.
Their opinions never reached the players, thus their vetoes were not affected.
On March 20 2011 06:09 imaROBOT wrote: Thanks for the explanation.
I do however feel like the decision was not a good one. You can list numbers all you want, but the truth is, you will never know if BoxeR might have made some mistake during the walk/attack toward Nightends third base.
You will never know 100% what the out come could have been, so I think it should clearly have been a regame. I honestly don't think it was a fair decision and put Nightend into a horrible mind set going into the next game.
It's just not fair to ASSUME that BoxeR would not have made some mistake, there was a possibility of a come back. Was it a small possibility, yes.
Also I do not understand how you can use PLAYERS IN THE TORUNY as a referee on the panel. How would there not be any bias, when you can decide who you want to play next/eventually in the toruny?
You didn't watch the YouTube simulation did you? A-Attacking Boxer's army towards the base would've won that fight with a large margin. It's not reasonable for example to assume that BoxeR might accidentally leave 2/3 of his army at home instead of boxing the whole group and attacking NightEnd's 3rd.
I hate people who make ignorant posts without reading the OP.
Guess what I hate. Ignorant people that just ASSUME things.
If you would have read the entire thread you would see that my next post explains that the video WAS NOT THERE when I read the OP. They original had a link to a reply, not a embed video. So who is really the ignorant one here...
Also you have saw that I agree with the decision. The game "looked" to be over with BoxeR in the lead obviously. I do think there is reasonable doubt, but it's already been decided.
No I didn't read the whole thread (and why should I, there's 20+ pages), only up to when I saw a really questionable post. Anyways, after reviewing all the evidence, I can't really understand disagreeing with the decision now.
Then don't make ignorant posts, calling someone ignorant when you're the only actually being ignorant, k, buddy.
A forum is to post your opinions, and I think they made a good decision, but the rule clearly says a win can only be awarded beyond any reason of doubt. I still think there was doubt still...
you guys handled that hard situation really well, by sharing your dicision with the community and explaing everything really deep never saw technical issue in a tournement situation in sc/bw/sc2 handled that well
you may remember that msl finals beetween falsh and jaedong, that msl staff could learn from here
On March 20 2011 07:02 Trobot wrote: Thanks for posting the panel's reviews of the game as well. My jaw dropped like Day[9]'s and Chill's did when BoxeR dropped the game, and I would say this is a pretty fair and transparent way of resolving such an issue.
I'm not sure of the fairness of letting players see the panel's review before the veto decision, though. This precludes the concept of personal bias between the panel and the player, whereas seeing the reviews beforehand would cause the player to cast his vote based purely on the review. You mentioned in the OP as well that you didn't expect players to use their vetos when the rules were originally drawn up. Letting them know what reviews they are vetoing though, ensures a biased veto that would have upset a blind decision. For example, had BoxeR not chosen to veto Could, then it would have been a regame. However, if BoxeR had seen Cloud's review recommending a regame, then he most likely would have automatically cast his veto for Cloud, automatically giving himself a win.
umm, what? I can't make any sense to your second paragraph.
Basically: letting players cast their vetos when they know what they are vetoing precludes the idea that they'd veto based solely on who was reviewing the game. BoxeR, in this case, vetoed Cloud because, for some reason, he distrusted Cloud's ability to impartially review the game. However, had BoxeR seen the vote 4-1 in favor of his winning the game, he'd be inclined to automatically veto the 1 against his win, essentially overriding the entire consensus of the panel with a single vote.
ok, but that's not going to happen, right?
Under the proposed retooling of the rules, it's entirely possible, and legitimate. Not every player is fair and decent.
I still don't see the problem. it says in the OP that in future the replays will only be sent to players who have not been vetoed, so there is no way for that to happen.
Sending the replays out before vetoing process
We sent out the replay to our panel members before confirming their participation with the players. Even though we were going to give them the option to veto players we did not operate enough from the thought that this would actually happen. As such, Tyler and Cloud were sent the replay and were vetoed off. Their opinions never reached NightEnd and Boxer.
I read this as: Next time we'll get the players the opinions of the panel before we call for vetos. Upon rereading, it seems more as a 'we leaked the replay to two extra people.' :/
I don't see why it's such a big deal that they showed the other panelists replays.
Their opinions never reached the players, thus their vetoes were not affected.
Of course not. I was clarifying the confusion that resulted from my potential misreading of the OP.
On March 20 2011 06:27 imaROBOT wrote: 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.
this should be bannable. people deliberately taking nazgul's quote out of context when his conclusion was obvious.
LOL
Deliberately taking his quote out of context? Did you read the rest of that sentence. The only other thing he states is that the Terran army would win the battle because of numbers and the phoenix low energy.
My point being, that you don't even know if they would have attacked straight forward like that video shows. If you read my whole post I point out that I think they made the right decision in the end anyway, DUDE.
Your post should qualify for a ban, it's pointless and adds nothing to the topic. GTFO!
Nope you are still wrong. You DID take the qoute out of context. Nazgul outlined the basic situation and said that gave Boxer a "huge advantage". That alone wouldn't have been enough to give him the game though, so he lists some more specific details which were all in favor of Boxer which turns the "huge advantage" into an "absolute afvantage"
And then you say you already claimed that they made the right decision? :s "The game should have been replayed following the rules in the TSL handbook. " "It's not fair to award a win to a player because you are just ASSUMING he wouldn't have made a mistake." That's what you said mate in your first post mate. But I guess you forgot that. Fair enough
It was clear to everyone that boxer was ahead in some shape or form, but I'm not really in a position to comment on whether or not he had the game closed. BUT when both Tyler and MC says he had, I can't believe anyone questions them on that. They are probably the two most analytical and thinking protoss players so if they thought it was over, that's more than good enough for me If you actually disagree even after that at least state why? :s
Anyway much respect to Team Liquid for the way they handled this whole thing. It's obviously an unfortunate situation, and you'll never make everyone happy, but the way you guys handled it just underlines the fact that you are the greatest starcraft organisation by far.
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
On March 20 2011 07:10 Dramborleg wrote: I have noticed that most people were not convinced that the first game had a clear cut winner, until they were persuaded. A person who believes one player should win will always try to persuade you.
Re-Game was more fair.
It was an unanimous decision that Boxer won the game by all 3 judges. If even one person disagreed and said Toss absolutely would have made a come-back and defeated Boxer soundly, despite all the disadvantages outlined, then sure I would agree with a rematch.
But that didn't happen. I put my faith and trust in the judges.
This is the Third rule:
" "Absolutely won" means that the player had the game won beyond all reasonable doubt and had an "absolute advantage." This operates from the mindset that a player will make all the mistakes in the world that can be expected from a professional level player. "
This means that even if Boxer made some mistakes he still would have won the game.
Rules should not, in any case, rely on subjective decisions. That is why rule n°3 is not satisfactory even if it leads us here to a "happy ending", as Boxer had clearly the game won.
In fact, this is the kind of dispute I would have expected to see being settled in a "gentlemen's agreement".
On March 20 2011 06:17 SupastaR wrote: We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around.
oshit
If this quote is truly theirs, they should get punished. When you win you don't care what happened, I knew beforehand Boxer was going to take game 3 thanks to them.
Actually you should be mad at TL for publishing the comment before the series was completely casted, not at them, it was an easy oversight to make though. I understand why TL posted this immediately after the first game instead of after the series though, it definitely helped keep people satisfied with the decision.
My fault. My apologies to Praetoriani. Yes, I am mad at TL now. That's a huge blunder and the only reason they should not be banned is becasue the site and the tournament is theirs :D.
Now seriously, don't do this again, I'm sure I'm not the only one that lost the excitement after that.
On another point, I like the fact that there were some rules set in stone and I liked discovering that the caster hadn't watched the games before casting them. The only thing that needs improvement is the panel choice, they definetely should't be from the tournament.
I know we all lost some excitement from Prae's quote, but I think TL did the right thing there. They knew the thread was going to blow up over that announcement so they needed to get this out there quickly. Could they have put in Prae's quote later? Yes, but that would have given it even further scrutiny and made it look like they were being whiny little kids when it's just all parties trying to make the best out of a no-win situation.
Here, you get it all out and in the open and give a slight hint at the results. Tbh, I can see them releasing a similar quote had Boxer narrowly lost the third match as well, so it wasn't an ironclad statement as to who won the whole thing.
On March 20 2011 06:27 imaROBOT wrote: 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.
It's becoming clear that you haven't read the OP at all. Their rulings take into account normal mistakes on the pro level, and the simulations run by Nazgul feature extremely sloppy play by the Terran.
Trust me I read the whole post. Keep ASSUMING things so your argument looks better.
BTW the video was not in the post when first read it. They had a replay link instead, so after the EDIT.. I would say they made a good decision, but you can never count someone out 100%.
What if BoxeR for some reason turned around and did not attack the Nexus? You DON'T KNOW! That's all I'm saying about this.
you DON'T KNOW that toss could make a comeback - at all. For the exact same reasons you're suggesting that Boxer would think "no reason to kill any buildings" and back off, Toss could also think "no reason to make any collosi".
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.
I fully agree with you, awaiting fiercely for Cloud's review.
I'm going to completely pull this number out of my ass, but I'd say that 1/5 people saying that's not a clear win sounds about right to me.
And about 'game knowledge' and other stuff - let's be serious - that was basically it, not much game knowledge needed to analyse that and decide whether it's a clear win or not. Nend had a shitton of pheonixes that would have 50 energy in the future, also he could've warped 9 zealots, again, *in the future*. Boxer had 3 EMPs and quite some time to poke and *possibly* take the Nexus down, before the reinforcements/energy timing hit. It comes to judging that *possibilty* above. And, again, 1/5 people saying it wasn't necessarily a win for the Terran sounds about proper.
On March 20 2011 06:46 Slix36 wrote: Very professional attitude from TSL here and i agree completely with the analyses of Nazgul, MC and Morrow.
That being said i wonder how long it took to completely analyse the situation and as such if it would be an appropriate system for something live like GSL. If it only took a few minutes then i think this sort of analysis would be a good idea for things like GSL and MLG.
You think Morrow wrote that 5 page essay in a few minutes?
Well not saying that this affected their decision in some kind, but just on the principle players that are participating in tournament shouldnt be allowed to make any deciosn regarding said tournament. There will always be some shadow of doubt over that situation. Regardless of their knowledge, Tyler and Mc shouldnt be on panel IMHO. Thats just not feel right.
Having studied the endgame off the replay for several minutes it's overwhelming. The third was going to die, boxer was seconds from being on 3 base against 1, and P had none of the tech that would have allowed him to overcome the T army. Even if he waits to lift the marauders and doesnt lose any phoenix to the marines he STILL LOSES because he is at an astounding economic disadvantage and would be able to kill some marauders or some scvs but not both with the phoenix.
I normally think that regames should happen 99% of the time these happen but this was the 1% where the game was already decided conclusively.
On March 20 2011 06:46 Slix36 wrote: Very professional attitude from TSL here and i agree completely with the analyses of Nazgul, MC and Morrow.
That being said i wonder how long it took to completely analyse the situation and as such if it would be an appropriate system for something live like GSL. If it only took a few minutes then i think this sort of analysis would be a good idea for things like GSL and MLG.
You think Morrow wrote that 5 page essay in a few minutes?
On March 20 2011 07:10 Dramborleg wrote: I have noticed that most people were not convinced that the first game had a clear cut winner, until they were persuaded. A person who believes one player should win will always try to persuade you.
Re-Game was more fair.
It was an unanimous decision that Boxer won the game by all 3 judges. If even one person disagreed and said Toss absolutely would have made a come-back and defeated Boxer soundly, despite all the disadvantages outlined, then sure I would agree with a rematch.
But that didn't happen. I put my faith and trust in the judges.
basically that's exactly what happened, but ClouD got vetoed
I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
On March 20 2011 06:23 Zim23 wrote: There really isn't a way to avoid conflict of interest in this situation. I agree it should be minimized but there will always be an issue with the panel members' race (T,Z,P), nationality (foreigner vs Korean), and team. The veto system is obviously in place to mitigate this problem, but it'll always exist as the panel is going to be human for the foreseeable future.
Another thing to take into account is that the panel should always include elite players or well respected members of the community, and elite players will generally be part of the tournament, so there's no real way to avoid it. Not to mention you need people to AGREE to be part of the panel, and that limits selection even further. This was the best way I could think of to handle the situation, and the fact that both players agreed to make it a panel decision only bolsters my confidence in the handling of the situation.
This is true, no matter how you cut it there's always potential for bias. Heck, you could try cutting out every single person that grew up with Boxer as a hero, if people were that concerned. However, everyone on the panel are big names in the SC community and I'm not sure they'd want to damage their reputation by intentionally trying to swing their judgement for one tournament (albiet a big one.)
Be that as it may, I'm very happy to see that the TSL is confident in their decision making and are open to criticism by making their process transparent. Obviously people can disagree with their ruling, but no-one can nay-say their professionalism and transparency.
This is poor logic. Because there is always "potential" for bias, it doesn't matter that the players they chose to be in the INDEPENDENT, NEUTRAL, judging panel, are players in the exact same tournament they're judging? This makes no sense. From my perspective this is an unarguably poor decision.
The panel selection process needs to be made transparent too.
On edit: it doesn't seem like from the OP that they acknowledge the conflict of interest whatsoever.
At first it didn't seem fair to me, but I gotta say that after reading all the opinions, i think it was the right decision after all. The video and morrows analysis was very convincing
Also, game 3 had quite a similar scenario according to me, with a slight bigger chance for a comeback for the toss (my opinion). Boxer still won it convincingly.
And lastly, nice job on this situation, very proffesionally, fair and effectively handled :D
I commend the process that the TSL tournament is handling this decision of the game, which is open and transparent as it can be. I honestly agree with the opinions of the three panelist and believed that Boxer won that game after the huge engagement. He had 4 bases, a sizable ground army left over, upgrades, and that Nightend only could produce gateway units which in all probability could not beat the MMM bio ball that Boxer has.
In terms of Impartiality, there's always going to be the concern of bias no matter what. In terms of magnitude and prestige of the TSL, the best players that are knowledgeable of the game and the match-up are most likely already in the tournament so its hard to find other people that have insight and grasp to be a panel member on such quick notice. I would suggest that there should always be at least 2-3 permanent members or a combination of rotating panelists that can be reached in terms of scheduling and to avoid players that could ultimately decide bracket advancement, if they were to face that player in the next round.
Also since the TSL is streaming in Korea on gomtv, I assume there will be a follow version of this for the Korean Netizens? Keep up the good work guys.
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
Still I agree that having competing players in the jury is something they should avoid in the future. It doesn't necessarily have to be the best players in the jury - there are hundreds of players at Nazguls level and higher but in these situations I still have more trust in him than in MC.
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.
I fully agree with you, awaiting fiercely for Cloud's review.
I'm going to completely pull this number out of my ass, but I'd say that 1/5 people saying that's not a clear win sounds about right to me.
And about 'game knowledge' and other stuff - let's be serious - that was basically it, not much game knowledge needed to analyse that and decide whether it's a clear win or not. Nend had a shitton of pheonixes that would have 50 energy in the future, also he could've warped 9 zealots, again, *in the future*. Boxer had 3 EMPs and quite some time to poke and *possibly* take the Nexus down, before the reinforcements/energy timing hit. It comes to judging that *possibilty* above. And, again, 1/5 people saying it wasn't necessarily a win for the Terran sounds about proper.
This is why I'd like to see Cloud's justification. Lots of people are pointing out things that favor Nightend, but until we can see a pro evalutation of the situation up to the standards set by Nazgul, MC and Morrow, I think it's right to question how correct Cloud's analysis was. If several pros come out defending Cloud and can match the quality of the arguments for awarding Boxer the win, then Cloud should remain a possible panel member.
On March 20 2011 07:10 Dramborleg wrote: I have noticed that most people were not convinced that the first game had a clear cut winner, until they were persuaded. A person who believes one player should win will always try to persuade you.
Re-Game was more fair.
It was an unanimous decision that Boxer won the game by all 3 judges. If even one person disagreed and said Toss absolutely would have made a come-back and defeated Boxer soundly, despite all the disadvantages outlined, then sure I would agree with a rematch.
But that didn't happen. I put my faith and trust in the judges.
basically that's exactly what happened, but ClouD got vetoed
ClouD wasn't the only one to be vetoed, remember that. We cannot assume that Boxer saw ClouD's write-up, and vetoed him after seeing it, that's wrongful information.
The sequence of events as we know it, is this:
- Players agree to hand the decision to the judges - Players are each allowed ONE veto - judges weigh in on the decision
And these are not bronze league people acting as judges, or non-gamers. These are people who play this game professionally and for a living.
On March 20 2011 07:10 Dramborleg wrote: I have noticed that most people were not convinced that the first game had a clear cut winner, until they were persuaded. A person who believes one player should win will always try to persuade you.
Re-Game was more fair.
It was an unanimous decision that Boxer won the game by all 3 judges. If even one person disagreed and said Toss absolutely would have made a come-back and defeated Boxer soundly, despite all the disadvantages outlined, then sure I would agree with a rematch.
But that didn't happen. I put my faith and trust in the judges.
This is the Third rule:
" "Absolutely won" means that the player had the game won beyond all reasonable doubt and had an "absolute advantage." This operates from the mindset that a player will make all the mistakes in the world that can be expected from a professional level player. "
This means that even if Boxer made some mistakes he still would have won the game.
I disagree with that statement.
Please your highness, from the top of your 7 posts and your copper league, explain your disagreement.
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
Still I agree that having competing players in the jury is something they should avoid in the future. It doesn't necessarily have to be the best players in the jury - there are hundreds of players at Nazguls level and higher but in these situations I still have more trust in him than in MC.
For the sake of argument, who could they have picked then?
I'm just saying that with what they had, the players at their disposal, the TSL participants were a good sample grouping as any other pros. I highly doubt that when they were asked to cast their opinion that they were thinking about furthering themselves in the tournament by showing favor to a weaker player.
Their logic and explanations would be highly suspect, had they gone with a decision that would contradict a solid verdict and further their own tournament standings.
A real shame this had to happen. The decision was probably correct, from a noob's perspective it seemed to go in Boxer's favour as well. Although I lolled about Boxer vetoing Cloud :D Do they know each other?
On March 20 2011 06:40 madmandrit wrote: Game 3 shows you want would of happened if Game 1 went on.
Seriously
Except Game 1 had boxer in an even greater advantage due to the maps size.
This, along with the fact that fucking Tyler and MC (!) thought it was over really makes people arguing against the decision look pretty silly. Especially since they chose to not give any valid reasoning despite the mod warning.
On March 20 2011 06:09 imaROBOT wrote: Thanks for the explanation.
I do however feel like the decision was not a good one. You can list numbers all you want, but the truth is, you will never know if BoxeR might have made some mistake during the walk/attack toward Nightends third base.
You will never know 100% what the out come could have been, so I think it should clearly have been a regame. I honestly don't think it was a fair decision and put Nightend into a horrible mind set going into the next game.
It's just not fair to ASSUME that BoxeR would not have made some mistake, there was a possibility of a come back. Was it a small possibility, yes.
Also I do not understand how you can use PLAYERS IN THE TORUNY as a referee on the panel. How would there not be any bias, when you can decide who you want to play next/eventually in the toruny?
You didn't watch the YouTube simulation did you? A-Attacking Boxer's army towards the base would've won that fight with a large margin. It's not reasonable for example to assume that BoxeR might accidentally leave 2/3 of his army at home instead of boxing the whole group and attacking NightEnd's 3rd.
I hate people who make ignorant posts without reading the OP.
Guess what I hate. Ignorant people that just ASSUME things.
If you would have read the entire thread you would see that my next post explains that the video WAS NOT THERE when I read the OP. They original had a link to a reply, not a embed video. So who is really the ignorant one here...
Also you have saw that I agree with the decision. The game "looked" to be over with BoxeR in the lead obviously. I do think there is reasonable doubt, but it's already been decided.
No I didn't read the whole thread (and why should I, there's 20+ pages), only up to when I saw a really questionable post. Anyways, after reviewing all the evidence, I can't really understand disagreeing with the decision now.
Then don't make ignorant posts, calling someone ignorant when you're the only actually being ignorant, k, buddy.
A forum is to post your opinions, and I think they made a good decision, but the rule clearly says a win can only be awarded beyond any reason of doubt. I still think there was doubt still...
There is nothing "ignorant" about calling out a post for being wrong and the post I quoted had a bunch of incorrect statements, regardless of whether you were missing information at that time or not (which is not my problem).
On a forum, you can be called out for being wrong, and if you actually were wrong it doesn't really help to keep steadfastly defending yourself. Anyways, this is offtopic. I'm impressed with TL's decision process, and especially interested in Cloud's response.
Does it create a conflict of interest to use players in the tournament to be on the panel? What if someone on the panel knew they have a lot of trouble playing against a certain player they have to judge? Wouldn't just part of their decision be based on the fact it would be beneficial to them to not have to meet that player later? Even the best of us get swayed by personal gains sometimes.
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
"HOW FAR" as if finding qualified players that are not playing in the TSL is a difficult or strenuous task? There are only 32 players in the TSL and they picked THREE TSL players for the panelist? I mean, fair MINIMUM requirements seem to me to have at least two players of each represented race that are NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT. (lol... come on, srsly) This is not hard, they just overlooked it.
You can mitigate conflict of interest far better than they did, especially considering they seem to have completely overlooked the fact that these players are in the same tournament.
On March 20 2011 07:10 Dramborleg wrote: I have noticed that most people were not convinced that the first game had a clear cut winner, until they were persuaded. A person who believes one player should win will always try to persuade you.
Re-Game was more fair.
It was an unanimous decision that Boxer won the game by all 3 judges. If even one person disagreed and said Toss absolutely would have made a come-back and defeated Boxer soundly, despite all the disadvantages outlined, then sure I would agree with a rematch.
But that didn't happen. I put my faith and trust in the judges.
basically that's exactly what happened, but ClouD got vetoed
ClouD wasn't the only one to be vetoed, remember that. We cannot assume that Boxer saw ClouD's write-up, and vetoed him after seeing it, that's wrongful information.
The sequence of events as we know it, is this:
- Players agree to hand the decision to the judges - Players are each allowed ONE veto - judges weigh in on the decision
And these are not bronze league people acting as judges, or non-gamers. These are people who play this game professionally and for a living.
Correct, the players were not given the decisions UNTIL the vetoes were made.
I agree the staff handled this extremely professionally and it is obvious of the time and effort that was put in to plan this event with rules as these.
However, I'm going to have to agree with a few of the posters that it would be difficult for a player competing in the tournament to be unbiased. This tournament is some of the best of the best, but I believe it would be possible to find some good players who are not participating to judge. This is just a small critique though and I overall thought it was handled extremely well.
great decision by the panel! Game 3 ended exactly how game 1 would have ended. Boxer won the 200/200 battle in both cases but actually had more army left over in game 1 than in game 3. Then you saw how game 3 ended, it only took like another 5 mins for boxer to finish it which would have how game 1 would have ended as well. 100% correct ruling!
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
"HOW FAR" as if finding qualified players that are not playing in the TSL is a difficult or strenuous task? There are only 32 players in the TSL and they picked THREE TSL players for the panelist? I mean, fair MINIMUM requirements seem to me to have at least two players of each represented race that are NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT. (lol... come on, srsly) This is not hard, they just overlooked it.
You can mitigate conflict of interest far better than they did, especially considering they seem to have completely overlooked the fact that these players are in the same tournament.
I was unable to catch a live stream of the matches, but I must say after reading the initial post I am very proud of Team Liquid and the TSL. This shows a level of openness and honesty usually not found in competitions. I applaud you for so concisely laying down the rules and how you came to the judgement you did.
I look forward to watching the matches once the VODs are posted.
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
Still I agree that having competing players in the jury is something they should avoid in the future. It doesn't necessarily have to be the best players in the jury - there are hundreds of players at Nazguls level and higher but in these situations I still have more trust in him than in MC.
Managers are an obvious excepition, their recognition doesn't come from playing, and I think having koreans in the panel is almost necessary to maintain the legitimacy of the tournament. If you wouldn't have one of the players, would one of their teammates be any less biased? I'm not sure they are able to get koreans unrelated to any player in the panel, and I'm sure they try to bring someone that would bring the least amount of suspicion as biased as possible. People need to respect the players a little more, and people in general. The fact that they bring 5 players is already one way to diminish the possible bias, you would need a full panel of "corrupt" judges to actually change the outcome.
On March 20 2011 07:10 Dramborleg wrote: I have noticed that most people were not convinced that the first game had a clear cut winner, until they were persuaded. A person who believes one player should win will always try to persuade you.
Re-Game was more fair.
It was an unanimous decision that Boxer won the game by all 3 judges. If even one person disagreed and said Toss absolutely would have made a come-back and defeated Boxer soundly, despite all the disadvantages outlined, then sure I would agree with a rematch.
But that didn't happen. I put my faith and trust in the judges.
This is the Third rule:
" "Absolutely won" means that the player had the game won beyond all reasonable doubt and had an "absolute advantage." This operates from the mindset that a player will make all the mistakes in the world that can be expected from a professional level player. "
This means that even if Boxer made some mistakes he still would have won the game.
I disagree with that statement.
Please your highness, from the top of your 7 posts and your copper league, explain your disagreement.
I would be interested to see a detailed breakdown too. If your points are able to soundly counter all the highly illustrated points made by MC and company, let 'er rip. But honestly my advice here is, it's not productive to disagree against the vast majority, just to be different or be controversial.
your favored champion didn't win - I'm sorry about that too - but what's done is done.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
"HOW FAR" as if finding qualified players that are not playing in the TSL is a difficult or strenuous task? There are only 32 players in the TSL and they picked THREE TSL players for the panelist? I mean, fair MINIMUM requirements seem to me to have at least two players of each represented race that are NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT. (lol... come on, srsly) This is not hard, they just overlooked it.
You can mitigate conflict of interest far better than they did, especially considering they seem to have completely overlooked the fact that these players are in the same tournament.
Nazgul isn't in the TSL.
It's also worth pointing out that MC is on the opposite side of the bracket.
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
"HOW FAR" as if finding qualified players that are not playing in the TSL is a difficult or strenuous task? There are only 32 players in the TSL and they picked THREE TSL players for the panelist? I mean, fair MINIMUM requirements seem to me to have at least two players of each represented race that are NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT. (lol... come on, srsly) This is not hard, they just overlooked it.
You can mitigate conflict of interest far better than they did, especially considering they seem to have completely overlooked the fact that these players are in the same tournament.
Nazgul isn't in the TSL.
Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Also, come on, JWD, I'm not accusing these players of bias. Srsly, I'm not, and that's not the point, and I hope you'd be able to recognize that. I'm saying they shouldn't pick people from the same tournament to be on the judging panel. Principle of the thing.
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
Still I agree that having competing players in the jury is something they should avoid in the future. It doesn't necessarily have to be the best players in the jury - there are hundreds of players at Nazguls level and higher but in these situations I still have more trust in him than in MC.
Managers are an obvious excepition, their recognition doesn't come from playing, and I think having koreans in the panel is almost necessary to maintain the legitimacy of the tournament. If you wouldn't have one of the players, would one of their teammates be any less biased? I'm not sure they are able to get koreans unrelated to any player in the panel, and I'm sure they try to bring someone that would bring the least amount of suspicion as biased as possible. People need to respect the players a little more, and people in general. The fact that they bring 5 players is already one way to diminish the possible bias, you would need a full panel of "corrupt" judges to actually change the outcome.
I feel like people automatically jump to conclusions, such that a player asked to be a panelist would abuse said given power in order to further their own status in a tournament. For some reason, it is adamant in my mind that the panelists' never for a second regarded the players in question in relation to the tournament and how it would affect their standing.
hmmmm....and the opinions of the vetoed players errr panel members???? the supreme court always issues a dissenting opinion and since we cant have that here maybe those folks had an opinion?
side note: even though even i made the joke about our unbiased panel members being from the tournament i can see the difficulty in finding people knowledgable enough to be ad hoc judges who aren't seated to maybe win. humble suggestion permanent judges...you know some baller wanna be casters who would love to flex judge powers abound im sure...oherwise well handled tl love
Not knowing of this rule before I started watching, my first thought was "Wow thats fucking terrible for Boxer, he was so ahead/about to win." Then djwheat came on and announced that a panel has awarded the game to boxer. I immediately felt like that was right decision. Its great read this thread and see that they put a great deal of effort and thought into this decision as well. Appeasing both emotionally and objectively.
After watching Game 1, and realizing it probably took a good hour to find panelists, distribute replays, and form opinions, I have a suggestion for the future if this type of thing happens (maybe its what TL staff did, it's not mentioned). If this happens during a Game1 or Game 2, just have them go on and keep playing til Game 3 is finished, and if it works out that Game 3 was never necessary based on the panels decision, then the replay is never seen, but it keeps the players playing and within their obviously strained time schedules.
I have to say that I agree with not using players that are playing in the tournament because those players could theoretically have a vested interest in wanting certain players or races eliminated. I really don't think any impropriety went on but the appearance of it possibly being there should be avoided.
That aside I agree with the panel's decision and I'm glad that it tl has made their process in dealing with this so transparent.
My level of respect for the TSL and TeamLiquid just went up tremendously (Not that it was in anyway low before)
Amazing explanation of exactly what happened, how it happened, what you've learned from it and how it would be addressed in the future.
Nazgul actually going so far as to do a simulation of the closing fight shows an amazing attention to detail and this whole thing shows a level of professionalism that made me feel very good about this whole community.
It did certainly look to me like the decision was correct, and I agree that if even Tyler or MC couldn't envision a way they could have comeback to win that game, than it wasn't going to Happen.
One mild suggestion, and maybe it's silly or backwards...but I could see a situation where people might complain about race bias in this type of decision...You might want to make the panel of 5 all a non-playing race. In other words, get 5 Zergs to decide...or Just let TLO decide by himself who won since Random knows best.
I could see people complaining some day if a panel of 5 had 2 Terrans voting for the terran win and 3 Protoss voting for a regame etc...
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
"HOW FAR" as if finding qualified players that are not playing in the TSL is a difficult or strenuous task? There are only 32 players in the TSL and they picked THREE TSL players for the panelist? I mean, fair MINIMUM requirements seem to me to have at least two players of each represented race that are NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT. (lol... come on, srsly) This is not hard, they just overlooked it.
You can mitigate conflict of interest far better than they did, especially considering they seem to have completely overlooked the fact that these players are in the same tournament.
Nazgul isn't in the TSL.
Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I read all the explanations verry carefully , and I understand their point of view. In case of a re-match from that point (where Boxer had an advantage) , NightEnd (they say) would gain an advantage coz they will start again from even chances.But my point is NightEnd didn`t ask for this advatage or did nothing about it. He just played the game , and because the other`s player computer closed he lost the match. How is this fair?. To don`t do nothing against the rules and still loose?.Also , NightEnd still got some Phoenixes that could get some energy , also he had a bounch (the caster`s even noteced that ) of gateways so he could remax instantly. So , Boxer is the one geting out of the game , and still he is winning.
Yea and like people above me said:1. Boxer clearly has infinitly more fans that NightEnd so it`s not even CLOSE to a "impartial" vote. 2.I kinnda` ask mysellf why they don`t post ClouD`s oppinion 3.There are to "maybe"`s in the reviews.
Still , I respect the decision and I fully understand what they are trying to explain there. Still this is what I don`t agree with.
On March 20 2011 07:43 EnderSword wrote: My level of respect for the TSL and TeamLiquid just went up tremendously (Not that it was in anyway low before)
Amazing explanation of exactly what happened, how it happened, what you've learned from it and how it would be addressed in the future.
Nazgul actually going so far as to do a simulation of the closing fight shows an amazing attention to detail and this whole thing shows a level of professionalism that made me feel very good about this whole community.
It did certainly look to me like the decision was correct, and I agree that if even Tyler or MC couldn't envision a way they could have comeback to win that game, than it wasn't going to Happen.
One mild suggestion, and maybe it's silly or backwards...but I could see a situation where people might complain about race bias in this type of decision...You might want to make the panel of 5 all a non-playing race. In other words, get 5 Zergs to decide...or Just let TLO decide by himself who won since Random knows best.
I could see people complaining some day if a panel of 5 had 2 Terrans voting for the terran win and 3 Protoss voting for a regame etc...
now THAT is a VERY interesting way of looking at it. In theory hey - why would zergs be biased in a matchup where they have no vested interest in seeing which way it goes? But it would have to be zergs who aren't participating in the event.
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
"HOW FAR" as if finding qualified players that are not playing in the TSL is a difficult or strenuous task? There are only 32 players in the TSL and they picked THREE TSL players for the panelist? I mean, fair MINIMUM requirements seem to me to have at least two players of each represented race that are NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT. (lol... come on, srsly) This is not hard, they just overlooked it.
You can mitigate conflict of interest far better than they did, especially considering they seem to have completely overlooked the fact that these players are in the same tournament.
Nazgul isn't in the TSL.
Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
On March 20 2011 07:42 mizU wrote: I feel like people automatically jump to conclusions, such that a player asked to be a panelist would abuse said given power in order to further their own status in a tournament. For some reason, it is adamant in my mind that the panelists' never for a second regarded the players in question in relation to the tournament and how it would affect their standing.
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat by watching streams which I believe is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat by stream watching why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing?
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
"HOW FAR" as if finding qualified players that are not playing in the TSL is a difficult or strenuous task? There are only 32 players in the TSL and they picked THREE TSL players for the panelist? I mean, fair MINIMUM requirements seem to me to have at least two players of each represented race that are NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT. (lol... come on, srsly) This is not hard, they just overlooked it.
You can mitigate conflict of interest far better than they did, especially considering they seem to have completely overlooked the fact that these players are in the same tournament.
Nazgul isn't in the TSL.
Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
The player winning this series does not affect Tyler and MC at all. Nazgul is impartial. MorroW is affected in RO8 only if he makes it that far. MorroW also wrote the longest explanation and had strong arguments.
Cloud is impartial but whe don't know his thought process.
On March 20 2011 07:43 EnderSword wrote: My level of respect for the TSL and TeamLiquid just went up tremendously (Not that it was in anyway low before)
Amazing explanation of exactly what happened, how it happened, what you've learned from it and how it would be addressed in the future.
Nazgul actually going so far as to do a simulation of the closing fight shows an amazing attention to detail and this whole thing shows a level of professionalism that made me feel very good about this whole community.
It did certainly look to me like the decision was correct, and I agree that if even Tyler or MC couldn't envision a way they could have comeback to win that game, than it wasn't going to Happen.
One mild suggestion, and maybe it's silly or backwards...but I could see a situation where people might complain about race bias in this type of decision...You might want to make the panel of 5 all a non-playing race. In other words, get 5 Zergs to decide...or Just let TLO decide by himself who won since Random knows best.
I could see people complaining some day if a panel of 5 had 2 Terrans voting for the terran win and 3 Protoss voting for a regame etc...
now THAT is a VERY interesting way of looking at it. In theory hey - why would zergs be biased in a matchup where they have no vested interest in seeing which way it goes? But it would have to be zergs who aren't participating in the event.
They are also have a lot less knowledge about the matchup. I believe protoss or terran players experienced that same situation dozens of times, and thus are able to say it was a lost cause. Bringing only zergs would definatelly be a bad idea in my eyes, people need to focus on the best way to find out if the situation is actually unwinnable, and forget all this talk about bias.
On March 20 2011 06:31 Thrill wrote: Why isn't the fact that panel members are chosen in part from players still in the tournament [a huge deal]?
Bias? Conflict of interest? Directly adverse interest?
Also, an advantage for the players in the panel who get a tournament replay of someone they might meet themselves. If some players gain access to this replay, everyone else competing should? Not just the replay actually, but the early information as well.
Really weird to me how everyone is calling this so professional - professional would have been having a ref pool ready BEFORE the tournament without players in the tournament. DC:s can and will happen in every tourney and admins should be very prepared for it.
Admins should also be VERY clear on procedure - if TL is so transparent, why are we not informed (in this thread) about the time span? How long did it take from the DC 'til the next game was started? What were the players told as to when the next game would be played?
--
:s
This post really really needs a response. It sounds like TL just grabbed good players they had on hand without even considering that they were playing in the same tournament. Even if the decision is fair and accurate, the panel is frought with potential conflict of interest. Next time this happens, I strongly suggest having a truly independent panel, with absolutely no players that are playing in the tournament.
well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
The player winning this series does not affect Tyler and MC at all. Nazgul is impartial. MorroW is affected in RO8 only if he makes it that far. MorroW also wrote the longest explanation and had strong arguments.
Cloud is impartial but whe don't know his thought process.
If Boxer reaches the final it will affect them, so that is not exactly right. But discuss their arguments, not their imaginary bias, you will never have a panel where someone can't find some reason to say X player would be biased. Hell, you could say westerns would be biased to decide against koreans and the oposite, which would kill any possible composition right away.
I think they picked those players as they had access to them as they were in the TSL.
If it was up to me, I'd ask those neutral players in this situation: Incontrol, MarineKing, Select, Tester and Nazgul.
But all in all, I think the decision was good, TL handled it perfectly and I don't see the controversy here. There were preset rules that players agreed on and TL has shows transparency on how the decision was made. Well done.
EDIT: I kind of don't understand the Nightend/Prae's comment.
On March 20 2011 07:05 HeavOnEarth wrote: [quote] well they give their statements... with reasoning behind it. its not like they just picked someone and their reason is "oh boxer is weaker lets try to help him get through"
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
"HOW FAR" as if finding qualified players that are not playing in the TSL is a difficult or strenuous task? There are only 32 players in the TSL and they picked THREE TSL players for the panelist? I mean, fair MINIMUM requirements seem to me to have at least two players of each represented race that are NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT. (lol... come on, srsly) This is not hard, they just overlooked it.
You can mitigate conflict of interest far better than they did, especially considering they seem to have completely overlooked the fact that these players are in the same tournament.
Nazgul isn't in the TSL.
Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
On March 20 2011 07:42 mizU wrote: I feel like people automatically jump to conclusions, such that a player asked to be a panelist would abuse said given power in order to further their own status in a tournament. For some reason, it is adamant in my mind that the panelists' never for a second regarded the players in question in relation to the tournament and how it would affect their standing.
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat by watching streams which I believe is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat by stream watching why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing?
... Proven fact? Strong words for no citation or links to hard evidence to back up an accusation of "top level players" cheating.
On March 20 2011 07:43 EnderSword wrote: My level of respect for the TSL and TeamLiquid just went up tremendously (Not that it was in anyway low before)
Amazing explanation of exactly what happened, how it happened, what you've learned from it and how it would be addressed in the future.
Nazgul actually going so far as to do a simulation of the closing fight shows an amazing attention to detail and this whole thing shows a level of professionalism that made me feel very good about this whole community.
It did certainly look to me like the decision was correct, and I agree that if even Tyler or MC couldn't envision a way they could have comeback to win that game, than it wasn't going to Happen.
One mild suggestion, and maybe it's silly or backwards...but I could see a situation where people might complain about race bias in this type of decision...You might want to make the panel of 5 all a non-playing race. In other words, get 5 Zergs to decide...or Just let TLO decide by himself who won since Random knows best.
I could see people complaining some day if a panel of 5 had 2 Terrans voting for the terran win and 3 Protoss voting for a regame etc...
now THAT is a VERY interesting way of looking at it. In theory hey - why would zergs be biased in a matchup where they have no vested interest in seeing which way it goes? But it would have to be zergs who aren't participating in the event.
He?? this really confuses me. Why would you want to have people that don´t even play any race involved make the decision?!?! wouldn´t that lessen the legitimacy of the decision because people who are actually playing the races are more "educated" to make such a decision?
On March 20 2011 07:42 mizU wrote: I feel like people automatically jump to conclusions, such that a player asked to be a panelist would abuse said given power in order to further their own status in a tournament. For some reason, it is adamant in my mind that the panelists' never for a second regarded the players in question in relation to the tournament and how it would affect their standing.
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat by watching streams which I believe is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat by stream watching why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing?
... Proven fact? Strong words for no citation or links to hard evidence to back up an accusation of "top level players" cheating.
On March 20 2011 07:42 mizU wrote: I feel like people automatically jump to conclusions, such that a player asked to be a panelist would abuse said given power in order to further their own status in a tournament. For some reason, it is adamant in my mind that the panelists' never for a second regarded the players in question in relation to the tournament and how it would affect their standing.
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat by watching streams which I believe is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat by stream watching why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing?
... Proven fact? Strong words for no citation or links to hard evidence to back up an accusation of "top level players" cheating.
Just find and read a list of players that are banned from TL events, you might know some names...
I don't get the race issue. It's not like all terran players are best friends and have affiliation with each other. What if zergs vote against protoss because they hate that race more?
I dont think race has anything to do with it, in fact id prefer having more terran/toss players voice their opinions because they probably have a better understanding of the matchup.
Very unfortunate that the win was awarded this way, but I agree with the way the TSL staff dealt with the situation. Wish boxer good luck in the rest of the tournament, NightEnd good look in his sc2 future, and hope that the rest of TSL3 goes off without a hitch.
This was handled extremely professionally. There were clear rules ahead of time and they were followed. There were imperfections, many of which TL listed (and I'd add that using players in the tournament is another imperfection). It's correct to point out possible bias - there's room for improvement in the future. But it seems pretty clear to me that there was no corruption involved in this particular decision.
Take a minute and compare this to other tournaments. Has any other tournament ever provided written explanations from all their judges? Do they use panels of professional-level players. Even in GSL, I'm pretty sure it's up to one or two referees who I suspect don't have a professional's understanding of the game, and they give no defense of their decisions whatsoever.
1) It can be universally agreed that the rules of the tourney favor no one. 2) As a viewer, ask yourself who you wanted to to win, even if you have to admit to yourself deep down, that you have a personal bias. 3) A disconnect occurs.
If your champion wins, and you argue against the judges, you're just being nonsensical and clogging up the forums just to be different.
If your champion loses, and you disagree with the judges, think within yourself why you are disagreeing.
On March 20 2011 07:42 mizU wrote: I feel like people automatically jump to conclusions, such that a player asked to be a panelist would abuse said given power in order to further their own status in a tournament. For some reason, it is adamant in my mind that the panelists' never for a second regarded the players in question in relation to the tournament and how it would affect their standing.
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat by watching streams which I believe is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat by stream watching why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing?
Thats why a entire panel of multiple people was used, to reduce the influence of bias that a single player may have on the issue. In the future as mentioned, a full five person panel will be required for each decision.
Also, there is the veto option in place if players feel that one of the panelists will be bias or unfair.
I really think it would be hard to find a group of people that are professional gamers not related to anyone on the tournament. If you look at things like that, you shouldn`t accept teamates, friends and even countrymates from people on the tournament. That`s completelly unreasonable. They would also need to have a reputation inside the industry, including korea, and you would need much more than 5, since you would need 7 avaible for each game on a short notice.
It was more professional than anything I`ve seen on tournaments of this level. It was much more reasonable than many things i`ve seen in sports that involve millions of dollars.
Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
"HOW FAR" as if finding qualified players that are not playing in the TSL is a difficult or strenuous task? There are only 32 players in the TSL and they picked THREE TSL players for the panelist? I mean, fair MINIMUM requirements seem to me to have at least two players of each represented race that are NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT. (lol... come on, srsly) This is not hard, they just overlooked it.
You can mitigate conflict of interest far better than they did, especially considering they seem to have completely overlooked the fact that these players are in the same tournament.
Nazgul isn't in the TSL.
Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
While I have no complaints about the events that occurred today, I do feel like it would be an improvement to the process if they were able to find high level players not involved in the tournament. I have a great deal of respect for what happened today so I have faith that TL will continue to improve this review process if they decide that it can or needs to be improved.
On March 20 2011 07:42 mizU wrote: I feel like people automatically jump to conclusions, such that a player asked to be a panelist would abuse said given power in order to further their own status in a tournament. For some reason, it is adamant in my mind that the panelists' never for a second regarded the players in question in relation to the tournament and how it would affect their standing.
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat by watching streams which I believe is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat by stream watching why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing?
... Proven fact? Strong words for no citation or links to hard evidence to back up an accusation of "top level players" cheating.
On March 20 2011 07:42 mizU wrote: I feel like people automatically jump to conclusions, such that a player asked to be a panelist would abuse said given power in order to further their own status in a tournament. For some reason, it is adamant in my mind that the panelists' never for a second regarded the players in question in relation to the tournament and how it would affect their standing.
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat by watching streams which I believe is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat by stream watching why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing?
... Proven fact? Strong words for no citation or links to hard evidence to back up an accusation of "top level players" cheating.
He's not accusing anyone in particular, just pointing out what is true and known to be true. When there's possibility to cheat (an easy and very hard to prove one no less) it will happen. Like... every competitive environment of mankind has shown this, I'm not even sure what you're questioning here.
On March 20 2011 07:42 mizU wrote: I feel like people automatically jump to conclusions, such that a player asked to be a panelist would abuse said given power in order to further their own status in a tournament. For some reason, it is adamant in my mind that the panelists' never for a second regarded the players in question in relation to the tournament and how it would affect their standing.
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat by watching streams which I believe is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat by stream watching why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing?
... Proven fact? Strong words for no citation or links to hard evidence to back up an accusation of "top level players" cheating.
Any possibility that there is a Korean translation of this? The TSL is being followed to some extent in Korea, and I think it'd actually be really good for the Koreans to know the thought process that went into doing this. Even if they agree with the decision because it kept BoxeR in the tournament, perhaps it will give the Koreans some light into how seriously the foreign scene takes these tournaments. Any opportunity to bridge the two communities further is good in my opinion. TeamLiquid handled this as professionally as I could have possibly imagined, and to have that sort of professionalism on Western e-Sports could raise some eyes in the Korean community.
Since I'm not a Boxer or NightEnd fan, I don't really care about the decision. The process TL uses for these situation is still very impressive.
What I have to agree on is that the panel should not consist of players playing in the actual tournament. I have read all the statements from the panel members and I guess they can or are in fact right (I play way too bad to judge the situation myself ). For future situations I still think it would be better for everyone to have players in the panel that aren't/weren't in the tournament. It would at least give a feeling of an unbiased decision.
On March 20 2011 07:17 HeavOnEarth wrote: [quote] Exactly! u want the best players judging this, and what's better than TSL 3 players, which probably are fairly easy to contact.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
"HOW FAR" as if finding qualified players that are not playing in the TSL is a difficult or strenuous task? There are only 32 players in the TSL and they picked THREE TSL players for the panelist? I mean, fair MINIMUM requirements seem to me to have at least two players of each represented race that are NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT. (lol... come on, srsly) This is not hard, they just overlooked it.
You can mitigate conflict of interest far better than they did, especially considering they seem to have completely overlooked the fact that these players are in the same tournament.
Nazgul isn't in the TSL.
Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
"HOW FAR" as if finding qualified players that are not playing in the TSL is a difficult or strenuous task? There are only 32 players in the TSL and they picked THREE TSL players for the panelist? I mean, fair MINIMUM requirements seem to me to have at least two players of each represented race that are NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT. (lol... come on, srsly) This is not hard, they just overlooked it.
You can mitigate conflict of interest far better than they did, especially considering they seem to have completely overlooked the fact that these players are in the same tournament.
Nazgul isn't in the TSL.
Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
I can't think of many western players completelly unrelated to anyone in the tournament. If you would cheat for yourself, why wouldnt you cheat for a friend/teammate?
And I really don't know how easy or hard it would be to get koreans completelly unrelated to the event to participate.
Again, how far does TL have to go to prevent a conflict of interest? There's the possibility of foreigner/Korean bias, team bias, race bias, etc. It'd be literally impossible to rule out all bias and create a purely objective panel.
"HOW FAR" as if finding qualified players that are not playing in the TSL is a difficult or strenuous task? There are only 32 players in the TSL and they picked THREE TSL players for the panelist? I mean, fair MINIMUM requirements seem to me to have at least two players of each represented race that are NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT. (lol... come on, srsly) This is not hard, they just overlooked it.
You can mitigate conflict of interest far better than they did, especially considering they seem to have completely overlooked the fact that these players are in the same tournament.
Nazgul isn't in the TSL.
Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
On March 20 2011 07:42 mizU wrote: I feel like people automatically jump to conclusions, such that a player asked to be a panelist would abuse said given power in order to further their own status in a tournament. For some reason, it is adamant in my mind that the panelists' never for a second regarded the players in question in relation to the tournament and how it would affect their standing.
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat by watching streams which I believe is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat by stream watching why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing?
... Proven fact? Strong words for no citation or links to hard evidence to back up an accusation of "top level players" cheating.
I know about the ladder abuse incident. Ladder abuse is NOT stream hacking.
Let's rephrase then:
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat which is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing?
Anything you care to nitpick in this post, intentionally-obtuse guy?
Someone suggested that Zergs should commentate on the status of the game, and they should judge who won, in a situation like this (PVT), and vica versa.
Well, I think we could all step back a little and realize that once you are a high level Terran, Protoss or Zerg, you are really capable of judging any battle regardless of what your race is. There is no need from the judge to be X, Y, or Z race in a ZVX, because it simply does not matter. They are clearly checking this out taking the time, putting effort into the actual explanation - it is obvious that the race the judges might or might not play with does not matter.
On March 20 2011 07:57 RedZack wrote: Since I'm not a Boxer or NightEnd fan, I don't really care about the decision. The process TL uses for these situation is still very impressive.
What I have to agree on is that the panel should not consist of players playing in the actual tournament. I have read all the statements from the panel members and I guess they can or are in fact right (I play way too bad to judge the situation myself ). For future situations I still think it would be better for everyone to have players in the panel that aren't/weren't in the tournament. It would at least give a feeling of an unbiased decision.
But anyhow, keep up the good work TL! <3
Well, if you were in the panel and possibly playing the winner of that match later, would you really pick Boxer to win?
Nah, all in all it's a fair decision. There will always be people disagreeing, but it seems that most people are disagreeing about the judges and not the actual decision. It was clear to anyone watching the stream that Boxer had that game won with 99.8% certainty.
On March 20 2011 07:42 mizU wrote: I feel like people automatically jump to conclusions, such that a player asked to be a panelist would abuse said given power in order to further their own status in a tournament. For some reason, it is adamant in my mind that the panelists' never for a second regarded the players in question in relation to the tournament and how it would affect their standing.
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat by watching streams which I believe is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat by stream watching why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing?
... Proven fact? Strong words for no citation or links to hard evidence to back up an accusation of "top level players" cheating.
I know about the ladder abuse incident. Ladder abuse is NOT stream hacking.
Let's rephrase then:
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat which is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing?
Anything you care to nitpick in this post, intentionally-obtuse guy?
Sure. "So if SOME players would cheat why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing? "
The players that were found for ladder abuse aren't in the TSL, and are banned from TSL events. I doubt TL would pick those players to be on the panel.
"HOW FAR" as if finding qualified players that are not playing in the TSL is a difficult or strenuous task? There are only 32 players in the TSL and they picked THREE TSL players for the panelist? I mean, fair MINIMUM requirements seem to me to have at least two players of each represented race that are NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT. (lol... come on, srsly) This is not hard, they just overlooked it.
You can mitigate conflict of interest far better than they did, especially considering they seem to have completely overlooked the fact that these players are in the same tournament.
Nazgul isn't in the TSL.
Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
It's also not Boxer's fault if his city suffers a black out, his internet provider has a problem, or whatever may cause a disconect. Seriously, why would this rule even exist if the players could control or be blamed for disconnects?
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
It's not Nightend's fault he disconnects, no. But he isn't awarded the win, becuase he was LOSING.
On March 20 2011 07:42 mizU wrote: I feel like people automatically jump to conclusions, such that a player asked to be a panelist would abuse said given power in order to further their own status in a tournament. For some reason, it is adamant in my mind that the panelists' never for a second regarded the players in question in relation to the tournament and how it would affect their standing.
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat by watching streams which I believe is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat by stream watching why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing?
... Proven fact? Strong words for no citation or links to hard evidence to back up an accusation of "top level players" cheating.
I know about the ladder abuse incident. Ladder abuse is NOT stream hacking.
Let's rephrase then:
It is a proven fact that even top level players will cheat which is ONE reason why they are casting replays instead of live matches. So if SOME players would cheat why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing?
Anything you care to nitpick in this post, intentionally-obtuse guy?
Sure. "So if SOME players would cheat why wouldn't those same players use a panel selection to their advantage and vote against a player they are afraid of facing? "
The players that were found for ladder abuse aren't in the TSL, and are banned from TSL events. I doubt TL would pick those players to be on the panel.
Oh my god. I'm really trying hard to refrain from ad hominem arguments, but this is getting ridiculous.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
And it wasn't Boxer's fault either, in less you are saying he intentionally disconnected his internet, which is just absurd. So instead of straight up punishing people for a disconnect, they do something 100% better. Nice logic.
Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
I believe the TSL team have done a great job with this. The transparency and obvious respect for the fans displayed here are quite awesome. The organisation, rules and the ruling itself are all impressive.
However, although I don't believe it was a significant factor here, the willingness to use other players still competing in the tournament as judges on the panel - being even clearer - other players with a vested interest in the outcome of the game they are judging, might be something the team want to avoid in future.
Unless of course the games have been played and MC and morrow both got knocked out?! Not sure quite how long in advance these things are played...
On March 20 2011 07:41 integral wrote: [quote] Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
Who would you have picked then?
ANYONE NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT THAT IS A HIGH-LEVEL PLAYER. lol... srsly.
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
Who would you have picked then?
ANYONE NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT THAT IS A HIGH-LEVEL PLAYER. lol... srsly.
Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
But by your argument, wouldn't the teammates (if they were asked to be panelists also) vote in favor of their teammates, thus skewing the decision?
I think for everyone unsure of how the game was going, MC's explanation serves as a sort of "TL;DR" because of it's conciseness.
I appreciate the game being given to BoxeR. When a player has what is (basically) a 100% chance to win a game, then is forced to play a rematch with essentially 50-50 odds, it's easy for anyone to see how that player would be discouraged.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
EDIT: And no! i do not think he dc'ed deliberately.
That disconnect felt like a punch in the gut. Every game needs a "gg" moment instead of a "huh, what happened?" Although I think the decision was fair and correct from my limited knowledge, I find the process problematic.
I do not disagree with the rules. They seem pretty good, actually. I do however think it is unfortunate that 3 of the 5 initial panel members are competitors in the same tournament, and that is something it would be wise to avoid in the future. It's hard for me to know if this could have been done better though because I'm sure there were time constraints involved.
Good job on the transparency and thoroughness though.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
Who would you have picked then?
ANYONE NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT THAT IS A HIGH-LEVEL PLAYER. lol... srsly.
You didn't get what I mean't. Names.
Wtf, why would I need to list all the viable candidates? ... I'm not running this tournament, it's not my responsibility to come up with a list of players that are neutral, respected, independent parties. That responsibility is TL's. Anyone in good standing not in the tournament is fine.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
It's not Nightend's fault he disconnects, no. But he isn't awarded the win, becuase he was LOSING.
This proves you truly not get it. Giving Nightend the win was never the question.
If Nightend has 1% of winning the game and Boxer D/C you can't punish Nightend for it by taking away that 1% so a regame would be the only option.
Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
Why are you assuming that it would be easy for the TSL organizers to get non-TSL related top progamers to comment and write an indepth exposition about their decision? The people related to the TSL have an obligation to do anything they can do keep it running smoothly and fairly. The people who aren't? lol... And, coming back to my first point - do you think any top progamer not in Prae or Slayers would have given a shit about doing this? Unless TSL is paying their judges, I don't see why they would.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
EDIT: And no! i do not think he dc'ed deliberately.
If you read the analyses, you'll see that most of the judges felt it wasn't even a 1% chance of winning. It was pretty concrete of the outcome.
It's a horrible thing to happen, but it's hard to disagree with the decision. All of those panelists are respected and gave really, really nice detailed explanations for their decisions. As others have said, it's a credit to TSL that they provided us with all of this information and admitted what they feel are the flaws in the system (to be revised later).
On March 20 2011 07:41 integral wrote: [quote] Uh. k. yeah dude, I know. Morrow, Tyler, MC. Three of five. One, two, three. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
Why are you nitpicking (incorrectly I might add) when the other stuff is more important?
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
Why are you assuming that it would be easy for the TSL organizers to get non-TSL related top progamers to comment and write an indepth exposition about their decision? The people related to the TSL have an obligation to do anything they can do keep it running smoothly and fairly. The people who aren't? lol... And, coming back to my first point - do you think any top progamer not in Prae or Slayers would have given a shit about doing this? Unless TSL is paying their judges, I don't see why they would.
I'm not assuming it would be easy any more than you're assuming it would be hard. I'm saying it needs to happen regardless.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
It's not Nightend's fault he disconnects, no. But he isn't awarded the win, becuase he was LOSING.
This proves you truly not get it. Giving Nightend the win was never the question.
If Nightend has 1% of winning the game and Boxer D/C you can't punish Nightend for it by taking away that 1% so a regame would be the only option.
Why is punishing one player because he lost 1% of a chance to win more fair than punish a player that will lose 49%? No player has control when he disconnects, and both decisions will harm one player or the other, considering the facts of the game, it's obvious you have to make a decision.
What do you propose? Always having a regame? That's obviously abusable.
Always having a regame if the player who disconects has any real disavantage? That's already subjective.
Declaring a loss if someone disconnects? That's just unreasonable.
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
Who would you have picked then?
ANYONE NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT THAT IS A HIGH-LEVEL PLAYER. lol... srsly.
You didn't get what I mean't. Names.
Wtf, why would I need to list all the viable candidates? ... I'm not running this tournament, it's not my responsibility to come up with a list of players that are neutral, respected, independent parties. That responsibility is TL's. Anyone in good standing not in the tournament is fine.
You are the one the one saying they didn't handle it properly. I don'T ask you to make a 20 name lits, I say that you should say propose 5 other good players, that have credibility, deep understanding of the game that could have be chosen. It's not your responsability but the fact is that most of "neutral, respected, independent parties" are already in the tournament. They probably could have come up with some more people but time is also a factor. The issue needed to be adressed so they could move on. You also do not want information leaking out.
For my part, MC opinion was enough. If the best protoss in the world and arguably the best player in the world says there was no way for the protoss to win this game, then the protoss was done.
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
Why are you assuming that it would be easy for the TSL organizers to get non-TSL related top progamers to comment and write an indepth exposition about their decision? The people related to the TSL have an obligation to do anything they can do keep it running smoothly and fairly. The people who aren't? lol... And, coming back to my first point - do you think any top progamer not in Prae or Slayers would have given a shit about doing this? Unless TSL is paying their judges, I don't see why they would.
I'm not assuming it would be easy any more than you're assuming it would be hard. I'm saying it needs to happen regardless.
I'm not assuming anything that directly affects my judgment - your judgment (that it NEEDS to happen) is based on your assumption. There are a variety of other factors as well - the participants could very well bribe the judges, and probably many more possibilties of "bias" and "conflicts of interest" that you are so ardently arguing.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
EDIT: And no! i do not think he dc'ed deliberately.
That's why if there wa even a 1% chance of a comeback it would have been re-game. But the three judges all thought boxer had the game 100% won. So it's in no way punishing Nightend.
It WAS has fault for losing the game, since it was already lost when boxer DCed.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
Why are you assuming that it would be easy for the TSL organizers to get non-TSL related top progamers to comment and write an indepth exposition about their decision? The people related to the TSL have an obligation to do anything they can do keep it running smoothly and fairly. The people who aren't? lol... And, coming back to my first point - do you think any top progamer not in Prae or Slayers would have given a shit about doing this? Unless TSL is paying their judges, I don't see why they would.
I'm not assuming it would be easy any more than you're assuming it would be hard. I'm saying it needs to happen regardless.
I'm not assuming anything that directly affects my judgment - your judgment (that it NEEDS to happen) is based on your assumption. There are a variety of other factors as well - the participants could very well bribe the judges, and probably many more possibilties of "bias" and "conflicts of interest" that you are so ardently arguing.
I'm sure boxer paid the judges tho give him a win in his first round after he intentionally dcd while pretty much having won the game. Makes perfect sense.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
It's not Nightend's fault he disconnects, no. But he isn't awarded the win, becuase he was LOSING.
This proves you truly not get it. Giving Nightend the win was never the question.
If Nightend has 1% of winning the game and Boxer D/C you can't punish Nightend for it by taking away that 1% so a regame would be the only option.
Since we can't convince obtuse people that whatever little to non-existant chance NightEnD had was irrelevant, I might was well say that if NightEnD ended up winning because of a re-match things would snowball into a situation where the entire tournament is regarded as biased towards koreans, I for one would be sure of that.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
It's not Nightend's fault he disconnects, no. But he isn't awarded the win, becuase he was LOSING.
This proves you truly not get it. Giving Nightend the win was never the question.
If Nightend has 1% of winning the game and Boxer D/C you can't punish Nightend for it by taking away that 1% so a regame would be the only option.
Since we can't convince obtuse people that whatever little to non-existant chance NightEnD had was irrelevant, I might was well say that if NightEnD ended up winning because of a re-match things would snowball into a situation where the entire tournament is regarded as biased towards koreans, I for one would be sure of that.
I never said he did have any chance of coming back, I agree with the decision made. But several here doesn't seem to get how the rule works...and why.
On March 20 2011 07:57 RedZack wrote: Since I'm not a Boxer or NightEnd fan, I don't really care about the decision. The process TL uses for these situation is still very impressive.
What I have to agree on is that the panel should not consist of players playing in the actual tournament. I have read all the statements from the panel members and I guess they can or are in fact right (I play way too bad to judge the situation myself ). For future situations I still think it would be better for everyone to have players in the panel that aren't/weren't in the tournament. It would at least give a feeling of an unbiased decision.
But anyhow, keep up the good work TL! <3
Well, if you were in the panel and possibly playing the winner of that match later, would you really pick Boxer to win?
Nah, all in all it's a fair decision. There will always be people disagreeing, but it seems that most people are disagreeing about the judges and not the actual decision. It was clear to anyone watching the stream that Boxer had that game won with 99.8% certainty.
The point of my post wasn't that I suspect the panel of any bias. It's just feedback for the future.
And I got to say that while watching the stream, I wasn't sure who would have won that game with any certainty, but I guess that stems from the fact that I'm just bad at starcraft
Someone needs to invent a utility that converts a replay into a custom map.
Input the replay and a timecode, and the program outputs a custom map of the game at its exact configuration at that moment. Then if this happens again, they can pick up the game and continue play.
Barring that, someone could go through meticulously and recreate the game scenario in a custom to try to play it out a few times.
That said, I think BoxeR had it 99% and it was a good decision.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
Who would you have picked then?
ANYONE NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT THAT IS A HIGH-LEVEL PLAYER. lol... srsly.
You didn't get what I mean't. Names.
Wtf, why would I need to list all the viable candidates? ... I'm not running this tournament, it's not my responsibility to come up with a list of players that are neutral, respected, independent parties. That responsibility is TL's. Anyone in good standing not in the tournament is fine.
You are the one the one saying they didn't handle it properly. I don'T ask you to make a 20 name lits, I say that you should say propose 5 other good players, that have credibility, deep understanding of the game that could have be chosen. It's not your responsability but the fact is that most of "neutral, respected, independent parties" are already in the tournament. They probably could have come up with some more people but time is also a factor. The issue needed to be adressed so they could move on. You also do not want information leaking out.
For my part, MC opinion was enough. If the best protoss in the world and arguably the best player in the world says there was no way for the protoss to win this game, then the protoss was done.
On March 20 2011 06:17 SupastaR wrote: We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around.
oshit
If this quote is truly theirs, they should get punished. When you win you don't care what happened, I knew beforehand Boxer was going to take game 3 thanks to them.
Even reading this thread after the match was over, I read this as them agreeing with the assessment that NightEnD was dead in that game. Specifically, I interpreted the comment to mean that it would take a miracle for NightEnD to occur (ala David and Goliath), but he was at an even bigger disadvantage than David.
I would not be surprise to see more dc's in this tournament after big fights that one player got almost win situation but doesn't want to take "little" but still a chance to make mistake and lost the game.
And then you can ask other players from the tournament. who should get a win and who should loss. Not bad, after abuse in TSL2 this rules about panel members should be crystal clear, and should involve people outside "circle of interest". Morrow lost to NightEnD in Black Dragon league lately, maybe he just doesnt want to face him in Ro8 of TSL3
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR?
"Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So if a terran floats away all his buildings while the other player has his army on a mined out map without any flying units the terran hasn't lost? And no, you do not admit there was a chance of winning when if it's close to non existing, the chance however was non existant. He couldn't have won if boxer would just amove. Now lets assume they rematch, either of them could've kept dcing because "there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing".This is why you are wrong.
Nazgul's explanation was well-thought out but I still can't help but feel a little bad for Nightend. Anyway very good job handling the situation TL staff--I think there's something to be learned here for every organization in a similar damage-control situation.
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
Who would you have picked then?
ANYONE NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT THAT IS A HIGH-LEVEL PLAYER. lol... srsly.
You didn't get what I mean't. Names.
Wtf, why would I need to list all the viable candidates? ... I'm not running this tournament, it's not my responsibility to come up with a list of players that are neutral, respected, independent parties. That responsibility is TL's. Anyone in good standing not in the tournament is fine.
You are the one the one saying they didn't handle it properly. I don'T ask you to make a 20 name lits, I say that you should say propose 5 other good players, that have credibility, deep understanding of the game that could have be chosen. It's not your responsability but the fact is that most of "neutral, respected, independent parties" are already in the tournament. They probably could have come up with some more people but time is also a factor. The issue needed to be adressed so they could move on. You also do not want information leaking out.
For my part, MC opinion was enough. If the best protoss in the world and arguably the best player in the world says there was no way for the protoss to win this game, then the protoss was done.
Nightend started the game very badly, he was never in the game, and that battle sealed the deal for me. Great decision in this regard,and there's nothing to add to it.
Why would they need to get 2 players of each race? Looking at the numbers, top players and their distribution of races and excluding participants of the TSL would lessen the legitimacy of the panelists' decision, I feel.
I'm starting to get annoyed here. How the FUCK would it lessen the legitimacy of the decision? What the hell?
Is MC not the best protoss in the world? What better judges than the top players in the world forking their opinion? If you find players of lesser skill level, it might be seen as a downplay to the legitimacy of the verdict.
So find top players in the world that ARE NOT PLAYING IN THE TOURNAMENT. lol, how is this so hard for you to get...
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
Why are you assuming that it would be easy for the TSL organizers to get non-TSL related top progamers to comment and write an indepth exposition about their decision? The people related to the TSL have an obligation to do anything they can do keep it running smoothly and fairly. The people who aren't? lol... And, coming back to my first point - do you think any top progamer not in Prae or Slayers would have given a shit about doing this? Unless TSL is paying their judges, I don't see why they would.
I'm not assuming it would be easy any more than you're assuming it would be hard. I'm saying it needs to happen regardless.
So even though TSL has gone a lot longer in securing fairness and tranparency than any other tournament organizer, you still come to their home page and very aggresively demand them to immediately change the way they run tournaments just because you say so? :s
And I don't even see a reason why LiquidTLO would be any less biased than LiquidJinro. So to find someone neutral isn't really probable, since anyone in the starcraft community is gonna have a lot of teammates/friends/bitter rivals in the tournament. Instead TSL took another road and got the most respected and capable judges they could find. They probably though these players were less likely to abuse the position than anyone else, since it is people they trust.
Any other tournament would have just had two unknowns behind the scenes making the decision and not bother explaining it. You are really just arguing here for the sake of it. I don't know if you have something against TL or you're just seeking attention/thrill/whatever and I don't really care. They explained what they had done and why. Then they explained what experiences they had made and what they need to improve on. So please just GTFO. Thank you
On March 20 2011 08:29 Bulkers wrote: I would not be surprise to see more dc's in this tournament after big fights that one player got almost win situation but doesn't want to take "little" but still a chance to make mistake and lost the game.
And then you can ask other players from the tournament. who should get a win and who should loss. Not bad, after abuse in TSL2 this rules about panel members should be crystal clear, and should involve people outside "circle of interest". Morrow lost to NightEnD in Black Dragon league lately, maybe he just doesnt want to face him in Ro8 of TSL3
I could say the same about losing players, the rules benefit both ends sweetie.
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
Who would you have picked then?
ANYONE NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT THAT IS A HIGH-LEVEL PLAYER. lol... srsly.
You didn't get what I mean't. Names.
Wtf, why would I need to list all the viable candidates? ... I'm not running this tournament, it's not my responsibility to come up with a list of players that are neutral, respected, independent parties. That responsibility is TL's. Anyone in good standing not in the tournament is fine.
You are the one the one saying they didn't handle it properly. I don'T ask you to make a 20 name lits, I say that you should say propose 5 other good players, that have credibility, deep understanding of the game that could have be chosen. It's not your responsability but the fact is that most of "neutral, respected, independent parties" are already in the tournament. They probably could have come up with some more people but time is also a factor. The issue needed to be adressed so they could move on. You also do not want information leaking out.
For my part, MC opinion was enough. If the best protoss in the world and arguably the best player in the world says there was no way for the protoss to win this game, then the protoss was done.
... fuck, I could go on and on. These are just koreans...
I'd just like to say that we agree with you that the players who are on the panel shouldn't be in the tournament. However, we have to balance this with availability. We have a Korean at 11:30 pm already waiting for a decision that was going for 90 minutes, and we have no way to really ask or access a large pool of top players who would be willing to comment on this.
Not every pro is willing to have their name out there and write a lot justifying his opinion when he can be subject to scrutiny. Add to that the time sensitive nature (they have to do it RIGHT NOW immediately) and it's not as easy as you think. Thankfully, some players stepped up to do it even though they really have nothing to gain from opening themselves up to criticism, so we really want to thank Morrow MC and Naz for doing this.
I just wanted to say that it is not as easy as you make it out to find a super top player at the exact time of the disconnect to drop everything and write something articulate in English and be willing to have his opinion scrutinized publicly and bear the responsibility of a decision like this. I think it's very hard to find people willing to do that. We don't have all these players on stand by. In a perfect world we'd have 5 top players just sitting around waiting for discs, but there are practical considerations.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR?
"Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
Who would you have picked then?
ANYONE NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT THAT IS A HIGH-LEVEL PLAYER. lol... srsly.
You didn't get what I mean't. Names.
Wtf, why would I need to list all the viable candidates? ... I'm not running this tournament, it's not my responsibility to come up with a list of players that are neutral, respected, independent parties. That responsibility is TL's. Anyone in good standing not in the tournament is fine.
You are the one the one saying they didn't handle it properly. I don'T ask you to make a 20 name lits, I say that you should say propose 5 other good players, that have credibility, deep understanding of the game that could have be chosen. It's not your responsability but the fact is that most of "neutral, respected, independent parties" are already in the tournament. They probably could have come up with some more people but time is also a factor. The issue needed to be adressed so they could move on. You also do not want information leaking out.
For my part, MC opinion was enough. If the best protoss in the world and arguably the best player in the world says there was no way for the protoss to win this game, then the protoss was done.
... fuck, I could go on and on. These are just koreans...
I would bet that Artosis, Day and Incontrol would all have been willing to help out, and I can't imagine that people would have had any complaints with that panel. That being said, I think Morrow turned out to be a terrific judge and clearly took his responsibility seriously. At this point, he should be included in any future situations like this.
Edit: I understand Hot Bid's post and wrote this while he was writing his. Practical constraints certainly should matter even if it isn't the perfect situation.
TL I really appreciate your rules on this subject. I think they are incredibly fair. One would expect this at the Pro level. At the amateur level, we do not get this kind of respect. The last tournament I played I accidentally disconnected at the end of my match after having clearly won the game (the lag screen appeared and I accidentally surrendered). The tournament admins refused to review the game, my opponent wanted the win, and I was kicked out of the tournament. Anyone reviewing the game could see that there was no way my opponent could have won. PLEASE keep up this precedent and continue to be open about it so that other tournaments will follow your example. <3 <3
On March 20 2011 08:18 faqqSen wrote: absolutely wrong decision
If you had read the Panel's statements you would probably think differently. I also thought first that the defwin in Boxer's favor was unfair. But you can't judge the outcome of a game without a replay. You just do not have the required intel to come to a equitable decision. Moreover, you should consider that progamers do less mistakes than 'normal'/casual players I would number you among. (That's why you dont have the experience to assess the situation) So after reading the panel's justification you have no other choice than support their decision based on common sense and experience. I really do appreciate that their opinion was shared with the community so that statements like faqqsen's shouldn't even come up...
I'll preface my post by saying that I believe the right decision was made. I was certain I knew of the result of the panel before djwheat even said that Boxer had been awarded the game (why would they spend 15 minutes casting a game that had no bearing on the result?), and I agree with their decision. I also understand the TSL administrators were in a difficult position and had to make a tough choice. For their courage in taking a position when they easily could have shied away from one and the transparency which they provided to the viewers, I applaud them.
To those quoting Nazgul's interpretation of rule #3, I say this: in Nazgul's opinion, the defining factor between a "huge advantage" and an "absolute advantage" lay in whether or not NightEnd could defend his third mining base from Boxer's imminent attack. This is a perfectly reasonable position, I think; without the income from that base, even with NightEnd's existing resource pool and income there was no way NightEnd could have overcome Boxer's superior economy, production, upgrades, and unit composition. Therefore, with the establishment of Boxer's superiority in these areas (something which all three panelists commented on, and Morrow did at great length), the only relevant analysis is whether or not NightEnd could have defended that base with the units he had to hand. Nazgul clearly shows that even removing the fact that Boxer had Ghosts with EMPs ready and simply a-moving into that expansion and not microing at all, which I might add is not even necessary for the correct interpretation of the rules, Boxer would clearly win the battle and destroy the Nexus handily.
I also appreciate the TSL admins admitting that their processes were not quite up to scratch, and agree with their remedies. However, I would like to add my own proposal that might help with the overall smoothness of this process, should it happen again.
How about instead of creating a panel on the fly, you approve a set number of people who will act as panelists and who cannot be vetoed. This pool of people would consists of twelve players approached and confirmed ahead of time and who are not competing in the tournament itself, four from each race so that if someone happens to not be online you have redundancy. For the five members of any particular panel, I would suggest two from each race and one from the non-represented race (so in a TvP decision, you'd have two Terrans, two Protoss, and one Zerg). Or, if it suits you (and probably makes more sense), one tournament administrator and two from each of the represented races. This sort of setup would be beneficial for four major reasons:
1) It is absolutely crystal clear who would be judging the replays ahead of time. 2) Issues of bias/conflicts of interest are resolved. 3) Lessens the burden on the administrators by having a set and complete process in place. 4) The complete removal of the players from the process once there is no consensus made between the players as to the outcome; this might act as an incentive for the players to reach an amicable decision because they know that if one cannot be reached, it then becomes completely outside their control as to the result of the game.
Incidentally, if such a system were to be introduced, I think the easiest way to implement it would be to send all possible members of the panel the replay and then create a random priority list before any opinions are received from possible panelists. Once the time limit expired, you would then simply open the relevant opinions and you have your result (ie. if you send a TvP replay to 4 Terrans to view, and then rank them randomly in order of 1-4, when the time limit expired if person 1 has not sent an opinion and person 2 had, their opinion would become part of the panel, etc.). This would set a time limit for proceedings, adding another level of assurance and stability to the procedure.
Maybe I went a little overboard with this, but I find such things interesting :D
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR?
"Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
Great work on making this a fair and balanced (i know, i know) ruling TSL.
What bothers me the most about this whole thing is the statement from Prae. They said the "NO COMMENTS" in the first line, and end it with: "it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around."
I can't help but notice that this is a huge comment on what they think of the DC and the subsequent ruling. They are acting as the underdog, trying to fight against a big biased organization that favors boxer. Clearly this statement can be read in two ways, the first thing I said and it could be them saying "We don't like the ruling, but we cant prove that he would have won either so we won't take on the TSL for making that call"
I dunno about you, but to me that last line just bugs the hell out of me after saying "NO COMMENTS"
For Boxer to have lost he would have needed to make mistakes far below what any pro-gamer would make. Thus he would have won without reasonable doubt, and thus the rule is fair.
It was the correct decision, in the end. Boxer would need to do something extremely stupid to be able to have lost the game. Something like a-move his units into Nightend's base, and then not remake any units as nightend walked into his base with 15 stalkers.
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world... Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP? Zergs: July? Protoss: Hongun?
Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament?
Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions?
oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now.
Who would you have picked then?
ANYONE NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT THAT IS A HIGH-LEVEL PLAYER. lol... srsly.
You didn't get what I mean't. Names.
Wtf, why would I need to list all the viable candidates? ... I'm not running this tournament, it's not my responsibility to come up with a list of players that are neutral, respected, independent parties. That responsibility is TL's. Anyone in good standing not in the tournament is fine.
You are the one the one saying they didn't handle it properly. I don'T ask you to make a 20 name lits, I say that you should say propose 5 other good players, that have credibility, deep understanding of the game that could have be chosen. It's not your responsability but the fact is that most of "neutral, respected, independent parties" are already in the tournament. They probably could have come up with some more people but time is also a factor. The issue needed to be adressed so they could move on. You also do not want information leaking out.
For my part, MC opinion was enough. If the best protoss in the world and arguably the best player in the world says there was no way for the protoss to win this game, then the protoss was done.
... fuck, I could go on and on. These are just koreans...
Ace : His only accomplishement is IEM + there is no real way to contact him in such short notice. InCa : He is a decent choice but I don't think it's the best. Squirtle : Good choice, once again, short notice. SangHo : I don't know him so I wont comment San : Same here. HongUn : Really? HongUn get result but I don't think he is that great of a player since most of his wins are super weird stuff Tester : His play is very weak since he stopped playing for a some time Hero/Choya : I don't know them TeSTC : He kinda dissapeared for some time, they are much more qualified players. MKP: Totally agree, but he will be hard to contact TOP: Okay choice.
The only time it shouldn't be a regame if it's the player in a clearly losing position who disconnects.
All other times should be regame, that's the only true fair way. Also the debate went on for 90 mins? A regame would've been much quicker anyway and have less uncertainty for the players involved who had to sit around waiting for the decision.
TL has said numerous times in the past that players are the priority. I'm not really sure what's worse for them, that time sitting around which would effect both their mental and emotional states or just having a clear regame rule and get on with it.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR?
"Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
On March 20 2011 08:39 Full.tilt wrote: The only time it shouldn't be a regame if it's the player in a clearly losing position who disconnects.
All other times should be regame, that's the only true fair way.
Player A has 200/200 in stalkers and Player B has no units and 1 pylon, Player A is attacking the pylon, and discs. You are saying the only fair way to handle this is a regame?
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
It's not Nightend's fault he disconnects, no. But he isn't awarded the win, becuase he was LOSING.
The chance that the Koreans face a disconnect is pretty high. The latency is pretty bad. You can't ask a player to replay the match, mostly when you have a precise gameplan. You can't ask a replay when there was one clear winner. Night end cannot even fathom the possibility of crying about it, he didn't manage his money well, his opening was horrendous, he didn't harrass....the list is long.
This proves you truly not get it. Giving Nightend the win was never the question.
If Nightend has 1% of winning the game and Boxer D/C you can't punish Nightend for it by taking away that 1% so a regame would be the only option.
It is absolutely ridiculous for people to think that all players are available and willing to participate in the panel at ANY TIME of the day. That's an absolutely ludicrous (and frankly dim) expectation. As if all TL had to do was press a button and they'd have all the elite players in the world ready to analyze replays and make a potentially unpopular and difficult decision on the spot. Clearly they had to make due with what they had, there were players waiting on a decision and a deadline looming overhead. If they had infinite time, resources, and control over all players in the world then they could have come up with something better. As that is not the case, this will have to do, and frankly it is better than anything we're used to as a community.
On March 20 2011 07:40 ftd.rain wrote: [quote] So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR?
"Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense. "In every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo." Who are you to decide in what scenario you can or can not avoid using judges.
There are a number of things still in the dark. Some of them yield ground to speculation, while others might want to be improved upon before the next panel decision comes around the corner. I'm quoting these issues as they catched my eye while reading the thread.
Post-game statements related to anything other than the game in question itself.
"We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around."
On March 20 2011 06:36 n00b3rt wrote: Only 1 complaint : you should have posted this thread after all the games had been casted. The reaction by Prae spoiled the result of game 3 ;(
On March 20 2011 05:56 FliedLice wrote: "A message from Praetoriani and NightEnd
We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around."
no stones=no points to criticize?
Possible conflicts of interest.
On March 20 2011 06:01 Tossy64 wrote: Shouldn't the panel members not include tourney participants or others who have a potential conflict of interest?
Vetos
On March 20 2011 06:43 Jonoman92 wrote: So if Boxer had vetoed a different panel member, and Cloud had submitted his decision, then it would have been a re-game? Since that in order to award a win to the disconnecting player a unanimous decision is needed.
On March 20 2011 06:46 syzygy wrote: What were the compelling reasons as to why Tyler and Cloud were vetoed?
NightEnD's veto
On March 20 2011 06:28 AmiPolizeiFunk wrote: NightEnd pushed it to the panel, yet allowed the panel to be decreased from 5 voters down to 3? Why would he do that? Did he know that only 1 of the 5 had to rule a re-game for him to get one? Did he fully understand how the panel functioned? Why would he not accept a loss, and then right away increase the chance that he would get one by accepting a 3-man panel? Doesn't make sense to me.
On March 20 2011 06:53 nexusil wrote: Only thing I don't understand is why would Nightend veto anyone if an unanimous decision is required to award Boxer the game?
Vetoing only makes sense if the panelist was replaced. Maybe he doesn't fully grasp the implication of the panelist not being replaced, or was first asked to veto and then asked to accede to only 3 panelists.
If this is the case, the organizers should at least re-instate Tyler since it is clearly in Nightend's interest to hear Tyler if no other panelist can be found to replace him.
On March 20 2011 06:26 I_Love_Bacon wrote: The best part is the transparency TL showed by saying that, despite the 2 members being vetoed, Cloud would have voted for a regame.
I think it's interesting that the sole possible Terran panel member was vetoed by BoxeR and that member felt it was a re-game, perhaps BoxeR felt like he could have lost it and that other Terrans could come to the same conclusion somehow? Or maybe he just doesn't know who Cloud is & it's a coincidence....
All in all I think TL shows a lot of foresight when compiling rules for their events, although it takes a long time to build contentment with decisions such as this one, because the only thing that will silence criticism at all if the situation is even slightly disputed is being able to draw from a long history of the event and thereby precedent and tradition to validate the decision by consistency.
I hope that the above mentioned questions will get additional coverage, so that the transparency and renown/exaltedness of T(S)L can increase even further.
On March 20 2011 07:40 ftd.rain wrote: [quote] So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR?
"Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
The issue you run into is when someone is simply holding out leaving, for one reason or another, and the player who only has to kill say the Main with no resistance DCs.
Now they have to replay, and the whole result is changed, now the player who didn't DC in the first game wins it.
That could change whole series. Making a series go 2-0 instead of 2-1 in favor of the other player.
I'd just like to say that we agree with you that the players who are on the panel shouldn't be in the tournament. However, we have to balance this with availability. We have a Korean at 11:30 pm already waiting for a decision that was going for 90 minutes, and we have no way to really ask or access a large pool of top players who would be willing to comment on this.
Not every pro is willing to have their name out there and write a lot justifying his opinion when he can be subject to scrutiny. Add to that the time sensitive nature (they have to do it RIGHT NOW immediately) and it's not as easy as you think. Thankfully, some players stepped up to do it even though they really have nothing to gain from opening themselves up to criticism, so we really want to thank Morrow MC and Naz for doing this.
I just wanted to say that it is not as easy as you make it out to find a super top player at the exact time of the disconnect to drop everything and write something articulate in English and be willing to have his opinion scrutinized publicly and bear the responsibility of a decision like this. I think it's very hard to find people willing to do that. We don't have all these players on stand by. In a perfect world we'd have 5 top players just sitting around waiting for discs, but there are practical considerations.
HotBid, go back a few pages and read my suggestion. Basically, have the players the maximum amount of games in the series while awaiting a panel decision rather than have them wait and waste their precious time. If Game 3 was played because they were waiting to find out about Game 1, and it turns out Boxer won both 1 and 2, its no big deal and Game 3 just never sees the public eye.
On March 20 2011 06:17 SupastaR wrote: We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around.
oshit
If this quote is truly theirs, they should get punished. When you win you don't care what happened, I knew beforehand Boxer was going to take game 3 thanks to them.
Even reading this thread after the match was over, I read this as them agreeing with the assessment that NightEnD was dead in that game. Specifically, I interpreted the comment to mean that it would take a miracle for NightEnD to occur (ala David and Goliath), but he was at an even bigger disadvantage than David.
It's quite clear that they disagree with the ruling from that comment. Even if they said no comment.
They didn't wanna go up against TSL (goliath) since they didn't have any arguments at all (no stones lying around). I guess you can't blame players for being upset after being eliminated, but they should really keep that to themselfs. And certainly their team shouldn't be backing them up in their BM :s Especially since it's already a no-win situation. A disconnect is always a very bad thing for a tournament but TL handled it as well as anyone, so they don't need some passive aggressive bs from a disappointed team.
Good, correct decision under the circumstances, and well handled by the casters, specially Chill. Day9 threw in a little joke in there in game 2 which I didn't really like, but they both still handled it well. As for the players not being in the tournament, I definitely agree that would probably be better but Hot_Bid explained why they had to do it this way.
I am sure they will be better prepared with having other players available in a case a situation like this happens again, but for the first time, I think it was handled extremely well. Good thoughtful write-ups from the panel, specially Naz and Morrow.
look at situation. So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
On March 20 2011 08:39 Full.tilt wrote: The only time it shouldn't be a regame if it's the player in a clearly losing position who disconnects.
All other times should be regame, that's the only true fair way.
That is actually not fair at ALL. If I was clearly in a winning position after a 20 minute game according to a unanimous decision by a panel of experts, and yet STILL had to regame I would consider that extremely unfair and unacceptable.
On March 20 2011 08:33 Vorenius wrote: So even though TSL has gone a lot longer in securing fairness and tranparency than any other tournament organizer, you still come to their home page and very aggresively demand them to immediately change the way they run tournaments just because you say so? :s
And I don't even see a reason why LiquidTLO would be any less biased than LiquidJinro. So to find someone neutral isn't really probable, since anyone in the starcraft community is gonna have a lot of teammates/friends/bitter rivals in the tournament. Instead TSL took another road and got the most respected and capable judges they could find. They probably though these players were less likely to abuse the position than anyone else, since it is people they trust.
Any other tournament would have just had two unknowns behind the scenes making the decision and not bother explaining it. You are really just arguing here for the sake of it. I don't know if you have something against TL or you're just seeking attention/thrill/whatever and I don't really care. They explained what they had done and why. Then they explained what experiences they had made and what they need to improve on. So please just GTFO. Thank you
All I'm saying is that they need to pick players that are not in the tournament to be the judges. This is really simple. I'm only aggressively responding to the people who somehow think this is unnecessary or too difficult, both of which reasons are not adequate for helping to reduce bias. You just don't pick players in the tournament to be judges unless you're desperate or you completely overlook it.
On March 20 2011 08:01 VuFFeR wrote: [quote] It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR?
"Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
Incredible job by the staff and the players for doing this. The effort taken for the write ups and the simulation is nothing short of admirable. As a minuscule piece in the spectator world, I thank you so much, even though as a whole, the response seems great!
As for the naysayers, they seem nothing short of trolls trying to grab attention. If you really want to show a comeback, setup a game scenario with your friend that mimics the game situation(like what Nazgul did but to a greater scale). Find a way for that .25-1% chance to play out and post the replay. I'm sure it'd be pretty fun to watch.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR?
"Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished. In the second game it shouldn't be a regame so he DOES get punished. Newsflash, dcs can happen randomly and they can be anyone's fault, not just the player who dcs. The only thing that's biased here are you with your "the DCer should be punished attitude", while saying it's not fair for someone who lost the game to be given a loss.
After reading everything and having watched the game it was clearly over. (100% in my mind) There was no way Boxer could lose that game, the Nazgul simulation might cloud people's judgements but boxer could have emped every unit. If he used all his emps that battle would have been over in half the time with boxer barely losing less units/less health on his remaining units, i.e. not close at all. (hell even in the simulation it wasn't close)
People need to stop treating dc some magic thing that happens and the guy who doesn't dc is suddenly a saint and should under no circumstances lose as long as he has some units and probes. One guy's internet connection cutting out does not mean he can't claim a win if he's already earned it.
I'm kinda sad about nightend response, playing helpless victim to the big bad community, but it's understandable because it really, really sucks.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR?
"Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
Um... because a player winning (as decided unanimously by a panel of experts) is punished with a regame when he shouldn't be? It's kind of crystal fucking clear.
Situations like this suck for everyone. Props to how the TL admins handled it and for how the 'judges' portrayed and explained their decisions. I'm of the opinion that if the best protoss player in the world says NightEnd couldn't come back, then that is an opinion we have to respect.
He does get punished because on some level it's his responsibility to have a stable connection and because we shouldn't encourage deliberate dcs. It's tough luck yes, but it makes more sense... the fewer subjective opinions we can involve the better.
On March 20 2011 08:52 VuFFeR wrote: He does get punished because on some level it's his responsibility to have a stable connection and because we shouldn't encourage deliberate dcs. It's tough luck yes, but it makes more sense... the fewer subjective opinions we can involve the better.
Who says he doesn't have a stable connection? Just because he dcs it doesn't mean he has an unstable connection. Let's say this happened @ an offline event, would it still be his fault for having an unstable connection? What if someone would use some kind of hack to somehow dc the winning player? How would a rematch be fair, please explain.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR?
"Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame.
Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell?
In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true.
And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s
On March 20 2011 08:52 VuFFeR wrote: He does get punished because on some level it's his responsibility to have a stable connection and because we shouldn't encourage deliberate dcs. It's tough luck yes, but it makes more sense... the fewer subjective opinions we can involve the better.
That doesn't make sense. DC is out of his control. To kill someone based on a coin flip is also absolutely objective but it's still unfair. Subjectivity doesn't always equal bad, and objectivity is definitely not always good. This way is better and smarter.
This is the most biased decision I have every seen. Teamliquid should be ashamed of themselves.
Also, look at the panel. Morrow who wouldn't want to play again Nigthend because he would have got beat by him. Morrow got owned last time by Nightends pheonix colloses build.
Liquid Nazgul is biased. Also, Morrow is biased. I bet the teamliquid people running this told them to pick Boxer. Because, with Boxer you can say hey Boxer is playing in my competition. From the intro it was obvious that they was biased for Boxer. As they started saying how they always wanted Boxer to play in this and how it's so great Boxer is in this.
Can't believe this. The games should have been remade, instead of this biased crap of giving Boxer the game. I suppose teamliquid is happy because Boxer is put through, but what crap is this?
In summary; . The game should have been remade. . Morrow and Teamliquid staff was biased. Especially Morrow as he would lose to Nightend. . They gave Boxer the win not because he won, but because he is Boxer.
Completely agreed with the decision and I'm very happy you have such a thought out process in place for handling these issues when they do unfortunately arise.
I did have a little question about how you relayed this info to Gisado for the Korean cast, did he get informed beforehand or did he have to have someone update him as it was happening? (Just wondering out of logistical interest here).
It's actually really interesting to read these opinions and the rules created by TL. As a law student, these proceedings are very similar to the cases I read everyday. Even the dissent adds to the flavor, but like all legal proceedings, whether you disagree with the judgment, we all live by it and must respect the court. It's not easy being a judge
That doesn't make sense. DC is out of his control. To kill someone based on a coin flip is also absolutely objective but it's still unfair. Subjectivity doesn't always equal bad, and objectivity is definitely not always good. This way is better and smarter.
To make a decision based on a coin flip is arbitrary by definition, not objective. True objectivity rarely exists, but the more subjective decisions you include, the closer you get to an objective one.
On March 20 2011 08:57 simples wrote: This is the most biased decision I have every seen. Teamliquid should be ashamed of themselves.
Also, look at the panel. Morrow who wouldn't want to play again Nigthend because he would have got beat by him. Morrow got owned last time by Nightends pheonix colloses build.
Liquid Nazgul is biased. Also, Morrow is biased. I bet the teamliquid people running this told them to pick Boxer. Because, with Boxer you can say hey Boxer is playing in my competition.
Can't believe this. The games should have been remade, instead of this biased crap of giving Boxer the game. I suppose teamliquid is happy because Boxer is put through, but what crap is this?
In summary; . The game should have been remade. . Morrow and Teamliquid staff was biased. Especially Morrow as he would lose to Nightend. . They gave Boxer the win not because he won, but because he is Boxer.
On March 20 2011 08:34 Hot_Bid wrote: I'd just like to say that we agree with you that the players who are on the panel shouldn't be in the tournament. However, we have to balance this with availability. We have a Korean at 11:30 pm already waiting for a decision that was going for 90 minutes, and we have no way to really ask or access a large pool of top players who would be willing to comment on this.
Not every pro is willing to have their name out there and write a lot justifying his opinion when he can be subject to scrutiny. Add to that the time sensitive nature (they have to do it RIGHT NOW immediately) and it's not as easy as you think. Thankfully, some players stepped up to do it even though they really have nothing to gain from opening themselves up to criticism, so we really want to thank Morrow MC and Naz for doing this.
I just wanted to say that it is not as easy as you make it out to find a super top player at the exact time of the disconnect to drop everything and write something articulate in English and be willing to have his opinion scrutinized publicly and bear the responsibility of a decision like this. I think it's very hard to find people willing to do that. We don't have all these players on stand by. In a perfect world we'd have 5 top players just sitting around waiting for discs, but there are practical considerations.
Thank you so much for responding. I understand the concerns of availability, speed, and transparency in addition to reducing bias and conflict of interest. My whole point through all of this was to introduce the additional concerns of bias/conflict of interest, which were not mentioned in the OP as something to learn from. This simple acknowledgement of the panel selection process and the factors involved, with a simply stated intention to not choose players involved in the tournament in the future is all I was looking for, so thank you. I have great faith in you guys that you're doing the best you can, and I don't want to take away anything from how amazing the TSL is.
That said, a suggestion for the future then would be to have a large pool of potential judges from which to pick, hopefully contacted beforehand. I know it's annoying to have to have referees on hand, but I think there is too much at stake here to scrap together a judging panel last minute. While I feel this decision was fair, it's obvious from this thread that there are many who are very upset with the decision. Accusations of bias are always difficult to respond to, but even more so when the judges are involved in the tournament themselves.
Lastly, a minor point -- they don't even necessarily have to write out their opinion in english either should you have a translator on hand, nor in my opinion does the "full transparency analysis" need to come before the decision is made -- I'm not sure if you're suggesting that it did. Regardless, the public transparency can be rendered after the fact, this will help save time. 90 minutes is a long time.
On March 20 2011 08:57 simples wrote: This is the most biased decision I have every seen. Teamliquid should be ashamed of themselves.
Also, look at the panel. Morrow who wouldn't want to play again Nigthend because he would have got beat by him. Morrow got owned last time by Nightends pheonix colloses build.
Liquid Nazgul is biased. Also, Morrow is biased. I bet the teamliquid people running this told them to pick Boxer. Because, with Boxer you can say hey Boxer is playing in my competition.
Can't believe this. The games should have been remade, instead of this biased crap of giving Boxer the game. I suppose teamliquid is happy because Boxer is put through, but what crap is this?
In summary; . The game should have been remade. . Morrow and Teamliquid staff was biased. Especially Morrow as he would lose to Nightend. . They gave Boxer the win not because he won, but because he is Boxer.
Which part of the panels' various reasons do you disagree with? I'm curious.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
What if NightEnd only had a probe left and no resources left vs Boxer's army before the disconnect? Would you agree with the decision to give the win to Boxer then, even if it's still physically possible for that probe to kill everything? Because if you do, then suddenly you have to agree that there exists some range of situations where some judgments have to be made. What that range is, that is up for discussion.
On March 20 2011 08:57 simples wrote: This is the most biased decision I have every seen. Teamliquid should be ashamed of themselves.
Also, look at the panel. Morrow who wouldn't want to play again Nigthend because he would have got beat by him. Morrow got owned last time by Nightends pheonix colloses build.
Liquid Nazgul is biased. Also, Morrow is biased. I bet the teamliquid people running this told them to pick Boxer. Because, with Boxer you can say hey Boxer is playing in my competition.
Can't believe this. The games should have been remade, instead of this biased crap of giving Boxer the game. I suppose teamliquid is happy because Boxer is put through, but what crap is this?
In summary; . The game should have been remade. . Morrow and Teamliquid staff was biased. Especially Morrow as he would lose to Nightend. . They gave Boxer the win not because he won, but because he is Boxer.
Which part of the panels' various reasons do you disagree with? I'm curious.
The video that demonstrated the terran army vs the protoss army had the values changed in terran's favour, this is so obvious.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
What if NightEnd only had a probe left and no resources left vs Boxer's army before the disconnect? Would you agree with the decision to give the win to Boxer then, even if it's still physically possible for that probe to kill everything? Because if you do, then suddenly you have to agree that there exists some range of situations where some judgments have to be made. What that range is, that is up for discussion.
That doesn't make sense. DC is out of his control. To kill someone based on a coin flip is also absolutely objective but it's still unfair. Subjectivity doesn't always equal bad, and objectivity is definitely not always good. This way is better and smarter.
To make a decision based on a coin flip is arbitrary by definition, not objective. True objectivity rarely exists, but the more subjective decisions you include, the closer you get to an objective one.
Giving someone a loss/regame just for DCing is just as arbitrary. Anyway! I'm done arguing, I forgot this thread was created to be fly paper to attract teenagers hell bent on arguing for no reason. <3 TL! PEACE!
On March 20 2011 08:57 simples wrote: This is the most biased decision I have every seen. Teamliquid should be ashamed of themselves.
Also, look at the panel. Morrow who wouldn't want to play again Nigthend because he would have got beat by him. Morrow got owned last time by Nightends pheonix colloses build.
Liquid Nazgul is biased. Also, Morrow is biased. I bet the teamliquid people running this told them to pick Boxer. Because, with Boxer you can say hey Boxer is playing in my competition.
Can't believe this. The games should have been remade, instead of this biased crap of giving Boxer the game. I suppose teamliquid is happy because Boxer is put through, but what crap is this?
In summary; . The game should have been remade. . Morrow and Teamliquid staff was biased. Especially Morrow as he would lose to Nightend. . They gave Boxer the win not because he won, but because he is Boxer.
Which part of the panels' various reasons do you disagree with? I'm curious.
Everything.
I'm probably gonna get banned soon from teamliquid. As yeah, the truth hurts. But, everything. I'm writing it up now. Sadly, I doubt they will release the replay for this.
User was banned for this post. Mod note: he was not banned for his opinion even though he very clearly didn't read the thread opening (we released the replay). He's being banned because we have an auto-ban on anyone that martyrs, or states that TL will ban them in the future for whatever reason.
This is to prevent users from passive aggressively criticize moderation through "I'm going to be banned" disclaimers in every post. If you want to criticize moderation, feel free to make a thread in the Website Feedback Forum.
On March 20 2011 08:57 simples wrote: This is the most biased decision I have every seen. Teamliquid should be ashamed of themselves.
Also, look at the panel. Morrow who wouldn't want to play again Nigthend because he would have got beat by him. Morrow got owned last time by Nightends pheonix colloses build.
Liquid Nazgul is biased. Also, Morrow is biased. I bet the teamliquid people running this told them to pick Boxer. Because, with Boxer you can say hey Boxer is playing in my competition.
Can't believe this. The games should have been remade, instead of this biased crap of giving Boxer the game. I suppose teamliquid is happy because Boxer is put through, but what crap is this?
In summary; . The game should have been remade. . Morrow and Teamliquid staff was biased. Especially Morrow as he would lose to Nightend. . They gave Boxer the win not because he won, but because he is Boxer.
Which part of the panels' various reasons do you disagree with? I'm curious.
Everything.
I'm probably gonna get banned soon from teamliquid. As yeah, the truth hurts. But, everything. I'm writing it up now. Sadly, I doubt they will release the replay for this.
Can I just chip in that I applaud TL's decision to publish this so clearly and openly. My hat is off to you!
Whatever people's feelings are, at least they have all the facts to draw conclusions off of.
p.s. and as a Protoss player who loves underdogs, I was rooting for NightEnd, but I had also decided the game was over - so I feel no injustice. If he'd had storm or even charge I would have been less sure.
On March 20 2011 08:09 VuFFeR wrote: [quote] Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR?
"Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame.
Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell?
In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true.
And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s
Totally agree.
To VuFFeR:
Are you in the camp of, as long as someone disconnects, the game should be replayed - no matter what the circumstances are? Or, are you just arbitrarily drawing the line at a certain % that the losing player could come back? Because, if you are arbitrarily drawing the line somewhere, your position is meaningless. Consider Hot_Bid's scenario - what is the possibility of the player winning with only the pylon left? Extremely close to not existing, but there is still a probability, right? The player with the entire army could suicide every single unit and building under his control. So logically speaking, what's the difference between a 0.0000000001% to lose and BoxeR's chance to lose in this instance? None, because there is overwhelming evidence that BoxeR would have won that game - given his skill level. Sure, it might be the 0.1% chance that he might lose instead of the impossibility, but the point is, the 0.1% chance in THIS case = impossibility.
On March 20 2011 08:09 VuFFeR wrote: [quote] Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR?
"Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame.
Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell?
In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true.
And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s
EDIT: I only just realised you have 12 posts total >_< Nvm, then. Enjoy you ban.
You cant have 100% certainty to win in sc2 only in "very few" scenarios (im sure there would be a way to work around that) besides i doubt any pro gamer with a sponsor would ever do that, it wouldn't exactly be good publicity. That he had won the game (100%) certain was an opinion, not a fact. If you refuse to comprehend that, then there is no point in discussing this.
Ps. Why should i get banned for giving my opinion? That's what the forum is here for now isn't it?
EDIT: @JackDino: there is no point in argueing about what would happen in an offline tournament. Simply because this isn't. @how2TL: I think you are right to some extend. But it should be narrowed down a lot. So we dont have to involve judges unless it's extremely neccessary. Ofc. there are situations where it would be neccessary. I just dont feel like this was even close to it.
To be fair, even if Nightend was 90% of winning it. They probably have given it to Boxer. As Boxer is where you get the big audience and big money from poker strategy.
Like if Boxer was in the finals, they would get a lot of audience from BW and SC2 fans. But, if Nightend was in the final, they would get less.
So teamliquid was never going to do the correct thing and redo the match.
On March 20 2011 09:08 simples wrote: To be fair, even if Nightend was 90% of winning it. They probably have given it to Boxer. As Boxer is where you get the big audience and big money from poker strategy.
Like if Boxer was in the finals, they would get a lot of audience from BW and SC2 fans. But, if Nightend was in the final, they would get less.
So teamliquid was never going to do the correct thing and redo the match.
On March 20 2011 09:08 simples wrote: To be fair, even if Nightend was 90% of winning it. They probably have given it to Boxer. As Boxer is where you get the big audience and big money from poker strategy.
Like if Boxer was in the finals, they would get a lot of audience from BW and SC2 fans. But, if Nightend was in the final, they would get less.
So teamliquid was never going to do the correct thing and redo the match.
That post if full of ignorance. Give the TL staff credit, they handled this in a very good way and with complete transparency.
On March 20 2011 09:07 thragar wrote: Since Tyler and Cloud formed opinions, is there any chance we can see them? In particular, I would like to see why Cloud thought it would be a regame.
Cloud didn't think it was regame. That was just an illustrative example. They didn't say what tyler and cloud actually thought.
On March 20 2011 09:08 simples wrote: To be fair, even if Nightend was 90% of winning it. They probably have given it to Boxer. As Boxer is where you get the big audience and big money from poker strategy.
Like if Boxer was in the finals, they would get a lot of audience from BW and SC2 fans. But, if Nightend was in the final, they would get less.
So teamliquid was never going to do the correct thing and redo the match.
That post if full of ignorance. Give the TL staff credit, they handled this in a very good way and with complete transparency.
And to further give the TL staff credit it took them only 5 minutes to find this retard and ban him.
On March 20 2011 08:11 JackDino wrote: [quote] They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR?
"Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame.
Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell?
In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true.
And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s
EDIT: I only just realised you have 12 posts total >_< Nvm, then. Enjoy you ban.
You cant have 100% certainty to win in sc2 only in "very few" scenarios (im sure there would be a way to work around that) besides i doubt any pro gamer with a sponsor would ever do that, it wouldn't exactly be good publicity. That he had won the game (100%) certain was an opinion, not a fact. If you refuse to comprehend that, then there is no point in discussing this.
Ps. Why should i get banned for giving my opinion? That's what the forum is here for now isn't it?
EDIT: @JackDino: there is no point in argueing about what would happen in an offline tournament. Simply because this isn't.
Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong.
On March 20 2011 09:08 simples wrote: To be fair, even if Nightend was 90% of winning it. They probably have given it to Boxer. As Boxer is where you get the big audience and big money from poker strategy.
Like if Boxer was in the finals, they would get a lot of audience from BW and SC2 fans. But, if Nightend was in the final, they would get less.
So teamliquid was never going to do the correct thing and redo the match.
It really annoys me that even though TL tried really hard to make their decision making process transparent and came to what in my opinion was the right decision, there are so many annoying people like you who repeatedly question their integrity for no good reason. The fact that they got Boxer to accept their invitation is already a big coup, and yes maybe having him in more games would secure them more audience and thus sponsorship money but I really doubt they would compromise on their integrity just for that. There are far more comprehensive ways to rig the system e.t.c if all they were after is sponsorship money.
Furthermore, you blindly criticise them without making any clear suggestions about what they should've done a why your solution is so much better. I assume you want a regame? If so explain why that system is so much better than the comprehensive and fairly impartial system they've come up with?
edit: ah nevermind I noticed you get banned and can't reply. :D
Amazingly well handled. The write ups and video explanations of the panels logic makes it abundantly clear that this was a good choice. Sure, people will bitch, but the fact is, it was the right call.
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." This operates from the mindset that a player will make all the mistakes in the world that can be expected from a professional level player. So missing EMPs and other micro mistakes can definitely happen but right clicking units and not touching them for five minutes can't. It is important to keep in mind that our standard is NOT that the game must be mathematically over 100%.
This brings in a gray area, in which the judges must clearly define why at a "professional" level, the lead would be insurmountable (What level of micro/macro can you expect, how they react to possibly coming oout on the losing side of a 200 vs 200 fight and rebuilding before too much damage has occured, etc). I thought Nazgul and Morrow (Nazgul especially with the simulation really showed that the 3rd had no way of surviving) did a rather good job at that (Morrow had a lot to say, but most of it was "I would pull back as terran..." which then leads into having to explain more steps on how the base advantage, army comps, upgrades etc would be too much, but there have been several instances of Toss death balls and pros taking bad positions with MMM that it can get somewhat complicated). MCs answer I felt was slightly lacking but considering he is the best Toss in the world, you kind of have to take his word for it
Either way, I think it was good of TSL to be completely open about this, and my only complaints were already addressed (Players as judges, only 3 not 5).
first i thought "wtf, you win 90% and simply leave, you get the win", but this explanation and the fact, that someone like boxer would never do such thing lets me think that Boxers win was deserved.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost.
+ It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected.
Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me.
They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment.
First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
What if NightEnd only had a probe left and no resources left vs Boxer's army before the disconnect? Would you agree with the decision to give the win to Boxer then, even if it's still physically possible for that probe to kill everything? Because if you do, then suddenly you have to agree that there exists some range of situations where some judgments have to be made. What that range is, that is up for discussion.
On March 20 2011 08:23 VuFFeR wrote: [quote] First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead.
So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR?
"Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame.
Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell?
In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true.
And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s
EDIT: I only just realised you have 12 posts total >_< Nvm, then. Enjoy you ban.
You cant have 100% certainty to win in sc2 only in "very few" scenarios (im sure there would be a way to work around that) besides i doubt any pro gamer with a sponsor would ever do that, it wouldn't exactly be good publicity. That he had won the game (100%) certain was an opinion, not a fact. If you refuse to comprehend that, then there is no point in discussing this.
Ps. Why should i get banned for giving my opinion? That's what the forum is here for now isn't it?
EDIT: @JackDino: there is no point in argueing about what would happen in an offline tournament. Simply because this isn't.
Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong.
No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that.
On March 20 2011 08:57 simples wrote: This is the most biased decision I have every seen. Teamliquid should be ashamed of themselves.
Also, look at the panel. Morrow who wouldn't want to play again Nigthend because he would have got beat by him. Morrow got owned last time by Nightends pheonix colloses build.
Liquid Nazgul is biased. Also, Morrow is biased. I bet the teamliquid people running this told them to pick Boxer. Because, with Boxer you can say hey Boxer is playing in my competition.
Can't believe this. The games should have been remade, instead of this biased crap of giving Boxer the game. I suppose teamliquid is happy because Boxer is put through, but what crap is this?
In summary; . The game should have been remade. . Morrow and Teamliquid staff was biased. Especially Morrow as he would lose to Nightend. . They gave Boxer the win not because he won, but because he is Boxer.
Which part of the panels' various reasons do you disagree with? I'm curious.
Everything.
I'm probably gonna get banned soon from teamliquid. As yeah, the truth hurts. But, everything. I'm writing it up now. Sadly, I doubt they will release the replay for this.
User was banned for this post.
Just to let you know... saying something that clearly deserves a ban and then predicting you'll get banned doesn't add to your argument...
TL's decision is correct. Nightend's situation was not salvageable. My only complaint has been repeated many times in this topic: the choices for panel. Ideally, the panel should not be players in the tournament. In fact, they should not be associated with either the two players at all, but that's not a feasible demand. In any case, even if I didn't watch the game I would still support the decision since the people on the panel have shown integrity throughout the years.
On March 20 2011 09:07 thragar wrote: Since Tyler and Cloud formed opinions, is there any chance we can see them? In particular, I would like to see why Cloud thought it would be a regame.
Cloud didn't think it was regame. That was just an illustrative example. They didn't say what tyler and cloud actually thought.
Then why do they post it for the sake of transparancy?
I am quite curious why ClouD thought it was a regame because the game was clearly over (see Nazgul's sim).
So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR?
"Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame.
Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell?
In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true.
And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s
EDIT: I only just realised you have 12 posts total >_< Nvm, then. Enjoy you ban.
You cant have 100% certainty to win in sc2 only in "very few" scenarios (im sure there would be a way to work around that) besides i doubt any pro gamer with a sponsor would ever do that, it wouldn't exactly be good publicity. That he had won the game (100%) certain was an opinion, not a fact. If you refuse to comprehend that, then there is no point in discussing this.
Ps. Why should i get banned for giving my opinion? That's what the forum is here for now isn't it?
EDIT: @JackDino: there is no point in argueing about what would happen in an offline tournament. Simply because this isn't.
Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong.
No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that.
Exactly the same thing could've happened at an offline tournament. The only problem here is you thinking people dc on purpose, which is why there is a panel. If you would actually read the OP properly(You really haven't done that), you would know that dcing when you're winning wouldn't give you a win. You want as little people as possible to judge yet you want to judge when to and when not to judge. The people in the panel are professionals, if a single 1 of them would've said nightend could've won they would've rematched, a single one. If you would understand when people can and can't win you might make it up there. Life isn't fair, better get used to it.
On another note, according to you winner dcs=rematch, loser dcs=loss. Who would decide it's an actual loss?
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." This operates from the mindset that a player will make all the mistakes in the world that can be expected from a professional level player. So missing EMPs and other micro mistakes can definitely happen but right clicking units and not touching them for five minutes can't. It is important to keep in mind that our standard is NOT that the game must be mathematically over 100%.
This brings in a gray area, in which the judges must clearly define why at a "professional" level, the lead would be insurmountable (What level of micro/macro can you expect, how they react to possibly coming oout on the losing side of a 200 vs 200 fight and rebuilding before too much damage has occured, etc). I thought Nazgul and Morrow (Nazgul especially with the simulation really showed that the 3rd had no way of surviving) did a rather good job at that (Morrow had a lot to say, but most of it was "I would pull back as terran..." which then leads into having to explain more steps on how the base advantage, army comps, upgrades etc would be too much, but there have been several instances of Toss death balls and pros taking bad positions with MMM that it can get somewhat complicated). MCs answer I felt was slightly lacking but considering he is the best Toss in the world, you kind of have to take his word for it
Either way, I think it was good of TSL to be completely open about this, and my only complaints were already addressed (Players as judges, only 3 not 5).
Look at this from another perspective: what other standard can TSL use to judge "professional level?" If they use mathematical probability, we have already demonstrated the impossibility that such a standard would be fair throughout this thread (various scenarios have been explained in depth). So without that, what other standard is there? I feel like the assumption that BoxeR wouldn't suddenly go afk for no reason or play like a bronze-league noob is perfectly fine. In other words, whatever % chance BoxeR had for losing this game = impossibility.
If you collapse this decision process into it's simplest form, there are really only two questions to consider:
1.) Is it fair to make Boxer play another match and possibly lose, when it was clear he had a large advantage at the point of disconnect?
2.) Is it fair to NightEnd to not have the opportunity to make an amazing comeback and win?
It is difficult to determine whether or not there was actually any chance of NightEnd winning the game. The panel members may have felt that there was no way for him to win using their knowledge of current professional play skill and game mechanics. This is to say they were unaware of how NightEnd could have recovered from his position. This does not prove that there was absolutely no way a comeback could have happened.
The other important thing to consider is the impact which the decision has on the players. Does the knowledge of the winning player's strategy affect the results of the next game? Does the possibility of cheating enter NightEnd's mind? How would Boxer have reacted if he was forced to re-game, then narrowly lost the series 2-1, after having expended his strategy and energy on a game which ultimately did not count? If a player prepares only three strategies, one for each match against each opponent, how might he be affected?
I respect the fact that both players deferred judgement to the panel, this shows their respect for the administrative process and faith in the community to make a fair decision. Ultimately, I would have liked Boxer to graciously offer to play another game, partly out of respect for his opponent, and partly out of confidence in his ability to win.
Overall, I feel that the entire incident was handled in an extremely professional and transparent manner, and for that the TSL staff deserves a lot of credit. Please continue to provide the quality entertainment which we have all come to expect.
They counted every number, but one of the key valus of a good player is the decision making and i think this wasn't taken into account. both players have no doubt great dm, but you cant get this number quantified, so the ruling cant be 100% sure as stated in the tournament rule.
from a player perspective, i would neither lose or win by dc, i will win/lose by a gaming ending decision of either me or the opponent (read: type "gg" and F10+n).
anyway the decision is final, but pls TL admin consider in this situation a regame next time and not a tournament player judgment (they cant make there free unbiased decision on this case imho, although they've written great essays).
Btw thank you teamliquid for releasing the replay. I just watched it, and the position protoss was in is definitely grim. I totally agree with what all members of the panel wrote down.
No templars. No blink. No charge. No upgrades. No phoenix energy. No colossus (95%). 15 stalkers - 1 zealot.
That was the situation Protoss was in a few seconds before Terran dropped. Put any of the first 4 points into a yes, and then the ruling would probably be a lot harder. The two ghosts had 3 emps in total, rendering the phoenixes useless. Toss would naturally spend gas on one more colossus and phoenix and use everything else on zealots. Making it to a potential total of ~14 phoenixes ~2colossus ~9 zealots ~15 stalkers. Any gas spend on anything else, be it +1 armor, sentries, a templar archive or twilight council upgrades would have reduced everything but the zealot count.
Now let's take into factor that Terran attacks and then runs away, he could potentially loose all his air units, he can't be chased by the stalkers because of no blink and every attack with the phoenixes on Boxers air units would result in another emp. So still lets say Terran looses 4 marauders and all his air units. Then he would be at the time the 2 colossus comes out at ~33 Maurauders, ~13 marines, ~4vikings, ~2 ghosts with upgrades at 2-1 and a new expansion. And note that boxer already spend that money by queing up units before he dropped out, that means all the money that flows in can be spend on something else.
But we can of course say let's look at what happens when Terran attacks? We see in Nazgul's simulation that the fight lasts ~20 seconds. After 10 seconds plus the 5 seconds to finish the warp in protoss would have been able to warp in 9 zealots. At that time the stalkers are already reduced to about 3 and 27 probes died. And that would be the worst situation for protoss.
Every protoss knows that loosing your colossus army without anything else going for you means you cant stop terran from doing what he wants. I agree with the decision but again would have strongly routed in favour of a rematch if toss had any upgrades, templars or 3+ colossus.
Maybe next time use some players that don't have a conflict of interest? Players that are not in the tournament? No team mates?
Otherwise very professional.
edit: Now that I think of it, I assume they can veto the players in that are in the tournament and opponents team mates, so you'll have to get other players opinion.
edit2:
For sake of discussion and transparency we will say that Tyler thought it was over and Cloud thought it was a re-game.
I think you should re-word this, it isn't clear enough that those are NOT Tyler's and Cloud's opinions. (if I understand correctly)
On March 20 2011 09:29 vebis wrote: They counted every number, but one of the key valus of a good player is the decision making and i think this wasn't taken into account. both players have no doubt great dm, but you cant get this number quantified, so the ruling cant be 100% sure as stated in the tournament rule.
from a player perspective, i would neither lose or win by dc, i will win/lose by a gaming ending decision of either me or the opponent (read: type "gg" and F10+n).
anyway the decision is final, but pls TL admin consider in this situation a regame next time and not a tournament player judgment (they cant make there free unbiased decision on this case imho, although they've written great essays).
I think it's pretty clear that what the ruling means by "absolutely won" is that decision-making is no longer a relevant factor in the outcome.
It sucks that a DC happened, but I think it was handled as well as humanly possible. Posting the judges opinions was a nice touch and I have to say I agree.
On March 20 2011 08:34 VuFFeR wrote: [quote] Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame.
Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell?
In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true.
And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s
EDIT: I only just realised you have 12 posts total >_< Nvm, then. Enjoy you ban.
You cant have 100% certainty to win in sc2 only in "very few" scenarios (im sure there would be a way to work around that) besides i doubt any pro gamer with a sponsor would ever do that, it wouldn't exactly be good publicity. That he had won the game (100%) certain was an opinion, not a fact. If you refuse to comprehend that, then there is no point in discussing this.
Ps. Why should i get banned for giving my opinion? That's what the forum is here for now isn't it?
EDIT: @JackDino: there is no point in argueing about what would happen in an offline tournament. Simply because this isn't.
Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong.
No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that.
Exactly the same thing could've happened at an offline tournament. The only problem here is you thinking people dc on purpose, which is why there is a panel. If you would actually read the OP properly(You really haven't done that), you would know that dcing when you're winning wouldn't give you a win. You want as little people as possible to judge yet you want to judge when to and when not to judge. The people in the panel are professionals, if a single 1 of them would've said nightend could've won they would've rematched, a single one. If you would understand when people can and can't win you might make it up there. Life isn't fair, better get used to it.
I have read the OP. Cheap shots aren't gonna get you anywhere. God i hate arguing with people who aren't interested in understanding eachother. There is no "winning" in this arguement if that's what you are looking for. We just have two way of seeing things.
That being said. BoxeR could (if he had known about this rule) have dc'ed deliberately to avoid that 1% chance of losing - even with the panel. You gotta take these things into account. Even if they are only hypothetical. Being a pro sc2 gamers doesn't neccesarily make you good at taking these kinds of decisions. They "can" be biased. I'd much rather watch BoxeR than NightEnd myself - if i were given the choice to let BoxeR go through... hell i would do it. Mainly because i'm such an irrational bastard. ^_^ - anyways ... only wasting time on this debate. I've made my point clear and so have you. I just hope that TL reevaluate the rules.
I have just scanned through all the comments so sorry if making points that people have already made.
First of all I just want to say that I feel sorry for TeamLiquid as it's very unfortunate when these kind of things happens. You have put on such a great show already and it's just pity that this, I guess, takes most of the attention for today.
I think the TSL-organization handle it in a very good way, no one can think that you took it lightly and you have for sure put in a lot of effort into this decision.
I would like to give some comments from my perspective. If this event would have been played live then I doubt that the outcome of the decision would have been the same, a replay would have been an easier decision. It's just very fortunate that the TSL-crew could prepare this much and really look into it.
Some of my criticism is also mentioned in the statement is that it was very very unfortunate that the vetoes of the panel members weren't done before hand. If Cloud hadn't been vetoed away then I assume a replay would have occurred as the panel wouldn't have been unanimous.
The panel will view the replay and decide whether one player had the game absolutely won. The decision by the approved panel members must be unanimous. This means if the panel does not award the disconnecting player a win, then 1, 2, 3, 4, or all 5 did not believe the disconnecting player had an "absolute advantage."
I also want to highlight what has been mention before that there is no question that SlayerS_BoxeR was in a big lead, but was it a 100% guaranteed win? Even in Nazguls and Morrows statement it seem to lean more towards that it was more of a huge lead in opposite to an guaranteed win, while MC was sure that the game was over.
Also I must mention that I do understand Praetoriani and I couldn't find a better description then trying to fight Goliath. It's just very unfortunate as mention before. We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around.
Even if I might sound very negative towards the TSL-crew, I'm not. The only thing that I do worry a little about is how it will be handle if god forbids this kind of disconnect happens again. Let say that someone has a big lead and DC:s. Then of course this decision will be the praxis and then you will have some kind of discussion about how much more or less of an advantage did this player have compared to SlayerS_BoxeR. Of course the same problem would have occurred if it was called a replay. So I guess my only conclusion is that please make it possible to reconnect to a game, it should be a must in every E-sport game. It's doable in Counter-Strike but not in Quake Live for example. It is just a shame.
An a further note and more of a troll one so take it lightly. Would TeamLiquid have had the juice to make the decision if the situation would have been reversed? Saying that NightEnd got the win would of course have been a harder decision. I'm not questioning TeamLiquid in any way just a though that came to my mind.
Off topic: I'm so excited for tomorrows games and so happy for ThorZaINs success!
On March 20 2011 09:28 Qaatar wrote: Look at this from another perspective: what other standard can TSL use to judge "professional level?" If they use mathematical probability, we have already demonstrated the impossibility that such a standard would be fair throughout this thread (various scenarios have been explained in depth). So without that, what other standard is there? I feel like the assumption that BoxeR wouldn't suddenly go afk for no reason or play like a bronze-league noob is perfectly fine. In other words, whatever % chance BoxeR had for losing this game = impossibility.
Oh yea, no I'm fine with it. Just saying that I think that in the judges explanations for future occurrences, they should make it a point to highlight what level of play they expect when they "simulate" the game to decide on a decision. This could help clear things up for people who feel that the decision was wrong (whether it was biased or not looked at closely enough by the judges etc).
On March 20 2011 08:36 JackDino wrote: [quote] Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame.
Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell?
In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true.
And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s
EDIT: I only just realised you have 12 posts total >_< Nvm, then. Enjoy you ban.
You cant have 100% certainty to win in sc2 only in "very few" scenarios (im sure there would be a way to work around that) besides i doubt any pro gamer with a sponsor would ever do that, it wouldn't exactly be good publicity. That he had won the game (100%) certain was an opinion, not a fact. If you refuse to comprehend that, then there is no point in discussing this.
Ps. Why should i get banned for giving my opinion? That's what the forum is here for now isn't it?
EDIT: @JackDino: there is no point in argueing about what would happen in an offline tournament. Simply because this isn't.
Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong.
No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that.
Exactly the same thing could've happened at an offline tournament. The only problem here is you thinking people dc on purpose, which is why there is a panel. If you would actually read the OP properly(You really haven't done that), you would know that dcing when you're winning wouldn't give you a win. You want as little people as possible to judge yet you want to judge when to and when not to judge. The people in the panel are professionals, if a single 1 of them would've said nightend could've won they would've rematched, a single one. If you would understand when people can and can't win you might make it up there. Life isn't fair, better get used to it.
I have read the OP. Cheap shots aren't gonna get you anywhere. God i hate arguing with people who aren't interested in understanding eachother. There is no "winning" in this arguement if that's what you are looking for. We just have two way of seeing things.
That being said. BoxeR could (if he had known about this rule) have dc'ed deliberately to avoid that 1% chance of losing - even with the panel. You gotta take these things into account. Even if they are only hypothetical. Being a pro sc2 gamers doesn't neccesarily make you good at taking these kinds of decisions. They "can" be biased. I'd much rather watch BoxeR than NightEnd myself - if i were given the choice to let BoxeR go through... hell i would do it. Mainly because i'm such an irrational bastard. ^_^ - anyways ... only wasting time on this debate. I've made my point clear and so have you. I just hope that TL reevaluate the rules.
Good night.
The reason it's impossible to understand you is because you keep contradicting yourself, using different standarts that are fine according to YOU yet saying OTHERS aren't allowed to decide those exact things.
I love that nobody told the commentators that this would happen. "Hi, i am DJ Wheat ... I am only the messenger!" (please don't blame me). Not as awesome as the MSL power outage, but with the DJWheat guest appearance definitely entertaining.
On March 20 2011 09:50 Ludwigvan wrote: I love that nobody told the commentators that this would happen. "Hi, i am DJ Wheat ... I am only the messenger!" (please don't blame me). Not as awesome as the MSL power outage, but with the DJWheat guest appearance definitely entertaining.
For me it was obvious that it was staged and that Day[9] and Chill knew about it. I could of course be wrong but that was very clear to me. =D
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame.
Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell?
In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true.
And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s
EDIT: I only just realised you have 12 posts total >_< Nvm, then. Enjoy you ban.
You cant have 100% certainty to win in sc2 only in "very few" scenarios (im sure there would be a way to work around that) besides i doubt any pro gamer with a sponsor would ever do that, it wouldn't exactly be good publicity. That he had won the game (100%) certain was an opinion, not a fact. If you refuse to comprehend that, then there is no point in discussing this.
Ps. Why should i get banned for giving my opinion? That's what the forum is here for now isn't it?
EDIT: @JackDino: there is no point in argueing about what would happen in an offline tournament. Simply because this isn't.
Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong.
No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that.
Exactly the same thing could've happened at an offline tournament. The only problem here is you thinking people dc on purpose, which is why there is a panel. If you would actually read the OP properly(You really haven't done that), you would know that dcing when you're winning wouldn't give you a win. You want as little people as possible to judge yet you want to judge when to and when not to judge. The people in the panel are professionals, if a single 1 of them would've said nightend could've won they would've rematched, a single one. If you would understand when people can and can't win you might make it up there. Life isn't fair, better get used to it.
I have read the OP. Cheap shots aren't gonna get you anywhere. God i hate arguing with people who aren't interested in understanding eachother. There is no "winning" in this arguement if that's what you are looking for. We just have two way of seeing things.
That being said. BoxeR could (if he had known about this rule) have dc'ed deliberately to avoid that 1% chance of losing - even with the panel. You gotta take these things into account. Even if they are only hypothetical. Being a pro sc2 gamers doesn't neccesarily make you good at taking these kinds of decisions. They "can" be biased. I'd much rather watch BoxeR than NightEnd myself - if i were given the choice to let BoxeR go through... hell i would do it. Mainly because i'm such an irrational bastard. ^_^ - anyways ... only wasting time on this debate. I've made my point clear and so have you. I just hope that TL reevaluate the rules.
Good night.
The reason it's impossible to understand you is because you keep contradicting yourself, using different standarts that are fine according to YOU yet saying OTHERS aren't allowed to decide those exact things.
I see, my point is simply too advanced for you Jokes aside. Tbh. the only thing there is to understand is that i want to minimize the use of judges to the absolute minimum. To be VERY specific. And in this situation i didn't see the need for one, because there still was a chance of NightEnd winning. I think this game still was to uncertain to judge on. I think it should be even more obvious who is gonna win, before you go away from a rematch. I'm talking like 20 marauders vs 1 probe and a nexus. To me that would be okay to judge in BoxeR's favor. This game was still too open. Eventho' a panel said otherwise. - I know my opinion isn't "mainstream", but that's really how I feel. I'm not trying to piss anybody off, but this would just make so much more sense in "my" head. - In and ideal world we wouldn't need judges, but we do. The least we can do is to try to minimize the use of them.
there were a few subtle things that make me certain boxer had won.
1) two turrets in the middle of the map to stop any sort of phoenix harassment after the upcoming battle
2) forge at 3rd base probably about to go down means no more upgrades for nightend who is already way behind in upgrades
3) nightend is gas starved. Almost every single comeback strategy requires a ton of gas he just wont have.
4) Boxer was scanning and looking at nightends army right before he disconnected. In all likelihood about to position his units appropriately, catch Nightend out of position and throw down 3 good EMPs.
I think the main thing is nightend being gas starved. A comeback requires options and with the low gas he has very few of them.
On March 20 2011 10:10 ReachTheSky wrote: I'm curious as to why one person automatically gets the win and why its not a re-game if there is a possibility of one player winning
1. Go back to page one. 2. Read original post 3. Watch replay
On March 20 2011 10:10 ReachTheSky wrote: I'm curious as to why one person automatically gets the win and why its not a re-game if there is a possibility of one player winning
I thought they already stated that in the OP. It's supposedly in order to prevent players from disconnecting with the intent of forcing a regame.
I think people are forgetting that it's based on reasonable doubt.
There has to be no reasonable chance for nightend to come back, and there wasn't.
Yes, if Boxer a-moved into Nightend's army, then accidentally targeted his own units, while making all his workers stop mining, he could have lost. But these aren't reasonable mistakes to make.
There was a CHANCE. There will always be a CHANCE. If Nightend only had a pylon there is always the CHANCE that boxer will kill all his own buildings, but it's not reasonable to believe it.
I see, my point is simply too advanced for you Jokes aside. Tbh. the only thing there is to understand is that i want to minimize the use of judges to the absolute minimum. To be VERY specific. And in this situation i didn't see the need for one, because there still was a chance of NightEnd winning. I think this game still was to uncertain to judge on. I think it should be even more obvious who is gonna win, before you go away from a rematch. I'm talking like 20 marauders vs 1 probe and a nexus. To me that would be okay to judge in BoxeR's favor. This game was still too open. Eventho' a panel said otherwise. - I know my opinion isn't "mainstream", but that's really how I feel. I'm not trying to piss anybody off, but this would just make so much more sense in "my" head. - In and ideal world we wouldn't need judges, but we do. The least we can do is to try to minimize the use of them.
EDIT: Typo
I understand your point, but then who judges when we don't need judges? what if it's 20 marauders vs 1 probe, a nexus and a zealot? what if it's 5 zealots? you say it needs to be VERY SPECIFIC. who defines what very specific is?
On March 20 2011 08:43 JackDino wrote: [quote] So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame.
Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell?
In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true.
And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s
EDIT: I only just realised you have 12 posts total >_< Nvm, then. Enjoy you ban.
You cant have 100% certainty to win in sc2 only in "very few" scenarios (im sure there would be a way to work around that) besides i doubt any pro gamer with a sponsor would ever do that, it wouldn't exactly be good publicity. That he had won the game (100%) certain was an opinion, not a fact. If you refuse to comprehend that, then there is no point in discussing this.
Ps. Why should i get banned for giving my opinion? That's what the forum is here for now isn't it?
EDIT: @JackDino: there is no point in argueing about what would happen in an offline tournament. Simply because this isn't.
Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong.
No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that.
Exactly the same thing could've happened at an offline tournament. The only problem here is you thinking people dc on purpose, which is why there is a panel. If you would actually read the OP properly(You really haven't done that), you would know that dcing when you're winning wouldn't give you a win. You want as little people as possible to judge yet you want to judge when to and when not to judge. The people in the panel are professionals, if a single 1 of them would've said nightend could've won they would've rematched, a single one. If you would understand when people can and can't win you might make it up there. Life isn't fair, better get used to it.
I have read the OP. Cheap shots aren't gonna get you anywhere. God i hate arguing with people who aren't interested in understanding eachother. There is no "winning" in this arguement if that's what you are looking for. We just have two way of seeing things.
That being said. BoxeR could (if he had known about this rule) have dc'ed deliberately to avoid that 1% chance of losing - even with the panel. You gotta take these things into account. Even if they are only hypothetical. Being a pro sc2 gamers doesn't neccesarily make you good at taking these kinds of decisions. They "can" be biased. I'd much rather watch BoxeR than NightEnd myself - if i were given the choice to let BoxeR go through... hell i would do it. Mainly because i'm such an irrational bastard. ^_^ - anyways ... only wasting time on this debate. I've made my point clear and so have you. I just hope that TL reevaluate the rules.
Good night.
The reason it's impossible to understand you is because you keep contradicting yourself, using different standarts that are fine according to YOU yet saying OTHERS aren't allowed to decide those exact things.
I see, my point is simply too advanced for you Jokes aside. Tbh. the only thing there is to understand is that i want to minimize the use of judges to the absolute minimum. To be VERY specific. And in this situation i didn't see the need for one, because there still was a chance of NightEnd winning. I think this game still was to uncertain to judge on. I think it should be even more obvious who is gonna win, before you go away from a rematch. I'm talking like 20 marauders vs 1 probe and a nexus. To me that would be okay to judge in BoxeR's favor. This game was still too open. Eventho' a panel said otherwise. - I know my opinion isn't "mainstream", but that's really how I feel. I'm not trying to piss anybody off, but this would just make so much more sense in "my" head. - In and ideal world we wouldn't need judges, but we do. The least we can do is to try to minimize the use of them.
EDIT: Typo
Yeah 20 marauders versus 1 probe and it's obvious who will win of course. And 20 maraduers versus 1 stalker and it's still obvious. Then 20 marauders versus 2 stalker. versus 10 stalkers. etc..
So you just need someone to come in and judge wether or not it's obvious who wins a certain game. Well guess what. That's exactly what happened!
The fact that you think you know better than Morrow, Nazgul and MC (yes, that is what you just said) really makes the mind boggle. They said boxer was obviously gonna win. You say he wasn't. Well sorry, if I take the double GSL champion's word over yours.
You are essentially proposing the exact thing that happened, you just haven't bothered to think it through and see what it would actually mean. You even admit this yourself in the latest post, even if you don't realise it yourself.
EDIT: You making jokes about people not understanding your posts, while you don't even understand what your own suggestion denotes = priceless
On March 20 2011 08:43 JackDino wrote: [quote] So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame.
Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell?
In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true.
And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s
EDIT: I only just realised you have 12 posts total >_< Nvm, then. Enjoy you ban.
You cant have 100% certainty to win in sc2 only in "very few" scenarios (im sure there would be a way to work around that) besides i doubt any pro gamer with a sponsor would ever do that, it wouldn't exactly be good publicity. That he had won the game (100%) certain was an opinion, not a fact. If you refuse to comprehend that, then there is no point in discussing this.
Ps. Why should i get banned for giving my opinion? That's what the forum is here for now isn't it?
EDIT: @JackDino: there is no point in argueing about what would happen in an offline tournament. Simply because this isn't.
Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong.
No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that.
Exactly the same thing could've happened at an offline tournament. The only problem here is you thinking people dc on purpose, which is why there is a panel. If you would actually read the OP properly(You really haven't done that), you would know that dcing when you're winning wouldn't give you a win. You want as little people as possible to judge yet you want to judge when to and when not to judge. The people in the panel are professionals, if a single 1 of them would've said nightend could've won they would've rematched, a single one. If you would understand when people can and can't win you might make it up there. Life isn't fair, better get used to it.
I have read the OP. Cheap shots aren't gonna get you anywhere. God i hate arguing with people who aren't interested in understanding eachother. There is no "winning" in this arguement if that's what you are looking for. We just have two way of seeing things.
That being said. BoxeR could (if he had known about this rule) have dc'ed deliberately to avoid that 1% chance of losing - even with the panel. You gotta take these things into account. Even if they are only hypothetical. Being a pro sc2 gamers doesn't neccesarily make you good at taking these kinds of decisions. They "can" be biased. I'd much rather watch BoxeR than NightEnd myself - if i were given the choice to let BoxeR go through... hell i would do it. Mainly because i'm such an irrational bastard. ^_^ - anyways ... only wasting time on this debate. I've made my point clear and so have you. I just hope that TL reevaluate the rules.
Good night.
The reason it's impossible to understand you is because you keep contradicting yourself, using different standarts that are fine according to YOU yet saying OTHERS aren't allowed to decide those exact things.
I see, my point is simply too advanced for you Jokes aside. Tbh. the only thing there is to understand is that i want to minimize the use of judges to the absolute minimum. To be VERY specific. And in this situation i didn't see the need for one, because there still was a chance of NightEnd winning. I think this game still was to uncertain to judge on. I think it should be even more obvious who is gonna win, before you go away from a rematch. I'm talking like 20 marauders vs 1 probe and a nexus. To me that would be okay to judge in BoxeR's favor. This game was still too open. Eventho' a panel said otherwise. - I know my opinion isn't "mainstream", but that's really how I feel. I'm not trying to piss anybody off, but this would just make so much more sense in "my" head. - In and ideal world we wouldn't need judges, but we do. The least we can do is to try to minimize the use of them.
EDIT: Typo
Your point isn't advanced at all, it's actually very simple. It's great that you want to minimize using judges, but that just is not the best solution. This is real life, where choices are not just black and white. This is why the whole civilized world uses judges. It is the best possible solution we have, TL used this solution. The only thing you can argue is that they didn't use the best possible judges, but with time constraints and both players agreeing to this, they used what they had.
You contradict yourself saying they should not rematch for disconnects that you yourself are judging to be 100% over. So why do you get to judge? You could actually say no game is 100% even one void ray vs a floating cc, if you want to be particular about it. Therefore you either have to claim every disconnect as a rematch or use outside judges to determine it.
I would say this is the best protocol possible for dealing with a dc. Im no expert but the players arguments were definitely compelling enough. Still would've been interesting to se clouds arguments.
Anyway, clutch star-sense by boxer... picking cloud that is
The point of argueing is to make eachother smarter. Now that being said, yeah i realize that i have changed my statements slightly, but the bottomline has been the same all along. Avoid subjective win/lose decisions at all costs. Now tbh. i can see it won't work to just play rematch no matter what, but in this specific case we still had two armies on the map. The fact that the panel had to write long posts about why and how boxer would have won, just proves that there was a chance of NightEnd winning. Else they wouldn't have had to go so much into details. Imagine them(the panel) doing the same thing if there was only a probe and a nexus left vs 20 marauders. They wouldn't now would they?
I have never stated that i know better than Morrow, Nazgul and MC... in fact i've done the exact opposite. I said I was an irrational bastard. I have no idea why you cant argue as an adult. Putting words in my mouth, threatning me with bans etc... not nice! T_T
I think the process is right but I don't agree with the judgement. I've watched thousands of replays and losing one battle doesn't always determine the outcome of the game. The p still had good eco and was reinforcing his cannoned expo. He would have been able to fend off boxer since he would be reinforcing from gateways close by where as boxer would have to send units across the map. The game ultimately would have been decided later on by something else. I think a replay of game 2 was the correct decision. My suggestion is to give the player with a disadvantage a little more benefit of the doubt.
On March 20 2011 10:41 VuFFeR wrote: The point of argueing is to make eachother smarter. Now that being said, yeah i realize that i have changed my statements slightly, but the bottomline has been the same all along. Avoid subjective win/lose decisions at all costs. Now tbh. i can see it won't work to just play rematch no matter what, but in this specific case we still had two armies on the map. The fact that the panel had to write long posts about why and how boxer would have won, just proves that there was a chance of NightEnd winning. Else they wouldn't have had to go so much into details. Imagine them(the panel) doing the same thing if there was only a probe and a nexus left vs 20 marauders. They wouldn't now would they?
I have never stated that i know better than Morrow, Nazgul and MC... in fact i've done the exact opposite. I said I was an irrational bastard. I have no idea why you cant argue as an adult. Putting words in my mouth, threatning me with bans etc... not nice! T_T
I find it funny that you admit that you're irrational in one sentence and ask us to argue like adults in the next.
Anyway, you still haven't answered who gets determines what a subjective win/loss situation is? What you're arguing for, and what other people have already pointed out, is that since you're no longer arguing for a rematch in all cases, in which case who decides when to rematch and when not to rematch? If you're going to say the people who are best qualified, that's exactly what TL have attempted to do in this case.
While watching the match I thought the decision was wrong, but I can't argue with the process and people who know a lot more than I do seem to think the match is over.
Congratulations on dealing with this issue in not only a fair, but also transparent way.
On March 20 2011 10:41 VuFFeR wrote: The point of argueing is to make eachother smarter. Now that being said, yeah i realize that i have changed my statements slightly, but the bottomline has been the same all along. Avoid subjective win/lose decisions at all costs. Now tbh. i can see it won't work to just play rematch no matter what, but in this specific case we still had two armies on the map. The fact that the panel had to write long posts about why and how boxer would have won, just proves that there was a chance of NightEnd winning. Else they wouldn't have had to go so much into details. Imagine them(the panel) doing the same thing if there was only a probe and a nexus left vs 20 marauders. They wouldn't now would they?
I have never stated that i know better than Morrow, Nazgul and MC... in fact i've done the exact opposite. I said I was an irrational bastard. I have no idea why you cant argue as an adult. Putting words in my mouth, threatning me with bans etc... not nice! T_T
I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Think of some physical sporting events and how they use judges. It might put this in better perspective. Sometimes it comes down to humans to make an opinion call, this happens all the time in the real world in all kinds of different sports. It's something that is inevitable. The rules were there before the event and they stood by them, if you can accept judges calling sports such as boxing, you should have no problem having matches being judged in SC2 where it's far more easier.
If only many companies, especially those that ran MMO's, had panels that had this much in-depth knowledge about their game, and this much confidence in their authority and ability to mediate disputes. Most of all, I am very impressed at the willingness to act decisively and with so much transparency.
Kudos TeamLiquid. You just gained a lot of respect from me.
Well with two "okayish" armies left on the map, i think it's unfair to call it a win for BoxeR. If i had just come to that conclusion right away, we had probably not been discussion now. But yeah, debating with my roomie made me realize a thing or two.
Cant you say you are an irrational bastard in an adult arguement? Im pretty sure you can.
On March 20 2011 10:41 VuFFeR wrote: The point of argueing is to make eachother smarter. Now that being said, yeah i realize that i have changed my statements slightly, but the bottomline has been the same all along. Avoid subjective win/lose decisions at all costs. Now tbh. i can see it won't work to just play rematch no matter what, but in this specific case we still had two armies on the map. The fact that the panel had to write long posts about why and how boxer would have won, just proves that there was a chance of NightEnd winning. Else they wouldn't have had to go so much into details. Imagine them(the panel) doing the same thing if there was only a probe and a nexus left vs 20 marauders. They wouldn't now would they?
I have never stated that i know better than Morrow, Nazgul and MC... in fact i've done the exact opposite. I said I was an irrational bastard. I have no idea why you cant argue as an adult. Putting words in my mouth, threatning me with bans etc... not nice! T_T
We get it; you want all results decided in game.. But how can you just ignore the 19min that happened and the clear advantage that BoxeR had. Personally i tipped Nightend in an upset, so the outcome doesn't make me happy but at the end of the day TL has taken the most professional and unbias approach to the situation.
Subjective decisions are never going to be the best method of determination but that is why there is a panel; your whole argument is based on an entire 19min game (which is a long game in SC2 standards) to be ignored, which is simply unacceptable.
We appreciate the way you have approached this TL and the ways that you have kept the community informed
On March 20 2011 10:41 VuFFeR wrote: The point of argueing is to make eachother smarter. Now that being said, yeah i realize that i have changed my statements slightly, but the bottomline has been the same all along. Avoid subjective win/lose decisions at all costs. Now tbh. i can see it won't work to just play rematch no matter what, but in this specific case we still had two armies on the map. The fact that the panel had to write long posts about why and how boxer would have won, just proves that there was a chance of NightEnd winning. Else they wouldn't have had to go so much into details. Imagine them(the panel) doing the same thing if there was only a probe and a nexus left vs 20 marauders. They wouldn't now would they?
I have never stated that i know better than Morrow, Nazgul and MC... in fact i've done the exact opposite. I said I was an irrational bastard. I have no idea why you cant argue as an adult. Putting words in my mouth, threatning me with bans etc... not nice! T_T
I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Think of some physical sporting events and how they use judges. It might put this in better perspective. Sometimes it comes down to humans to make an opinion call, this happens all the time in the real world in all kinds of different sports. It's something that is inevitable. The rules were there before the event and they stood by them, if you can accept judges calling sports such as boxing, you should have no problem having matches being judged in SC2 where it's far more easier.
Ye well i get your point. I just think it was a wrong call and hence a wrong use of judges that could and should have been avoided.
What i love about this thread is the best protoss in the world goes through it says 'no its just not winnable, boxer should be awarded the win GG'
but mr John Smith from Silver league, gold league, diamond or wherever they're from see's the games and goes 'NO! He's wrong. Nazguls evidence is wrong! Morrow is wrong! MC? He doesn't know shit about protoss!' can't help but laugh abit
And also loving the professionalism by TL, you're showing why you're the best community on the Internets. My hat is off to you sirs
Wow TL, once again I am impressed! Great work! This is exactly what people want; transparency. And you guys do everything so clearly, deeply, and simply professionally.
Your review system is also very good, props to you TeamLiquid!
Really good job at handling of this situation and reporting of the whole process with such detail to the community. This is what will make or break e-sports in the future - the level of professionalism in these high profile tournaments; in the in-game action, in these types of rulings and of course in the production as well.
Thank you for this, now let us get on with the tournament and see who will prevail!
Anyway, clutch star-sense by boxer... picking cloud that is
Haha yeah I wonder... may be it has to do something with the replays being sent out first? I read the post but am a bit confused as to why sending the replays to the players first before confirming "participation" has any different. Either way the players don't know their opinions, so it's fine right? Or was the problem that they veto'd 2 players and then didn't have time to find 2 more, rather than veto'ing earlier and then sending the replay to a confirmed 5-player panel?
Most of my points will be repetitive, so I'll mention what I think (skimmed all the pages, too much bickering to read everything carefully) is my only new suggestion first:
Has the TSL staff attempted or considered trying to arrange an emergency contact list of players deemed worthy of performing a review? I have no doubt that it would be potentially very difficult to find 5 quality people who are both willing and available to perform the review tasks at whatever hours this situation might occur. But there's no doubt that the SC2 player community helps each other out. Limiting the search to players logged into SC2 at the time or are personal contacts with the staff drastically reduces the number of qualified candidates.
I don't think it would be unreasonably difficult to contact and find 15-20 players ahead of time who would give their cell # for the staff list and make the time to help out if they're called. Even if you asked them for hours they're willing to be contacted, 15 people likely means 4-5 would be awake to take the call, despite the server time. Assuming 3-4 of those contacts come through, you already have the core of your review team. Then you can search the servers to fill out the remaining needed players.
As for tourney players in the review: Personally, I have no problem with TSL using other players from the tournament to form the review panel? Would/could it be better to have non-tourney players form the panel, assuming they are available? Sure, avoiding the opportunity for bias is a given that I think would be universally acknowledged. I think common sense dictates what can be reasonably expected; teammates shouldn't be allowed in a review panel, nor a player who would immediately benefit (matched up in the next round of bracket).
I include the next round player simply because the cost of two less potential reviewers is less than the risk of said player possibly picking a race match-up. Any other player in the tournament that could be matched up later on is fair game in my opinion. Why? The tournament is already stacked. Even if you wanted to be bias, what is the marginal gain of potentially having an impact on 1 out 6 potential opponents (being matched up two rounds later). I also have no problem with using any eliminated players, assuming the players weren't eliminated by a player involved in the disc controversy. It should also be mentioned that players in (or were in) the tournament might be preferable for performing a review as they would more likely know the specifics of the disconnect rules (or for any other controversy). Any outside player would also require time to familiarize themselves with the specifics for this tournament.
I'd also like to give my honest appreciation for the work and transparency with which TL does their business. As a federal employee of a ridiculous bureaucracy, transparency isn't even in the vocabulary. The TSL staff went miles beyond what is necessary in this situation. For an online videogame tournament, you guys do your work in a way that makes million dollar transactions seem childish. Volunteerism generally isn't done from being compelled, but rather the availability and desire to do so. I like to think that the reason TSL (and TL in general) does such a great job isn't because it's expected of them, but because they desire to be doing the most they can for their community.
On March 20 2011 10:41 VuFFeR wrote: The point of argueing is to make eachother smarter. Now that being said, yeah i realize that i have changed my statements slightly, but the bottomline has been the same all along. Avoid subjective win/lose decisions at all costs. Now tbh. i can see it won't work to just play rematch no matter what, but in this specific case we still had two armies on the map. The fact that the panel had to write long posts about why and how boxer would have won, just proves that there was a chance of NightEnd winning. Else they wouldn't have had to go so much into details. Imagine them(the panel) doing the same thing if there was only a probe and a nexus left vs 20 marauders. They wouldn't now would they?
How is the fact that the decisision was wellfounded a bad thing? They didn't have to explain why boxer was winning, but they decided to do so to avoid people with less insight to not understand their reasoning. Probably in the hope that it would eliminate a potential shitstorm on the forums, aswell as to keep the whole process as fair and tranparent as possible.
You still haven't explained when a player will be considered in a 100% winnable situation, without using judges qua my previous post.
On March 20 2011 10:41 VuFFeR wrote: I have never stated that i know better than Morrow, Nazgul and MC... in fact i've done the exact opposite. I said I was an irrational bastard. I have no idea why you cant argue as an adult. Putting words in my mouth, threatning me with bans etc... not nice! T_T
"This game was still too open. Eventho' a panel said otherwise." You claim to know the game was open even though Morrow, Nazgul and CM all judged otherwise. How is that not insinuating you know better than them?
I've presented my arguments reasonably and haven't put words in your mouth as you claim. You are the one doing the personal attacks, while evading the point of my previous post.
On March 20 2011 10:53 salvagebar wrote: If only many companies, especially those that ran MMO's, had panels that had this much in-depth knowledge about their game, and this much confidence in their authority and ability to mediate disputes. Most of all, I am very impressed at the willingness to act decisively and with so much transparency.
Kudos TeamLiquid. You just gained a lot of respect from me.
Thanks for typing this for me! I especially appreciate the full transparency of TL in all of this.
I want to complement TL Staff on this. I think I have never seen such a situation handled as well thought out, with as much common sense and as transparent. I did not watch the games unfortunately, but after reading this thread I'm sure the decision was fair. I have enough time this sunday to watch all the games, and I'm so looking forward to this.
allowing just three players to judge the game, two of them even being in the same tournament, a potential quarter-finals opponent. seriously, whoever is responsible for this, should retire immediatly.
a 160 pop vs. 140 pop is never, in none of all the blizzard universes, an "absolute" win. 1 out of 2 unbiased players even confirmed that..
On March 20 2011 08:36 JackDino wrote: [quote] Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame.
Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell?
In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true.
And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s
EDIT: I only just realised you have 12 posts total >_< Nvm, then. Enjoy you ban.
You cant have 100% certainty to win in sc2 only in "very few" scenarios (im sure there would be a way to work around that) besides i doubt any pro gamer with a sponsor would ever do that, it wouldn't exactly be good publicity. That he had won the game (100%) certain was an opinion, not a fact. If you refuse to comprehend that, then there is no point in discussing this.
Ps. Why should i get banned for giving my opinion? That's what the forum is here for now isn't it?
EDIT: @JackDino: there is no point in argueing about what would happen in an offline tournament. Simply because this isn't.
Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong.
No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that.
Exactly the same thing could've happened at an offline tournament. The only problem here is you thinking people dc on purpose, which is why there is a panel. If you would actually read the OP properly(You really haven't done that), you would know that dcing when you're winning wouldn't give you a win. You want as little people as possible to judge yet you want to judge when to and when not to judge. The people in the panel are professionals, if a single 1 of them would've said nightend could've won they would've rematched, a single one. If you would understand when people can and can't win you might make it up there. Life isn't fair, better get used to it.
I have read the OP. Cheap shots aren't gonna get you anywhere. God i hate arguing with people who aren't interested in understanding eachother. There is no "winning" in this arguement if that's what you are looking for. We just have two way of seeing things.
That being said. BoxeR could (if he had known about this rule) have dc'ed deliberately to avoid that 1% chance of losing - even with the panel. You gotta take these things into account. Even if they are only hypothetical. Being a pro sc2 gamers doesn't neccesarily make you good at taking these kinds of decisions. They "can" be biased. I'd much rather watch BoxeR than NightEnd myself - if i were given the choice to let BoxeR go through... hell i would do it. Mainly because i'm such an irrational bastard. ^_^ - anyways ... only wasting time on this debate. I've made my point clear and so have you. I just hope that TL reevaluate the rules.
Good night.
Your argument is utter nonsense. Why would you DC deliberately if you think you have it 99% won? Only a coward or a moron would do that. You rarely know for sure if you have a game until you start killing buildings and nothing is coming to defend. At this point in the game Boxer probably thought he had it won, but he doesn't have all the information we have in the replay, they looked at the replay and concluded that under pro level conditions there was no reasonable way boxer could lose.
also if you know for sure you have a game won and then deliberately DC you are running the risk of the panel ruling for a re-game, you would have given up a sure thing. If you think any player is that stupid, then I applaud you for your naivety. There is no advantage to be gained from DCing when you are in a winning position.
If boxer DC'd because he thought he was losing, then you might have a point. DCing in that case might grant you a regame, and if it doesn't you knew you were losing and thats why you dc'd...... Thats not what happened here.
You present your argument well and try to sound intelligent but you've completely missed the point of why someone would deliberately DC. No one in their right mind would DC from a winning position. Its like when people say we didn't go to the moon, they quote "facts" and sound quite convincing until you actually listen to what they are saying and realise they haven't understood the material.
I won't point fingers or degrade into social commentary, but it bears mentioning that It brings a sense of order and stability to my universe to know that that MC, the best protons in the world by any reasonable standard, is like "naw dude, the protoss has absolutely 100% lost here, here's a list of reasons why that's obvious to me," and in spite of that there will STILL be TL posts about how the game wasn't decided yet, because boxer *could have* keeled over and died in his chair.
I just disagree with the margin at which the game was considered "absolutely" won. If you think that's equavilant with saying I know better than the pros, then i guess i feel like i do. I cant help to think that it is more unfair to NightEnd to get his "chance" taken away like this, than it would have been for BoxeR to get a rematch instead of the win. And now we are back to scratch. I just dont get how they can be so certain that NightEnd had absolutely no chance to turn it around. But on the other hand i'm not a progamer... i'm not even close.
I think the decision was right but I don't think it should have been called by people playing in the same tournament as well as teammate and/or friends of players who play in the tournement.
I'm pretty sure you guys could have find pro players not playing in TSL3
Transparency is the most important thing in these sticky situations. I really appreciate TL's proactive approach and transparent methods in order to handle this situation as professionally as possible.
Look at what was present at the disconnect. 19 Marauders with ghosts and medivacs vs 15 stalkers with one zealot. No templar upgrades for the toss units. The templar tech wasnt even up. How was nightend going to defend his gold expo against a superior number marauder army with only 15 stalkers with no blink? Looking at the food count, nightend probably had more workers than boxer, that why it seems closer than it actually was
losing on upgrades, econ, army size and having 1 robo, no archives, blink or charge, i dont see how anyone could operate under the assumption that is winnable for the protoss player.
goooood now can someone edit that ending into the vod and maybe have nightend throw in a gg =D
On March 20 2011 11:30 fueNN wrote: allowing just three players to judge the game, two of them even being in the same tournament, a potential quarter-finals opponent. seriously, whoever is responsible for this, should retire immediatly.
a 160 pop vs. 140 pop is never, in none of all the blizzard universes, an "absolute" win. 1 out of 2 unbiased players even confirmed that..
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame.
Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell?
In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true.
And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s
EDIT: I only just realised you have 12 posts total >_< Nvm, then. Enjoy you ban.
You cant have 100% certainty to win in sc2 only in "very few" scenarios (im sure there would be a way to work around that) besides i doubt any pro gamer with a sponsor would ever do that, it wouldn't exactly be good publicity. That he had won the game (100%) certain was an opinion, not a fact. If you refuse to comprehend that, then there is no point in discussing this.
Ps. Why should i get banned for giving my opinion? That's what the forum is here for now isn't it?
EDIT: @JackDino: there is no point in argueing about what would happen in an offline tournament. Simply because this isn't.
Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong.
No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that.
Exactly the same thing could've happened at an offline tournament. The only problem here is you thinking people dc on purpose, which is why there is a panel. If you would actually read the OP properly(You really haven't done that), you would know that dcing when you're winning wouldn't give you a win. You want as little people as possible to judge yet you want to judge when to and when not to judge. The people in the panel are professionals, if a single 1 of them would've said nightend could've won they would've rematched, a single one. If you would understand when people can and can't win you might make it up there. Life isn't fair, better get used to it.
I have read the OP. Cheap shots aren't gonna get you anywhere. God i hate arguing with people who aren't interested in understanding eachother. There is no "winning" in this arguement if that's what you are looking for. We just have two way of seeing things.
That being said. BoxeR could (if he had known about this rule) have dc'ed deliberately to avoid that 1% chance of losing - even with the panel. You gotta take these things into account. Even if they are only hypothetical. Being a pro sc2 gamers doesn't neccesarily make you good at taking these kinds of decisions. They "can" be biased. I'd much rather watch BoxeR than NightEnd myself - if i were given the choice to let BoxeR go through... hell i would do it. Mainly because i'm such an irrational bastard. ^_^ - anyways ... only wasting time on this debate. I've made my point clear and so have you. I just hope that TL reevaluate the rules.
Good night.
Your argument is utter nonsense. Why would you DC deliberately if you think you have it 99% won? Only a coward or a moron would do that. You rarely know for sure if you have a game until you start killing buildings and nothing is coming to defend. At this point in the game Boxer probably thought he had it won, but he doesn't have all the information we have in the replay, they looked at the replay and concluded that under pro level conditions there was no reasonable way boxer could lose.
also if you know for sure you have a game won and then deliberately DC you are running the risk of the panel ruling for a re-game, you would have given up a sure thing. If you think any player is that stupid, then I applaud you for your naivety. There is no advantage to be gained from DCing when you are in a winning position.
If boxer DC'd because he thought he was losing, then you might have a point. DCing in that case might grant you a regame, and if it doesn't you knew you were losing and thats why you dc'd...... Thats not what happened here.
You present your argument well and try to sound intelligent but you've completely missed the point of why someone would deliberately DC. No one in their right mind would DC from a winning position. Its like when people say we didn't go to the moon, they quote "facts" and sound quite convincing until you actually listen to what they are saying and realise they haven't understood the material.
Dont you get me started on the moon!
In the rules you have to take any possibility into consideration. Even deliberately dc'ing when winning - as stupid as it may sound. But yeah, i'm maybe not the smartest person alive, yet i do know deliberately dc'ing while losing would be a bigger issue.
I think Nazgul's explaination makes it quite clear, and his simulation of the fight is undisputable (considering terran even had more at home) and as MC says boxer could have simply gone for the main and ended the game strait up. I do agree with the comments that it shouldnt be judged by players in the TSL however. That being said it would be hard to get sombody who knows the protoss side of PvT better than oGsMC.
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
" "Absolutely won" means that the player had the game won beyond all reasonable doubt and had an "absolute advantage." " From Nazgul's opening post
I've read at least 10 pages of this thread and while some people claim it should be a regame, no one can give a reasonable way for protoss to win this one. The only thing i can think of is if he went zealot, immortal and boxer massed marauders; but that doesn't account for the 4-5 minutes protoss would need to pull something like that off. TL sets the rules at the beginning and they should be followed. The rule is reasonable doubt, and in this situation there can be none. 3 experts have testified there is no way for protoss to win this. There is a dissent but he was vetoed beforehand, his comments however interesting they may be have no weight.
A few things about the rules:
they don't specify a specific number of vetoes a player is allowed. you may want to put in a limit. keeping it to 1-2 vetoes per player keeps the judge pool small. 10 judges would be a really safe number.
I agree there should be some stipulation about players in the tournament not being the judges. If you try to expand that too far and think about all the relationships players have between each other and their teams, it would be too muddy. Those relationships are what the vetoes are for. If you think the pool could be too muddy, up the number of vetoes and up the number of judges to choose from.
I disagree with the first rule about DC's. the one where if a player that is behind dc's it's an auto-loss. if the DC is not the player's fault, it shouldn't cost them the game unless like in rule 3 the was already decided beyond all reasonable doubt. (this would only be for on-site tourneys, obviously commuter style would have to keep the rule the way it is)
I had something else but i got distracted and lost my train of thought.
(and yes i made an account just to make this post :p )
On March 20 2011 09:50 Ludwigvan wrote: I love that nobody told the commentators that this would happen. "Hi, i am DJ Wheat ... I am only the messenger!" (please don't blame me). Not as awesome as the MSL power outage, but with the DJWheat guest appearance definitely entertaining.
For me it was obvious that it was staged and that Day[9] and Chill knew about it. I could of course be wrong but that was very clear to me. =D
I can assure you that it was not staged. DJWheat was literally dropped into the TeamSpeak channel where the casters were to deliver the message. The casters were not even forewarned about the disconnect for Game 1 in that series.
Should have got idra as a judge as he has the ultimate gg timing! Plus he off races as protoss too, so if he said he would have gg there or close to it, then that's the final word.
On March 20 2011 09:50 Ludwigvan wrote: I love that nobody told the commentators that this would happen. "Hi, i am DJ Wheat ... I am only the messenger!" (please don't blame me). Not as awesome as the MSL power outage, but with the DJWheat guest appearance definitely entertaining.
For me it was obvious that it was staged and that Day[9] and Chill knew about it. I could of course be wrong but that was very clear to me. =D
LOL why do people keep making up wild statements like this every TSL? When Boxer left I couldn't figure out what the fuck happened and when Wheat started talking all I could think about was "Why the fuck is Wheat talking?"
I agree with the choice. When i first saw this I screamed at my computer and I was casting the game myself to a friend (we had only headphones so I casted to a non starcraft playing person) When the drop happened around the nineteen minute mark my cast was brutally interrupted and I had absolutely no way to explain this because on the screen it said that he had "left the game" I run and get my headphones on and hear the explanation by day9 and chill who were equally stunned. Once the situation was assessed my friend protests the call made by the panel saying that they had no idea who would have won. Yes from a non starcraft players viewpoint there was not overwhelming evidence to support this choice. Yes the choice was correct and it took me awhile to explain it but my only question is that if non starcraft players want to watch and see this happen there should be some way to start the game over again to make it more fair and to draw more non SC'ers into the game. I do not know the mechanics of battle net but is there not a way to either save the match or simulate the exact scenario using a map editor of some sort to play the game out if there was not a clear winner.
I know this choice was correct but my intentions in this question are to just help the starcraft community grow and prosper in the west. Veritas 157
Good post! I think this post is much better than I expected it was going to be when DJ Wheat said this is where to come, I was pleasantly surprised! I also think the panel of 3 handled their role stupendously and I really enjoyed reading their professionally theory-crafted analysis's(idk plural for analysis) as they appeared to have taken their role on such a panel as serious and professional as I had expected. I think it's unfortunate a disconnect of this magnitude had taken place, but glad to see such a rare situation handled as definitively as this...As I watched I was thinking there really should be a rematch because the possibility of a comeback should never be out of the question in ANY SPORT in my opinion, but I can not argue with the responses and information provided in the original post here...nice work!
PS. I think this reflected most on the situation concerning lag for this kind of international tourney! I think THAT is the most unfair thing for both players and that that is what has come to be the biggest issue resulting from this particular game...
Incredible analysis by the three panelists. I appreciate how seriously they took their duty. Personally I think a consensus by 5 panelists will be much, much, much harder to reach than one by 3, but hopefully this will never happen again.
On March 20 2011 13:06 eyzn wrote: Nice job with the test-scenario Liquid`Nazgul!
Also i like that you (TL-staff) are trying to explain everything. I think you managed the situation very well *thumbsup*.
I don't like how you tell people how they have to respond in this thread though.
do you think asking for informed and constructive comments is unreasonable?
talking about openess and telling people what they are allowed to do is kind of mutually exclusive
maybe i am overreacting, the red line makes me nervous :p (sorry for the noise)
They are not mutually exclusive. TL staff is merely asking that people disattach their emotions from the situation, think rationally, and discuss this in a composed manner.
This should be how people always handle themselves in any awkward situation and when discussing the results of an official calling.
I forgot to commend TL on the way they made the decision, and the thoughtfulness of the panel.
That simulation put a big smile on my face. It's reminded me of those reenactments of the Kennedy assassin to see on TV; trying to figure out if Lee Harvey Oswald could have gotten a shot off.
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.
i totally agree to the decision made by the panel. Reading it up was quite informative to me and i can follow the argumentation. One thing i want to point out though, is that it is quite questionable to reduce the panel size ad hoc to three, because two guys get vetoed unexpeted. i do really wonder who came to the good idea of allowing the players a veto, but think of it as such a slim chance, that no back up panel members were at hand. It somehow does not make a lot of sense to me, as im in the scene around for some years and you just know that there are a lot rivaleries and such going on. Second, reducing the panel size ad hoc greatly damages the importance of the Rules you set up with such effort and that´s a shame. Most crucial to me is, that in fact agreement within a panel of three is so much easier to achieve than in a panel of five. It simply makes the decision a bit more random. Yes and even if the panel mebers are very very good players. If Cloud would have been in, it would have been a regame. NOt that it´s all about Cloud for me, it´s about the size. Such a decision needs to be made by a balanced, good numbered group. Finally, dont get me wrong about this post, as i noticed that you adressed the issue already under the "improvement" section and furthermore i dont disagree with the decision itself. I was just revealing my thought process on the subject, because i deemed it a generally interesting point.
I very much appreciate the transparency through all of this
I would be interested in reading the veto reasoning though
Nony would possibly have a chance at playing the winner down the road but same goes for MC and even sooner Morrow. Also unless Cloud is friends with Nightend or something I'm unsure why Boxer would veto him.
Handled in a very mature and professional way, in my opinion. I'm glad the TSL crew recognized some flaws in their process and are going to make changes accordingly, as well. Thanks, TeamLiquid.
I feel like NightEnd would have gged if there was no hop of him winning, and that he was robbed of a chance to fight it out. I don't think it was handled badly, because Boxer did indeed have a 99% chance of winning, but that 1% shouldn't be taken from NightEnd. It seems strange that his opponent's disconnect made him insta-lose. If Boxer really was the better player and deserved to advance, I think he would've won a rematch. Just my opinion, I can see why people are saying it was handled properly.
I can't help but think of the DreamHack finals game 3 where Mana looked like he had no chance (I'm fully aware it was MUCH different from today) and I thought "He can't win this" and then all those sick storms came through. Or a very old game between WhiteRa and MadFrog where WhiteRa lost his expo and his forge and some pylons and looked out of it and made a great comeback. I don't remember who said it (probably Day9) but it was something like "You should never gg if you have attacking units still on the field" and I think that applies.
On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote: I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all.
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap.
It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished.
It's not Nightend's fault he disconnects, no. But he isn't awarded the win, becuase he was LOSING.
This proves you truly not get it. Giving Nightend the win was never the question.
If Nightend has 1% of winning the game and Boxer D/C you can't punish Nightend for it by taking away that 1% so a regame would be the only option.
and you also can't take way that 99% chance of Boxer winning that game either,, thats why there are rules in all competitive sports the rules here being both player chose to let the panel decide panel makes decision (Boxer Wins, Nightend Wins or Unsure-Regame) all 3 selected panel vote for Boxer wins everything is done and final within the ruling of the tournament and everyone can have their own opinion of what can't and what should, just doesn't matter
i totally agree with everytihng except the members of the "council" While i think MC and Tyler might be the two most competent people to judge this in the whole world, and i would trust them as much as not influencing outcomes in a tourney they are part of, it still leaves a slight "smell" on the process. I agree that your peers should be able to judge the best, but just incase, to erase ANY KIND of DOUBT about the council members, it should be notable players outside this tourney.
Other than that i agree 100% wiht how this situation has been handled
1) There was no point in Nightend vetoing anyone. Even if he had thought that there was only a chance of 0.00001% of Tyler judging regame, he hasn't gained anything at all by removing that chance, since there is no difference between 3 people judging it a loss vs. 4 people judging it a loss.
2) While I agree with the decision, I don't think it's a good idea to have the players be the final judge of something like that, especially players who are also participating in the tournament. I think a better setup would be:
1. There's a panel of 2-3 pro gamers per race who act as "experts" for that race, agreed upon before the tournament, maybe voted in by all the players or something. 2. When something like that happens, the experts for the races involved give their opinion. 3. Then a panel of 3-5 people who are not pro gamers (or at least not participating in the tournament) makes the call.
Of course pro gamers are the most competent to make the judgment, but that's true for many sports and I can't think of any where the players do the refereeing. Having them do it has the potential to create bad blood between the players ("your judged against me, you don't like me!", "you vetoed me, you don't trust me!") and people are bound to ask whether any of the people who did the judging were thinking about potential opponents later in the tournament ("My PvZ is weak, so let's judge against the Zerg, so I don't have to play him later.") While I don't think that any of that happened here (well, maybe some bad blood?), I think the system should be designed to avoid situations where that's even possible.
I have to say that i really like the way you handled this, both TSL admins and the panel, especially morrow who put a lot of thought into it seems. Very professional.
Gotta suck for nightend though, he totally had that game until the big engagement at the xel'naga tower.
good detailed explanations, and that simulation was very convincing. i thought that nightend would hold off that attack, but he was clearly in a very very poor position, so the right decision was definately made.
These decisions shouldn't be made by other tournament participants... A 3 man panel is ok, but they should have the chance to deliberate together. However, NightEnd did lose the decisive battle on his own account. And he didn't even have charge or blink to be able to clean up Boxer's army with reinforcements. Had he had those council upgrades, I think it would have been fair to re-host the game.
So strange that it's this thread that made me register on TL. Useless context: I've been lurking TL since 2004 (temporarily left right after oov defeated boxer) and returned 2009. Never bother to register and post because reading the forums is already very time-consuming for a law student. That said, I feel quite strongly about this and will be writing quite a bit. Sorry.
Every dispute must be resolved. That is a basic fact of life. Historically, this was accomplished by force of arms. However, the best alternative that humankind has come up with so far has been law. Law, and rules to a lesser extent, have always been there as the last option before resorting to violence. Some people call it the last civilized measure to achieve justice.
I'm not trying to make an esoteric point, but the issue of the disconnect HAD to be resolved in some form. That is the basic premise underlying this present dispute. Now, what should govern its resolution? The OP is clear: the rulebook, which every player, upon entering the TSL agreed upon. In that sense, they gave their consent to be bound by the rules created by TeamLiquid. Hot_Bid is a Michigan University lawyer - I'm pretty sure he wouldn't allow these possibilities to be left to arbitrariness.
Hence, the creation of the panel. I DO AGREE that the best way to choose an arbitral panel (which is what this is, by analogy) would be to choose from non-participants. Impartiality is the centerpiece of both national and domestic arbitration and litigation. HOWEVER, assailing the partiality of a panel member is ALWAYS waivable (estoppel sees to that). The fact that there was a veto procedure for one panelist is already a sign that TL recognized this and gave each player a power beyond what is normally given militates against the argument that the panel exercises too much power. Moreover, the fact that one vote can entail a re-game already gives a substantial advantage to the party who was losing the battle.
This is not (yet) a dispute that needs legalism. The players who comprised the panel gave a very good explanation for their decision. I am very impressed by Nazgul and Morrow - they write decisions better than some judges. The vote was unanimous. It was substantiated with evidence.
Now, the main argument against the decision seems to be reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt that yes, there was a possibility that Nightend would win. Reasonable doubt that yes, there was a possibility that Boxer would throw the game away.
However people have to understand this standard (which is applied to criminal convictions all throughout the world): this is not ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. It is a moral certainty that, on the basis of the arguments and evidence, there is no reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. "Reasonable" is defined primarily by logic and human experience. Thus, on the strength of logic (shown by Nazgul's video and the excellent analysis by Morrow) and experience (shown by the pro-gamers who were part of the panel), there is clearly moral certainty that Boxer would win the game.
If this standard did not exist, then law would get nowhere, and no one would fear the consequences of violating the law or rules because you can always argue on possibility. Law is based on PROBABILITY. In much the same way, TSL decisions are based on PROBABILITY. Leave certainty to the scientists and mathematicians. In life, nothing is certain except death and taxes.
At the end of the day, the decision was the most JUST decision possible, given the context, the rules that exist, and the evidence available. Hat's off to TL: they've established a precedent worth of emulation by any legitimate tournament organizer. Human justice is not absolute justice, but it is fair, as dictated by the standards of reason. I think no one can expect anything less. And TL did not give anything less.
TL DR: The decision was consistent with justice as understood in a legal framework (even in an international sense), and this was not even a legal dispute. So you have to commend TL for establishing standards far beyond what is expected of them.
Now as to recommendations, I only have one: perhaps you could make it similar to arbitration rules (UNCITRAL?), wherein both sides choose one arbitrator, and both arbitrators choose a third one, and a majority vote will decide the issue at hand. Of course, you could still retain the veto in this kind of procedure. I don't really like the fact that the opinion of one panelist can decide the entire thing.
Sorry for such a long first post. Thanks for your time.
PS: The comment by Prae and Nightend is harmless and should be expected. I hope you guys won't crucify them for that. I'm sure the entire issue was frustrating for everyone involved and emotions are bound to get in the way.
On March 20 2011 09:50 Ludwigvan wrote: I love that nobody told the commentators that this would happen. "Hi, i am DJ Wheat ... I am only the messenger!" (please don't blame me). Not as awesome as the MSL power outage, but with the DJWheat guest appearance definitely entertaining.
For me it was obvious that it was staged and that Day[9] and Chill knew about it. I could of course be wrong but that was very clear to me. =D
LOL why do people keep making up wild statements like this every TSL? When Boxer left I couldn't figure out what the fuck happened and when Wheat started talking all I could think about was "Why the fuck is Wheat talking?"
Haha, I'm sorry. The confusing situation for you and Sean made it sound like it was staged, that's why I got the impression. I understand that you got really confused when he just showed up out of the blue. Don't think it would have been that strange if you as a TL-member and Day[9] as commentator was informed as the TSL-crew had prepared this very well.
Sorry for making up speculations wasn't meant to be disrespectful. Anyway I don't think it would have been any strange for staging it to keep the show going. I mean it was very well handled and well prepared from the TSL organization.
Think it was a good call to cast the game but I think that Chill and Day[9] could have been informed before the cast, as I said I assumed you were.
We saw pretty much the exact same scenario happen in game 3. Boxer EMP'd everything, wiped out the collosi with his vikings, obliterated the gateway force with marauders and took out two Nexus (in the 1st game he would have very likely taken out the 3rd base as well, along with the denied gold base) and NightEnd never managed to pull back from that, and that was on a much bigger map where it should be easier to recover from something like that, so we can all be happy that the correct decisions were made.
I think TL did a good job keeping us informed on the matter. The diconnect was a bummer; however, how it was handled and the candid manner with which it was dealt with has been great. I feel bad for NightEnd, but think the correct decision was reached.
On March 20 2011 17:02 Caladbolg wrote: So strange that it's this thread that made me register on TL. Useless context: I've been lurking TL since 2004 (temporarily left right after oov defeated boxer) and returned 2009. Never bother to register and post because reading the forums is already very time-consuming for a law student. That said, I feel quite strongly about this and will be writing quite a bit. Sorry.
Every dispute must be resolved. That is a basic fact of life. Historically, this was accomplished by force of arms. However, the best alternative that humankind has come up with so far has been law. Law, and rules to a lesser extent, have always been there as the last option before resorting to violence. Some people call it the last civilized measure to achieve justice.
I'm not trying to make an esoteric point, but the issue of the disconnect HAD to be resolved in some form. That is the basic premise underlying this present dispute. Now, what should govern its resolution? The OP is clear: the rulebook, which every player, upon entering the TSL agreed upon. In that sense, they gave their consent to be bound by the rules created by TeamLiquid. Hot_Bid is a Michigan University lawyer - I'm pretty sure he wouldn't allow these possibilities to be left to arbitrariness.
Hence, the creation of the panel. I DO AGREE that the best way to choose an arbitral panel (which is what this is, by analogy) would be to choose from non-participants. Impartiality is the centerpiece of both national and domestic arbitration and litigation. HOWEVER, assailing the partiality of a panel member is ALWAYS waivable (estoppel sees to that). The fact that there was a veto procedure for one panelist is already a sign that TL recognized this and gave each player a power beyond what is normally given militates against the argument that the panel exercises too much power. Moreover, the fact that one vote can entail a re-game already gives a substantial advantage to the party who was losing the battle.
This is not (yet) a dispute that needs legalism. The players who comprised the panel gave a very good explanation for their decision. I am very impressed by Nazgul and Morrow - they write decisions better than some judges. The vote was unanimous. It was substantiated with evidence.
Now, the main argument against the decision seems to be reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt that yes, there was a possibility that Nightend would win. Reasonable doubt that yes, there was a possibility that Boxer would throw the game away.
However people have to understand this standard (which is applied to criminal convictions all throughout the world): this is not ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. It is a moral certainty that, on the basis of the arguments and evidence, there is no reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. "Reasonable" is defined primarily by logic and human experience. Thus, on the strength of logic (shown by Nazgul's video and the excellent analysis by Morrow) and experience (shown by the pro-gamers who were part of the panel), there is clearly moral certainty that Boxer would win the game.
If this standard did not exist, then law would get nowhere, and no one would fear the consequences of violating the law or rules because you can always argue on possibility. Law is based on PROBABILITY. In much the same way, TSL decisions are based on PROBABILITY. Leave certainty to the scientists and mathematicians. In life, nothing is certain except death and taxes.
At the end of the day, the decision was the most JUST decision possible, given the context, the rules that exist, and the evidence available. Hat's off to TL: they've established a precedent worth of emulation by any legitimate tournament organizer. Human justice is not absolute justice, but it is fair, as dictated by the standards of reason. I think no one can expect anything less. And TL did not give anything less.
TL DR: The decision was consistent with justice as understood in a legal framework (even in an international sense), and this was not even a legal dispute. So you have to commend TL for establishing standards far beyond what is expected of them.
Now as to recommendations, I only have one: perhaps you could make it similar to arbitration rules (UNCITRAL?), wherein both sides choose one arbitrator, and both arbitrators choose a third one, and a majority vote will decide the issue at hand. Of course, you could still retain the veto in this kind of procedure. I don't really like the fact that the opinion of one panelist can decide the entire thing.
Sorry for such a long first post. Thanks for your time.
PS: The comment by Prae and Nightend is harmless and should be expected. I hope you guys won't crucify them for that. I'm sure the entire issue was frustrating for everyone involved and emotions are bound to get in the way.
Really sucks for NightEnd that this happend but really impressed with the professionalism and transparency it was handled with. This is gonna cause a lot of heartache but lets not let it ruin a great tournament.
Very well handled. I would just like to add my voice to others and say that players in the tournament shouldn't be on the panel. Obviously this may not be possible for practical reasons, but there is no denying that players in the tournament could have some bias (however small).
Lets imagine a soccer match in national cup, a player with ball is running, he trick all the defenders hes 1on1 with goalkeeper, suddenly player with ball is breaking his leg because grass wasn't 100% flat.
Then FIFA is asking other countries that play in this cup, "Look guys he broke his leg, but he almost got it, how do you think if he didnt broke his leg would he score the goal?"
We are all missing the point. Boxer disconnects.
In the event of a disconnect the referee will ask the players about what they think the result of the game should be (regame/win/loss). If both players can agree on the result then that result will stand.
I wanna know what they said about the game, I'm 100% sure Nightend said regame and Boxer said win (honor would suggest him to ask for regame). As far as I see in European tournaments when player drops no matter how far he was, he is asking his opponent if its ok to regame, or else he lost because he disconnect.
And there is no rule on "How we pick members to the panel" is very very bad, how honestly you can ask other players that play in this tournament? You cant ask people that are in "circle of interest" or same nationality or same clan. Anyways absolute win is a situation where winner is destroying last buildings of his opponent or he destroys his entire army and he have no eco or buildings to remake it.
You cant say what would Boxer do, your not him, maybe he would split his army and go for both expansions, maybe he would miss click or double stim, or forgot his vikings, or he would wait 15 sec before attack so all this 10 pheonix would have mana to lift. You cant look at the game from pure mathematic perspective.
I really didn't understand nightends tactic in this series... No blink/charge (hence no 2/2/3/3), massing pheonix and collosi, whit so liitle ground support, it seemed to me that pure marauder army could have rolled through all those unprotected collosus, going to that late game with council tech...
By doing all that he basicly removed any chance of a comeback once his army was dead. I don't see how he could have come back without i dunno...blink/charge to prevent kiting, money storms/feedbacks on ghosts...etc.
On March 20 2011 17:35 Tegin wrote: Very well handled by the TL staff. I'd only suggest using a panel of players who are not active in the same tournament.
This seems to be the overwhelming consensus amongst posters in this thread, i basicly posted the same. And since the teamliquid guys are actually quite smart , i think that something like that will/might happen
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.
The player will have no idea exactly how far ahead he is, or if there are small factors that could influence the panel's decision of which he is not aware. In a situation in which a player believes he is in strong enough position to warrant a unanimous decision from a panel, it would certainly be safer for that player to play out the game; for example, suppose the other player had hidden tech or expansion(s), or an incoming drop, or a key upgrade about to finish, or any number of other things. These are things which will (for the most part) be outside of the opposing player's sight, and are all things that could sway a decision from "this game is absolutely lost" to "well...he could come back if that drop/expo/tech works out really well." Then it could go to a regame, which would certainly be worse for the intentionally disconnecting player. I think that the current policy does an excellent job of preventing intentional DCs, and to be perfectly honest, it would take a hugely idiotic and risk-taking player to attempt to disconnect on purpose while in a commanding position to try to win via panel decision.
On March 20 2011 17:31 Bulkers wrote: You cant say what would Boxer do, your not him, maybe he would split his army and go for both expansions, maybe he would miss click or double stim, or forgot his vikings, or he would wait 15 sec before attack so all this 10 pheonix would have mana to lift. You cant look at the game from pure mathematic perspective.
It's especially weird since Boxer himself in his post game interview gave Nightend a 20% chance of taking the game and Boxer of all people should know especially after watching the replay. He's not to blame though, I understand if he doesn't know of every rule and would rather leave it to the referees. But didn't they even ask what he thought of the situation? It doesn't make sense.
I love the transparency and professionalism displayed in this incident by TL. Though I see some room for improvement.
1. The original panel should consist of 7 referees, with players being compulsory to veto the panel down to 5 members. - This prevent the vetoed referees from being replaced with "more biased" ones in view of the players.
2. The panel should never include players from this tournament. - Apparent conflicts of interest. This is a major flaw in this process.
3. The panel should not know the identity of the players. - Thus, the panel's decision can never be based on any assumption regarding the skills of the players. This should greatly contribute to the impartiality of the judgment.
3. The panel should not know the identity of the players. - Thus, the panel's decision can never be based on any assumption regarding the skills of the players. This should greatly contribute to the impartiality of the judgment.
How are they gonna do that? They gotta watch the replay after all.
The game was decided by the panel system used by the TSL... I feel terrible for NightEnd, and I don't feel that great about it myself. But if I had to say, I thought I had around an 8:2 lead in game 1.
3. The panel should not know the identity of the players. - Thus, the panel's decision can never be based on any assumption regarding the skills of the players. This should greatly contribute to the impartiality of the judgment.
In a perfect world yes but how do you review a replay without seeing the player names?
On March 20 2011 18:02 zestzorb wrote: I love the transparency and professionalism displayed in this incident by TL. Though I see some room for improvement.
1. The original panel should consist of 7 referees, with players being compulsory to veto the panel down to 5 members. - This prevent the vetoed referees from being replaced with "more biased" ones in view of the players.
2. The panel should never include players from this tournament. - Apparent conflicts of interest. This is a major flaw in this process.
3. The panel should not know the identity of the players. - Thus, the panel's decision can never be based on any assumption regarding the skills of the players. This should greatly contribute to the impartiality of the judgment.
#3 How can you hide names on a replay?
Also, many pro players would be able to tell who is playing by the matchup and the style used.
Conflict of interest is not a major flaw, it's a fact of life. Why do you think people get convicted of rape on the testimony of just 1 person (the victim) who obviously has a conflict of interest to protect, as she initiated the complaint? The important thing is transparency and full disclosure.
On March 20 2011 18:04 Longshank wrote: In a perfect world yes but how do you review a replay without seeing the player names?
I completely forgot this issue. Maybe you could put something over the name box as Day9 and some other casters do to avoid spoiling the duration of the game?
On March 20 2011 18:07 Caladbolg wrote: Conflict of interest is not a major flaw, it's a fact of life. Why do you think people get convicted of rape on the testimony of just 1 person (the victim) who obviously has a conflict of interest to protect, as she initiated the complaint? The important thing is transparency and full disclosure.
I bet the judge would not be a close relative of the victim, would he? While transparency plays a crucial role in promoting the understanding of the public, minimizing the actual conflict of interest (or even the appearance thereof) is also very important.
On March 20 2011 18:04 Longshank wrote: In a perfect world yes but how do you review a replay without seeing the player names?
I completely forgot this issue. Maybe you could put something over the name box as Day9 and some other casters do to avoid spoiling the duration of the game?
On March 20 2011 18:07 Caladbolg wrote: Conflict of interest is not a major flaw, it's a fact of life. Why do you think people get convicted of rape on the testimony of just 1 person (the victim) who obviously has a conflict of interest to protect, as she initiated the complaint? The important thing is transparency and full disclosure.
I bet the judge would not be a close relative of the victim, would he? While transparency plays a crucial role in promoting the understanding of the public, minimizing the actual conflict of interest (or even the appearance thereof) is also very important.
I completely agree, but it's not a major flaw (especially in this case). Of course if a panelist were, say, a teammate of Boxer, then conflict of interest should disqualify him. The circumstances here were very different. I refer to Hot_Bid's post explaining why the particular panelists were chosen. You can't very well have the players wait too long for a completely uninvolved panel to be created. That would be a logistical nightmare.
That said, if this happens again, I'm sure improvements can be made as to the procedure. As a first response, TL did very well.
Scores have siad it and I am but an echo, but thank you for this post. When I first read in the review that the game was a drop and went to a judges decision, I was less than pleased.
However, with the rule set laid out and the opinions of the judges fully viewable, I am more than OK with this choice. You kept everything fair and transparent, including what you will do different next time.
Tough luck that the game dropped, that really sucks, but big props to the TSL staff for handling this professionally.
When I viewed I wasn´t sure if the game was over, but then again I watched an observer instead of observing myself.
The lack of tech by protoss, the 1/1 vs 0/0 upgrade situation all eluded my knowledge. The fact that the expansion was deader than dinosaurs was clear though^^
zestzorb wrote: ... 1. The original panel should consist of 7 referees, with players being compulsory to veto the panel down to 5 members. - This prevent the vetoed referees from being replaced with "more biased" ones in view of the players.
2. The panel should never include players from this tournament. - Apparent conflicts of interest. This is a major flaw in this process.
3. The panel should not know the identity of the players. - Thus, the panel's decision can never be based on any assumption regarding the skills of the players. This should greatly contribute to the impartiality of the judgment.
#3 is unpractical.
#1 and #2 would be much better in my opinion, though #2 is probably hard to get by on the fly. But if #1 and #2 were given, you could have a referee council in advance for the whole tournament.
I don't think letting other participants decide is bad, given the choices. As you cannot abuse this in a way that player and a panelmember plan something in beforehand, as the only thing a single judge can force is a regame for the disconnecting player, if he is in a favourable position, which wouldn't lead to anything. The only thing that could happen was for one of the judges to potentially get himself the chance to facing an easier opponent, but in my opinion there are too many ifs and whens to really be concerned about it, specially since both players have a veto.
There will always be some subjectivity in the decisions, so the most important thing is to get many different people, to make the whole decision as independent as possible. With this I for example think, that taking MC in the panel was a really great choice.
Specially in the TSL3, where you have more or less the best players from literally all around the world the best candidates to jugde a situation like this play in the tournament. I as a watcher prefer reading the opinion of a well-kown person like Nazgul (who isn't a player here, but a teammanager is probably not a more neutral person per se), as the opinion of the first bunch of better players that are randomly found...
I would like to say that I was not sure about the absolute advantage when saw the commentary. But after Liquid`Nazgul explanation everything became clear and his explanation and analysis was so good that I believe that even nightend would have to agree.
Liquid`Nazgul did a professional job with his explanation and analysis, he articulate perfectly and is deserving of by praise on this matter.
TeamLiquid handled the matter with a professionalism not even multi-billion dollar sport industries would. The transparency was to be praised and the replay file helped a lot.
As for MC explanation I did thought was bit dry, but was well thought out even if not greatly articulated.
Morrow's explanation was too confuse for my taste, although really show he made a big effort and also his focus on how boxer still was giving macro attention and the detailing of economy helped me understand the situation more.
I would like to congratulate all of them for the effort and work they put in on something very sensitive like this. PS: day9 and chill commentary is amazingly good also.
edit: ------ I would like to suggest for the panel to be of 3 players only since I fell that not only would be easier and faster to make a panel of 3, as is also better. I believe a panel of 5 is too big for unanimous decision to made when needed. I believe this particulate situation where the panel was only of 3 helped the process, and perhaps having 5 before vetoing and 3 after should be the new standard. ----
I beleive the decision was highly unprofessional. I don't beleive that Teamliquid will ever achieve high professionality without looking into the professional sports leagues for inspiration. Those leagues (football, ice hockey etc.) have decades of experience. And do they ever punish the visitors team if the hosts are unable to provide a proper environment for a match? No! They never award a loss to the team who was there, willing and ready, whatever way the match looked like. They have two simple rules: a) a match should be decided on the field instead of an office desk whenever possible b) each side is responsible for and required to secure everything necessary to be able to participate. They always preffer a re-match or a punishment to the side that failed to fullfil the second rule. They never punish the side that did nothing wrong. And there is logic behind that. What if Nightend invests heavily into his internet connection to have a superstable one and his opponent doesn't? Is it fair in such a situation to punish him?
What's even worse, you went ahead with a rule forbidding anyone to post a diagreement with it, unless they provide another way. Well then you ultimately ruined this thread into a backpatting joke. If plain disagreement is not tolerated and plain gratulations are, then the thread itself is biased beyond repair. I do beleive that hateful and agressive posts attacking the decision should be erased, but there is simply nothing wrong about stating a disagreement politely. If Teamliquid evaluates it's decision by the posts in this thread as correct, I am really worried for the future of this community. You simply told all that do not agree with the decision, even if they were polite, to shut up or be banned. Very nice and mature.
My suggestion is, that the outcome of the panel should never award a loss to the player that did nothing wrong. The panel should only have two options: issue a re-match or award a loss to the player that failed to secure everything necessary to be able to participate (may it be a disconnect, laggy connection, slow pc, ...). The match should be decided on the field for the sake of us, the audience, and for the sake of fairness. A re-match between Nightend and Boxer would be thousand times more interresting for viewers than reading and writing all this text. Remember that next time Teamliquid.
If Boxer won the remaining two matches 2:0, this matter would be much lighter. But it was 1:1 in the non-interrupted matches. The panel's decision decided the whole Bo3. Please arrange the rematch between Nightend and Boxer before the second part begins today. Let them decide the match on the field. I am sure that every viewer will be glad to see that. Don't let the TSL remain tainted in such a terrible way as it is now. Thank you.
I agree with this decision but find it weird that Boxer himself dont think he had a 100% win:
In his interview:
The game was decided by the panel system used by the TSL... I feel terrible for NightEnd, and I don't feel that great about it myself. But if I had to say, I thought I had around an 8:2 lead in game 1.
I haven't read the whole thread so I'm not sure if it's mentioned before. I believe the DC rule is good but morrow and MC shouldn't be in the panel as they are players. Also, does the panel need a unanimous decision to award a win? What happens if one disagrees?
I am happy, with the decision making process taken to ensure a fair decision, but more so, I am extremely please with the transparency of TL on this matter. Good work guys.
The game was decided by the panel system used by the TSL... I feel terrible for NightEnd, and I don't feel that great about it myself. But if I had to say, I thought I had around an 8:2 lead in game 1.
Imo you can never give the win to the player who disced, it's just illogical and unfair. You are creating a ruleset that might get abused, judges can be biased(they don't have to participate in the tournament to be a bad choice as a judge, they just have to be a fan/friend of someone), and how can you punish NightEnd for something he can't have any effect on? If there is any person that can get punished by an error on Boxers side of things(if he disced intentionally or not does not matter here, it doesn't even matter if it was his fault or not) it can only be Boxer but not NightEnd.
I don't like the rule, it is illogical and unfair in my opinion, and opens the door for abuse by the players/admins. But since the players accepted the rule in advance nobody can complain :p
Imo this was a perfect example of a regame. Boxer had a huge advantage, but didn't win the game yet. Then he disced. So you give both players a little extra(Boxer a new chance even though he lost the last game by the disconnect, NightEnd a new chance because he was close to losing the last game). This is as fair as it can possibly get. Now you've just taken away the last (according to Boxer) 20% of NightEnd and gave them to Boxer, because Boxer disced. Not fair.
Original post exceeded my already high expectations. The one ambiguous statement comes from Nightend, I am not sure I understood it correctly. He and his clan don't wish to find Goliath, 'with no stones lying around'. So the Goliath could be the overwhelming opinion against Nightend or the overwhelming evidence in favor of Boxer. I think they rightly feel their obligation to defend their interest, but decline to do so because the rules and ruling are clear as can be.
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.
On another note, Nazgul's sim pretty much showed that one of the paths Boxer could take would lead to certainly NightEnd being on 1 mining base that was left with 3k minerals, NightEnd had no gateway reinforcements on the way outside of the 15 stalkers and 1 zealot.
On March 20 2011 20:08 ropumar wrote: I would like to suggest for the panel to be of 3 players only since I fell that not only would be easier and faster to make a panel of 3, as is also better. I believe a panel of 5 is too big for unanimous decision to made when needed. I believe this particulate situation where the panel was only of 3 helped the process, and perhaps having 5 before vetoing and 3 after should be the new standard. ----
Isn't this, though, the whole idea? Taking an extreme decision *only and only if* it is as clear as a blue summer sky for 5 people, unanimously? What, "when needed"? There's nothing needed, the scenario was someone losing a game through a disconnect and people needing to judge if he was sufficiently far ahead to be granted either a regame or even the win itself.
And, as it's been said before, it was Nigthend's folly to agree on a 3-man panel, since most likely in a 5-man panel at least one person would have stated it's a regame. A bit funny how Boxer's iview kinda points to that with his 8:2 balance ^^
I must say I am quite pleased with the various explanations of the judge's thought process and decision making. In this world it is not very often where we get such a transparent view of a panel's decision, and how it was justified.
Nazgul's simulation is just icing on the cake, reinforcing an opinion and making it fact.
Very well done! Publicly, visibly, and clearly, a fair decision making process.
I feel like TL handled this situation with professionalism and great composure. I must tip my hat off to them for dealing with the circumstances with their limited resources. Awesome job! The transparency of the entire situation is sick good.
However, I do feel differently for how the next tournament should be 'ruled' or drawn up. My personal opinion is that whoever disconnects should get a loss immediately. Yes, it is 'directly' not their 'fault' that that person D/Ced.
But, in most head to head sports (especially the big ones like tennis), if you can't play the game or suddenly leave, it's a loss. If you have to retire because you can't play or you're somehow injured, you get the big L. The tournament goes on. It's kind of harsh but it's tough love and there are other players that need to move on and other players that were able to deal with their connection issues and so forth.
You may argue that disconnects are a part of e-sports/internet gaming, and I agree with you. The ISP of the disconnecting person may not be up to par or you just may have a bad stroke of luck. But fact of the matter is, you disconnected.
If e-sports is to become as big as a sport as everyone hopes it to be one day, then everyone will have to draw the line somewhere.
This is a sport of concrete results. It is based on score and a DIRECT outcome. Like in tennis, whoever wins best of 3/5 wins the match. Or in basketball, whoever has the highest score at the end of a certain time period wins the game. In SC2, whoever eliminates all of their opponents' buildings in 2/3 games is the victor of the match.
The winner of a sc2 match is NOT decided by a panel of judges but by a concrete number. I feel like once you introduce judges to dictate the outcome of a match (like figure skating or gymnastics) it's unhealthy of a sport of this nature. Maybe I'm old-fashioned :S
It is NOT like figure skating. In general, I think introducing judges/players/referees that can directly influence the outcome of a match when a disconnect happens introduces much more unnecessary controversy and bias to the tournament.
I feel like tennis is the perfect analogy to SC2 pro gaming tournaments. You play a head to head series. There are inherent 'home and away' court advantages (clay court, hard court, grass court - latency issues on which server etc.). It is up to the player to adapt the situation. If a player has to forfeit a match because they are injured, it's similar to a player disconnecting.
Tennis players get injured because of outside influences such as (unfoturnately) getting hit by a car (not within their power to control), or over training, or not finding the right coaches, or partying too much which are all similar to SC2 players having difficult finding the best ISP or the best computer, etc (for an online tournament).
It's a different story when it comes to LAN. Example is the game betweeen JD and Flash when the MSL studio lost power. Then there is a case for a judge/panel to make a decision for regame or declaring a winner because neither players disconnected and it was the host's fault. Much like if a power shut down or there was a rain out during baseball game.
But it is clear when one player disconnects. If BNET or the server crashed then this solution of a panel of judges would be warranted. However, if it is clear that one of the players disconnected (and not BNET's or the hosts fault), then the disconnecting player should acquire the loss. It is the onus of the player/participant of a sports tournament to be totally healthy (not injured), find the best connection possible, bring their best keyboard/mouse, be as lag free as possible, find the best ISP with least chance of disconnecting, etc.)
Perhaps e-sports, following a model similar to what TL has established, will work out one day. However, I believe that in order for e-sports and sc2 to become as big as a 'true sport' it'll have to follow a model similar to one that is already tested and true.
It's really hard to formuate what I'm trying to say into words but I hope it makes sense.
On March 20 2011 20:15 terrorist112358 wrote: I beleive the decision was highly unprofessional. I don't beleive that Teamliquid will ever achieve high professionality without looking into the professional sports leagues for inspiration. Those leagues (football, ice hockey etc.) have decades of experience. And do they ever punish the visitors team if the hosts are unable to provide a proper environment for a match? No! They never award a loss to the team who was there, willing and ready, whatever way the match looked like. They have two simple rules: a) a match should be decided on the field instead of an office desk whenever possible b) each side is responsible for and required to secure everything necessary to be able to participate. They always preffer a re-match or a punishment to the side that failed to fullfil the second rule. They never punish the side that did nothing wrong. And there is logic behind that. What if Nightend invests heavily into his internet connection to have a superstable one and his opponent doesn't? Is it fair in such a situation to punish him?
What's even worse, you went ahead with a rule forbidding anyone to post a diagreement with it, unless they provide another way. Well then you ultimately ruined this thread into a backpatting joke. If plain disagreement is not tolerated and plain gratulations are, then the thread itself is biased beyond repair. I do beleive that hateful and agressive posts attacking the decision should be erased, but there is simply nothing wrong about stating a disagreement politely. If Teamliquid evaluates it's decision by the posts in this thread as correct, I am really worried for the future of this community. You simply told all that do not agree with the decision, even if they were polite, to shut up or be banned. Very nice and mature.
My suggestion is, that the outcome of the panel should never award a loss to the player that did nothing wrong. The panel should only have two options: issue a re-match or award a loss to the player that failed to secure everything necessary to be able to participate (may it be a disconnect, laggy connection, slow pc, ...). The match should be decided on the field for the sake of us, the audience, and for the sake of fairness. A re-match between Nightend and Boxer would be thousand times more interresting for viewers than reading and writing all this text. Remember that next time Teamliquid.
If Boxer won the remaining two matches 2:0, this matter would be much lighter. But it was 1:1 in the non-interrupted matches. The panel's decision decided the whole Bo3. Please arrange the rematch between Nightend and Boxer before the second part begins today. Let them decide the match on the field. I am sure that every viewer will be glad to see that. Don't let the TSL remain tainted in such a terrible way as it is now. Thank you.
Martin
The OP never says that you can't disagree with the decision at all. It asks that you do so respectfully. There's a big difference. The OP also asks you not to criticize the process (not the decision itself) without offering an alternative process.
I would agree with your analogy to professional sports leagues if players had complete control of their internet connection and ISP. In professional sports leagues, the teams and players have full control over whether their equipment is ready for a match or not, so it is fair to punish them for not having their equipment. Unfortunately, none of us can control random disconnects, so it would be unfair, unacceptable, and unreasonable to punish a player for that random disconnect (they did nothing wrong!).
As for your suggestion: by your logic, even if a player disconnects as he's killing his opponent's last building, then the game goes to a re-match instead of awarding the win. This has been brought up several times in this thread, and the general consensus has been that the TSL administration's method, as defined in the handbook given to all participants and in the OP, is the fairest way of dealing with this situation.
On March 20 2011 20:53 clusen wrote: I don't think TL handled the situation well.
Imo you can never give the win to the player who disced, it's just illogical and unfair. You are creating a ruleset that might get abused, judges can be biased(they don't have to participate in the tournament to be a bad choice as a judge, they just have to be a fan/friend of someone), and how can you punish NightEnd for something he can't have any effect on? If there is any person that can get punished by an error on Boxers side of things(if he disced intentionally or not does not matter here, it doesn't even matter if it was his fault or not) it can only be Boxer but not NightEnd.
I don't like the rule, it is illogical and unfair in my opinion, and opens the door for abuse by the players/admins. But since the players accepted the rule in advance nobody can complain :p
Imo this was a perfect example of a regame. Boxer had a huge advantage, but didn't win the game yet. Then he disced. So you give both players a little extra(Boxer a new chance even though he lost the last game by the disconnect, NightEnd a new chance because he was close to losing the last game). This is as fair as it can possibly get. Now you've just taken away the last (according to Boxer) 20% of NightEnd and gave them to Boxer, because Boxer disced. Not fair.
From what I understood of Boxer's quote, that's how he felt right when it happened. If that's the case, then he couldn't possibly know how far ahead he was. An 80:20 lead sounds reasonable if you've just killed all your opponents' colossi and EMP'd his Phoenixes, denied the gold expo and were about to move into his third base. Even Nazgul agreed that he had a huge advantage, but not an absolute advantage with this information. Factor in the fact that Boxer was ahead on upgrades, tech, and army size, and you get the necessary absolute advantage to award Boxer the win. NightEnd had 9 useless Phoenixes and fewer Stalkers than Boxer had Marauders. He didn't have any of the tech that allows the amazing comebacks we've seen from other Protoss players, and even if he did, Nazgul said the Protoss player would still lose in this scenario 99 times out of 100. NightEnd had no reasonable chance to come back and win this game at that point.
Someone stated this a couple pages ago, and it's in the OP, but I'll reiterate it here: the panel review isn't looking for absolute 100% certainty that one player won the game, just certainty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if even one of the panel members is hesitant to award the win, then it goes to a re-game. All the panel members in this case agreed to award Boxer the win, based on their expert analysis of the replay and the assumption of reasonable play from both players (expected mistakes from a professional player).
I disagree with you on the point that this process encourages abuse. The only time a disconnecting player is awarded a win is when the game is pretty much over anyway. Otherwise, it's taken to a re-game or the disconnecting player is awarded a loss (such as if NightEnd disconnected instead of Boxer).
On March 20 2011 20:08 ropumar wrote: I would like to suggest for the panel to be of 3 players only since I fell that not only would be easier and faster to make a panel of 3, as is also better. I believe a panel of 5 is too big for unanimous decision to made when needed. I believe this particulate situation where the panel was only of 3 helped the process, and perhaps having 5 before vetoing and 3 after should be the new standard. ----
Isn't this, though, the whole idea? Taking an extreme decision *only and only if* it is as clear as a blue summer sky for 5 people, unanimously? What, "when needed"? There's nothing needed, the scenario was someone losing a game through a disconnect and people needing to judge if he was sufficiently far ahead to be granted either a regame or even the win itself.
And, as it's been said before, it was Nigthend's folly to agree on a 3-man panel, since most likely in a 5-man panel at least one person would have stated it's a regame. A bit funny how Boxer's iview kinda points to that with his 8:2 balance ^^
You even agreed that a 5 man panel would make very hard for a unanimous decision to happen, which explains why I believe a 3 man panel is more than enough so the hard decisions(the ones that don't involve a re-game) can ever occur. I believe 3 person is more than enough to decide about this, perhaps some would think 5, 7 or even 12(like in USA court trials) should be required, but that is a opinion we will never know for sure which is best. So I maintain my suggestion that 3 expert man panel not only would be more pragmatical as would be more efficient to achieve the right and fair decision. 3 and 5 are arbitrary numbers just 12 is for the court trials, and is subject to opinion the right amount people need to achieve a "absolute advantage" as a "guilty without reasonable doubt" decision. Because the 3 referee would all have completely expertise on the matter and wouldn't be laymans I believe a 3 man unanimous decision carry the weight required for the decision to be considered fair "beyond reasonable doubt".
On March 20 2011 21:17 Inflexion wrote: However, I do feel differently for how the next tournament should be 'ruled' or drawn up. My personal opinion is that whoever disconnects should get a loss immediately. Yes, it is 'directly' not their 'fault' that that person D/Ced.
..... It is the onus of the player/participant of a sports tournament to be totally healthy (not injured), find the best connection possible, bring their best keyboard/mouse, be as lag free as possible, find the best ISP with least chance of disconnecting, etc.)
Perhaps e-sports, following a model similar to what TL has established, will work out one day. However, I believe that in order for e-sports and sc2 to become as big as a 'true sport' it'll have to follow a model similar to one that is already tested and true.
It's really hard to formuate what I'm trying to say into words but I hope it makes sense.
I understand what you are saying (I think). My problem with the auto loss is that a disconnect really can be no one's fault. Two players can be prepared as well as they can equipment wise, and battle.net has a hiccup. To me, the analogy would be more like a spectator throwing something unto the field and disrupting play. (Or maybe more like if a tennis racket broke, I don't know the rules but I hope that player can get another racket instead of being told he just lost a game/tournament/whatever)
It isn't the fault of the disconnecting player, and so he shouldn't be punished for it.
On March 20 2011 20:15 terrorist112358 wrote: I beleive the decision was highly unprofessional. I don't beleive that Teamliquid will ever achieve high professionality without looking into the professional sports leagues for inspiration. Those leagues (football, ice hockey etc.) have decades of experience. And do they ever punish the visitors team if the hosts are unable to provide a proper environment for a match? No! They never award a loss to the team who was there, willing and ready, whatever way the match looked like. They have two simple rules: a) a match should be decided on the field instead of an office desk whenever possible b) each side is responsible for and required to secure everything necessary to be able to participate. They always preffer a re-match or a punishment to the side that failed to fullfil the second rule. They never punish the side that did nothing wrong. And there is logic behind that. What if Nightend invests heavily into his internet connection to have a superstable one and his opponent doesn't? Is it fair in such a situation to punish him?
What's even worse, you went ahead with a rule forbidding anyone to post a diagreement with it, unless they provide another way. Well then you ultimately ruined this thread into a backpatting joke. If plain disagreement is not tolerated and plain gratulations are, then the thread itself is biased beyond repair. I do beleive that hateful and agressive posts attacking the decision should be erased, but there is simply nothing wrong about stating a disagreement politely. If Teamliquid evaluates it's decision by the posts in this thread as correct, I am really worried for the future of this community. You simply told all that do not agree with the decision, even if they were polite, to shut up or be banned. Very nice and mature.
My suggestion is, that the outcome of the panel should never award a loss to the player that did nothing wrong. The panel should only have two options: issue a re-match or award a loss to the player that failed to secure everything necessary to be able to participate (may it be a disconnect, laggy connection, slow pc, ...). The match should be decided on the field for the sake of us, the audience, and for the sake of fairness. A re-match between Nightend and Boxer would be thousand times more interresting for viewers than reading and writing all this text. Remember that next time Teamliquid.
If Boxer won the remaining two matches 2:0, this matter would be much lighter. But it was 1:1 in the non-interrupted matches. The panel's decision decided the whole Bo3. Please arrange the rematch between Nightend and Boxer before the second part begins today. Let them decide the match on the field. I am sure that every viewer will be glad to see that. Don't let the TSL remain tainted in such a terrible way as it is now. Thank you.
Martin
The OP never says that you can't disagree with the decision at all. It asks that you do so respectfully. There's a big difference. The OP also asks you not to criticize the process (not the decision itself) without offering an alternative process.
I would agree with your analogy to professional sports leagues if players had complete control of their internet connection and ISP. In professional sports leagues, the teams and players have full control over whether their equipment is ready for a match or not, so it is fair to punish them for not having their equipment. Unfortunately, none of us can control random disconnects, so it would be unfair, unacceptable, and unreasonable to punish a player for that random disconnect (they did nothing wrong!).
This is a classic non sequitur fallacy. You create a point out of something that isn't true. The professional sports teams also do not have absolute control over anything. The bus or plane that they're using to get to the match may break down for example (and many more similar things). Such fallacies may work on most posters here, but some may actually see through it. So please be honest with your posts. Thank you.
As for your suggestion: by your logic, even if a player disconnects as he's killing his opponent's last building, then the game goes to a re-match instead of awarding the win. This has been brought up several times in this thread, and the general consensus has been that the TSL administration's method, as defined in the handbook given to all participants and in the OP, is the fairest way of dealing with this situation.
You did not understand my logic as a whole, but rather just a part. For the case you're describing there is the institute of a GG which every professional player should follow if he feels that he is going to lose no matter what he tries. If he doesn't GG, it means he wants to try something to come back. And this right must not be taken from players. And if he refuses to GG even with last building standing, then such a player would loose all his credit and would not be allowed to participate in such tournaments any further. But this should be covered by a general rule that must be present in every tournament (and it is present in professional sports): exploting the rules is a basis for a disqualification.
Lots of sports have judges decisions, especially combat sports. Just look at MMA, judges regularly decide there what's going to happen ^^ I honestly think the criticism that has been dealt is very poor, and I feel that it is absolutely not fair to BoxeR to re-play this game. He absolutely had it, and one of the best players in the world(the best protoss I'd even say) voted against his own race, give it a rest guys =/
You did not understand my logic as a whole, but rather just a part. For the case you're describing there is the institute of a GG which every professional player should follow if he feels that he is going to lose no matter what he tries. If he doesn't GG, it means he wants to try something to come back. And this right must not be taken from players. And if he refuses to GG even with last building standing, then such a player would loose all his credit and would not be allowed to participate in such tournaments any further. But this should be covered by a general rule that must be present in every tournament (and it is present in professional sports): exploting the rules is a basis for a disqualification.
But then you have the Problem to set this exact moment, when a player should "gg" or otherwise lose his credit. Is it when he has no units left ? Or only 3 buildings ? 1 Building ? No CC, Hatch, Nexus ? What if he has 1 building but a way stronger army than his opponent ? I think such a rule would produce other problems.
On March 20 2011 20:08 ropumar wrote: I would like to suggest for the panel to be of 3 players only since I fell that not only would be easier and faster to make a panel of 3, as is also better. I believe a panel of 5 is too big for unanimous decision to made when needed. I believe this particulate situation where the panel was only of 3 helped the process, and perhaps having 5 before vetoing and 3 after should be the new standard. ----
Isn't this, though, the whole idea? Taking an extreme decision *only and only if* it is as clear as a blue summer sky for 5 people, unanimously? What, "when needed"? There's nothing needed, the scenario was someone losing a game through a disconnect and people needing to judge if he was sufficiently far ahead to be granted either a regame or even the win itself.
And, as it's been said before, it was Nigthend's folly to agree on a 3-man panel, since most likely in a 5-man panel at least one person would have stated it's a regame. A bit funny how Boxer's iview kinda points to that with his 8:2 balance ^^
You even agreed that a 5 man panel would make very hard for a unanimous decision to happen, which explains why I believe a 3 man panel is more than enough so the hard decisions(the ones that don't involve a re-game) can ever occur. I believe 3 person is more than enough to decide about this, perhaps some would think 5, 7 or even 12(like in USA court trials) should be required, but that is a opinion we will never know for sure which is best. So I maintain my suggestion that 3 expert man panel not only would be more pragmatical as would be more efficient to achieve the right and fair decision. 3 and 5 are arbitrary numbers just 12 is for the court trials, and is subject to opinion the right amount people need to achieve a "absolute advantage" as a "guilty without reasonable doubt" decision. Because the 3 referee would all have completely expertise on the matter and wouldn't be laymans I believe a 3 man unanimous decision carry the weight required for the decision to be considered fair.
You seem to be missing the point. What does "hard decisions can ever occur" mean? Why would hard decisions ever occur, unless they're perfectly crystal clear? If something is certain to 3 people but questionable to 5, then that action shouldn't be taken. Obviously the higher the number gets, the more probable is for someone to disagree - but in the case of "awarding someone who lost a win" 5 not only seems like a well rounded number, but the decision itself is hard enough that it should be taken only and only if it is obvious to all the 5 members of the panel. As is, pretty much, the case (from my understanding).
Again. This is not a "zomg must take unanimous decision!". It's a way of deciding the most normal course in an already difficult circumstance. The standard, easy, decision of remaking is already there. The panel just has to judge the situation, there is no obligation to agree on something extreme.
On March 20 2011 20:15 terrorist112358 wrote: I beleive the decision was highly unprofessional. I don't beleive that Teamliquid will ever achieve high professionality without looking into the professional sports leagues for inspiration. Those leagues (football, ice hockey etc.) have decades of experience. And do they ever punish the visitors team if the hosts are unable to provide a proper environment for a match? No! They never award a loss to the team who was there, willing and ready, whatever way the match looked like. They have two simple rules: a) a match should be decided on the field instead of an office desk whenever possible b) each side is responsible for and required to secure everything necessary to be able to participate. They always preffer a re-match or a punishment to the side that failed to fullfil the second rule. They never punish the side that did nothing wrong. And there is logic behind that. What if Nightend invests heavily into his internet connection to have a superstable one and his opponent doesn't? Is it fair in such a situation to punish him?
What's even worse, you went ahead with a rule forbidding anyone to post a diagreement with it, unless they provide another way. Well then you ultimately ruined this thread into a backpatting joke. If plain disagreement is not tolerated and plain gratulations are, then the thread itself is biased beyond repair. I do beleive that hateful and agressive posts attacking the decision should be erased, but there is simply nothing wrong about stating a disagreement politely. If Teamliquid evaluates it's decision by the posts in this thread as correct, I am really worried for the future of this community. You simply told all that do not agree with the decision, even if they were polite, to shut up or be banned. Very nice and mature.
My suggestion is, that the outcome of the panel should never award a loss to the player that did nothing wrong. The panel should only have two options: issue a re-match or award a loss to the player that failed to secure everything necessary to be able to participate (may it be a disconnect, laggy connection, slow pc, ...). The match should be decided on the field for the sake of us, the audience, and for the sake of fairness. A re-match between Nightend and Boxer would be thousand times more interresting for viewers than reading and writing all this text. Remember that next time Teamliquid.
If Boxer won the remaining two matches 2:0, this matter would be much lighter. But it was 1:1 in the non-interrupted matches. The panel's decision decided the whole Bo3. Please arrange the rematch between Nightend and Boxer before the second part begins today. Let them decide the match on the field. I am sure that every viewer will be glad to see that. Don't let the TSL remain tainted in such a terrible way as it is now. Thank you.
Martin
The OP never says that you can't disagree with the decision at all. It asks that you do so respectfully. There's a big difference. The OP also asks you not to criticize the process (not the decision itself) without offering an alternative process.
I would agree with your analogy to professional sports leagues if players had complete control of their internet connection and ISP. In professional sports leagues, the teams and players have full control over whether their equipment is ready for a match or not, so it is fair to punish them for not having their equipment. Unfortunately, none of us can control random disconnects, so it would be unfair, unacceptable, and unreasonable to punish a player for that random disconnect (they did nothing wrong!).
This is a classic non sequitur fallacy. You create a point out of something that isn't true. The professional sports teams also do not have absolute control over anything. The bus or plane that they're using to get to the match may break down for example (and many more similar things). Such fallacies may work on most posters here, but some may actually see through it. So please be honest with your posts. Thank you.
As for your suggestion: by your logic, even if a player disconnects as he's killing his opponent's last building, then the game goes to a re-match instead of awarding the win. This has been brought up several times in this thread, and the general consensus has been that the TSL administration's method, as defined in the handbook given to all participants and in the OP, is the fairest way of dealing with this situation.
You did not understand my logic as a whole, but rather just a part. For the case you're describing there is the institute of a GG which every professional player should follow if he feels that he is going to lose no matter what he tries. If he doesn't GG, it means he wants to try something to come back. And this right must not be taken from players. And if he refuses to GG even with last building standing, then such a player would loose all his credit and would not be allowed to participate in such tournaments any further. But this should be covered by a general rule that must be present in every tournament (and it is present in professional sports): exploting the rules is a basis for a disqualification.
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?).
On March 20 2011 21:24 Krehlmar wrote: I think Liquid Nazgul made it pretty clear, even with a simulation to explain the decition.
I think the protoss might've come back but it was highly unlikely to be fair.
The simulation is just hypothetical though and shouldn't be considered as 'evidence'. There are some huge flaws with it.
- two marauders would/could be lifted - 26 probes should be added to the fight. Probes that Nightend could immediately replace from his soon to be mined out bases. This is a huge one. - He assumes Nightend would pick the fight immediately. Had he been able to dance a bit for 10 seconds by using his nexus/probes as decoy he would have been 1-0 instead of 0-0.
The simulation does send the probes and does lift 2 marauders -,-
Obviously your third point is where all the discussion stands - in *some time* Nightend would have gained 50 energy+ on all his pheonixes, would have had a warp-in round of 9 Gateways and would have gained +1. *Some time* being somewhere around 20 seconds, I suppose. There are differences even between the members of the panel, where Morrow states that he is unsure if the T army could've taken the Nexus down, and says that he himself would've backed down to macro. But oh well, it is what it is.
Boxer had 28 marauders at that point, 10 more queued, 4 vikings queued, 6 marines queued. 6 marauders, 3 marines, 2 vikings would have been on their way when NightEnd's warpgate CDs would have been done (all his gates were ~20s to go). NightEnd had 15 stalkers, 1 zealot, 9 useless phoenix, 2 useful ones. A colossus that had a long way to move was just about to finish as were 2 more phoenix. He didn't even have enough resources to get those warpgates producing properly unless he skipped the next colossus.
In the sim Boxer was left with 12/19 marauders, without using EMPs. If he retreats he has 2 fully mining bases, 1 being gold, 1 more pretty much done, 5 vikings, 34 marauders, 10 marines, 3 medivacs by the time NightEnd can even produce anything else. Plus a decent amount of resources and another round of units already queued (paid for). NightEnd would be left with 2 bases, 15 stalkers, 13 phoenix and 1 colossus. And enough gas to make 1 more colossus and mostly zealots from his next warpgate cycle.
If Boxer engages it's safe to assume he could trade all those units for the expansion and quite a bit of NightEnd's next warpgate cycle (mostly zealots). Still leaves him with 15+ marauders, a couple of vikings protected by a planetary and turrets vs at most 1 colossus and some zealots and 13+ phoenix. Most sensible choice would be to just kill the current army and retreat, stays on 25+ marauders but loses all air.
No matter how you go about it NightEnd has to choose between teching and army at this point. Teching would prevent most colossus production, army prevents teching. Just army means Boxer wins (he only needs to build units and upgrades, which he's doing quite nicely on his current income). Teching means Boxer wins cause of lack of army from toss for the following 4-5 minutes. The situation may not be 100% win but in game 3 NightEnd was in a similar position, maybe even better and still lost.
On March 20 2011 21:22 Aflixion wrote: I would agree with your analogy to professional sports leagues if players had complete control of their internet connection and ISP. In professional sports leagues, the teams and players have full control over whether their equipment is ready for a match or not, so it is fair to punish them for not having their equipment. Unfortunately, none of us can control random disconnects, so it would be unfair, unacceptable, and unreasonable to punish a player for that random disconnect (they did nothing wrong!).
In professional sports, teams and players do not have full control over whether their equipment is ready for a match or not. The analogy can be made with hockey player's sticks breaking or tennis player's raquet's randomly breaking. If a player's raquet breaks during a rally does that player get an opportunity to win a point because a panel of judges says he/she would've hit a cross-court winner because they analyzed the trajectory or force of the ball?
I believe it would be unfair, unacceptable and unreasonable to punish a player for getting a loss because his opponent got a random disconnect.
Again, I'm not bashing TL or being a troll. My personal opinion is that the line has to be drawn somewhere. I believe the best method for the next online tournament is to follow what is already tested and true - that is a professional sport (which is something e-sports is striving to become).
On March 20 2011 21:22 Aflixion wrote: As for your suggestion: by your logic, even if a player disconnects as he's killing his opponent's last building, then the game goes to a re-match instead of awarding the win. This has been brought up several times in this thread, and the general consensus has been that the TSL administration's method, as defined in the handbook given to all participants and in the OP, is the fairest way of dealing with this situation.
By your logic, in a basketball game, if a final shot is made to win the game, and it's 1cm from going into the basket and a falcon swoops in and knocks the ball out then a panel of judges analyzes from replays if the ball was going in or not and determines the winner? The key point is that the defending team or the player that did nothing wrong should not be penalized for a loss.
I feel like this is an extreme and shouldn't be used to support an argument. In fact, it stresses even more so that the player who was awarded an loss was undeserving of that loss. The mere fact that because this wasn't an extreme case like the quoted above drives home the point that with such a subjective decision, it's unfair to award a loss to a player who did nothing wrong.
Again, I'm not bashing TL. In fact, I applaud TL for dealing with the situation with such professionalism for the rules and establishments they already had in place. However, for future considerations, I feel like having the player disconnecting being awarded a loss is much better for sc2 to grow as a professional sport.
On March 20 2011 21:22 Aflixion wrote: Someone stated this a couple pages ago, and it's in the OP, but I'll reiterate it here: the panel review isn't looking for absolute 100% certainty that one player won the game, just certainty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if even one of the panel members is hesitant to award the win, then it goes to a re-game. All the panel members in this case agreed to award Boxer the win, based on their expert analysis of the replay and the assumption of reasonable play from both players (expected mistakes from a professional player).
I understand and read that. This thread is about criticising the process by providing coherent arguments and examples (basically don't be a idiot troll). I am saying that I disagree with this process and that for future tournaments, the system should be changed.
The panel review that isn't looking for 100% certainty that one player won the game, but looking for certainty beyond a resonable doubt works. There is no doubt. However, the problem I see with this system is that it is suited way more for a system of law or in judicial system. SC2 is aspiring to be a professional sport. And I think this is where the key difference is.
On March 20 2011 21:24 Krehlmar wrote: I think Liquid Nazgul made it pretty clear, even with a simulation to explain the decition.
I think the protoss might've come back but it was highly unlikely to be fair.
The simulation is just hypothetical though and shouldn't be considered as 'evidence'. There are some huge flaws with it.
- two marauders would/could be lifted - 26 probes should be added to the fight. Probes that Nightend could immediately replace from his soon to be mined out bases. This is a huge one. - He assumes Nightend would pick the fight immediately. Had he been able to dance a bit for 10 seconds by using his nexus/probes as decoy he would have been 1-0 instead of 0-0.
Check sim, all probes were added, 2 marauders were lifted. Result, 12 marauders left without any usage of EMP.
Had the engagement happened, even at 1-0 Boxer would have most likely ended up on a higher amount of marauders and the phoenixes reset to 0 energy. If he had danced he would have lost a few probes/cannons that also helped slightly. And Boxer would have probably retreated since colossus would have been there. Minimal loss for NightEnd anyway.
NightEnd was just too cash starved to afford anything but rebuilding army and some upgrades, and we saw how that army composition did for him in all the engagements (lol EMP). Not to mention the starting disadvantage (Boxer was left with a much bigger standing army, easier to get 200/200).
On March 20 2011 21:24 Krehlmar wrote: I think Liquid Nazgul made it pretty clear, even with a simulation to explain the decition.
I think the protoss might've come back but it was highly unlikely to be fair.
The simulation is just hypothetical though and shouldn't be considered as 'evidence'. There are some huge flaws with it.
- two marauders would/could be lifted - 26 probes should be added to the fight. Probes that Nightend could immediately replace from his soon to be mined out bases. This is a huge one. - He assumes Nightend would pick the fight immediately. Had he been able to dance a bit for 10 seconds by using his nexus/probes as decoy he would have been 1-0 instead of 0-0.
Check sim, all probes were added, 2 marauders were lifted. Result, 12 marauders left without any usage of EMP.
Isn't this, though, the whole idea? Taking an extreme decision *only and only if* it is as clear as a blue summer sky for 5 people, unanimously? What, "when needed"? There's nothing needed, the scenario was someone losing a game through a disconnect and people needing to judge if he was sufficiently far ahead to be granted either a regame or even the win itself.
And, as it's been said before, it was Nigthend's folly to agree on a 3-man panel, since most likely in a 5-man panel at least one person would have stated it's a regame. A bit funny how Boxer's iview kinda points to that with his 8:2 balance ^^
You even agreed that a 5 man panel would make very hard for a unanimous decision to happen, which explains why I believe a 3 man panel is more than enough so the hard decisions(the ones that don't involve a re-game) can ever occur. I believe 3 person is more than enough to decide about this, perhaps some would think 5, 7 or even 12(like in USA court trials) should be required, but that is a opinion we will never know for sure which is best. So I maintain my suggestion that 3 expert man panel not only would be more pragmatical as would be more efficient to achieve the right and fair decision. 3 and 5 are arbitrary numbers just 12 is for the court trials, and is subject to opinion the right amount people need to achieve a "absolute advantage" as a "guilty without reasonable doubt" decision. Because the 3 referee would all have completely expertise on the matter and wouldn't be laymans I believe a 3 man unanimous decision carry the weight required for the decision to be considered fair.
You seem to be missing the point. What does "hard decisions can ever occur" mean? Why would hard decisions ever occur, unless they're perfectly crystal clear? If something is certain to 3 people but questionable to 5, then that action shouldn't be taken. Obviously the higher the number gets, the more probable is for someone to disagree - but in the case of "awarding someone who lost a win" 5 not only seems like a well rounded number, but the decision itself is hard enough that it should be taken only and only if it is obvious to all the 5 members of the panel. As is, pretty much, the case (from my understanding).
Again. This is not a "zomg must take unanimous decision!". It's a way of deciding the most normal course in an already difficult circumstance. The standard, easy, decision of remaking is already there. The panel just has to judge the situation, there is no obligation to agree on something extreme.
You are the one missing the point. we are simply disagreeing on the number of people required to achieve a fair decision. The same you saying 5, someone could say 7 is necessary, is completely subject opinion. I could say: "If something is certain to 5 people but questionable to 7, then that action shouldn't be taken"
5 is an arbitrary number, that is my point. And my suggestion that to change to 3 is better carry as much weight as your opinion that should stay the same or someone's that should be 7 or 9.
"Why would hard decisions ever occur, unless they're perfectly crystal clear?" Crystal clear to whom? To 3 people? to 5 people? to 7 people? to you? to the whole starcraft community? to everyone that clicked on the youtube video where the commentary was show?... that is my point. "Hard decision" would never happen if we required everyone to agree so every game would be rematched. Nothing is crystal clear to everyone. The discussion is which is the best balance between incising the number to decrease doubt and ensuring that the rules be pragmatical.
On March 20 2011 20:15 terrorist112358 wrote: I beleive the decision was highly unprofessional. I don't beleive that Teamliquid will ever achieve high professionality without looking into the professional sports leagues for inspiration. Those leagues (football, ice hockey etc.) have decades of experience. And do they ever punish the visitors team if the hosts are unable to provide a proper environment for a match? No! They never award a loss to the team who was there, willing and ready, whatever way the match looked like. They have two simple rules: a) a match should be decided on the field instead of an office desk whenever possible b) each side is responsible for and required to secure everything necessary to be able to participate. They always preffer a re-match or a punishment to the side that failed to fullfil the second rule. They never punish the side that did nothing wrong. And there is logic behind that. What if Nightend invests heavily into his internet connection to have a superstable one and his opponent doesn't? Is it fair in such a situation to punish him?
What's even worse, you went ahead with a rule forbidding anyone to post a diagreement with it, unless they provide another way. Well then you ultimately ruined this thread into a backpatting joke. If plain disagreement is not tolerated and plain gratulations are, then the thread itself is biased beyond repair. I do beleive that hateful and agressive posts attacking the decision should be erased, but there is simply nothing wrong about stating a disagreement politely. If Teamliquid evaluates it's decision by the posts in this thread as correct, I am really worried for the future of this community. You simply told all that do not agree with the decision, even if they were polite, to shut up or be banned. Very nice and mature.
My suggestion is, that the outcome of the panel should never award a loss to the player that did nothing wrong. The panel should only have two options: issue a re-match or award a loss to the player that failed to secure everything necessary to be able to participate (may it be a disconnect, laggy connection, slow pc, ...). The match should be decided on the field for the sake of us, the audience, and for the sake of fairness. A re-match between Nightend and Boxer would be thousand times more interresting for viewers than reading and writing all this text. Remember that next time Teamliquid.
If Boxer won the remaining two matches 2:0, this matter would be much lighter. But it was 1:1 in the non-interrupted matches. The panel's decision decided the whole Bo3. Please arrange the rematch between Nightend and Boxer before the second part begins today. Let them decide the match on the field. I am sure that every viewer will be glad to see that. Don't let the TSL remain tainted in such a terrible way as it is now. Thank you.
Martin
The OP never says that you can't disagree with the decision at all. It asks that you do so respectfully. There's a big difference. The OP also asks you not to criticize the process (not the decision itself) without offering an alternative process.
I would agree with your analogy to professional sports leagues if players had complete control of their internet connection and ISP. In professional sports leagues, the teams and players have full control over whether their equipment is ready for a match or not, so it is fair to punish them for not having their equipment. Unfortunately, none of us can control random disconnects, so it would be unfair, unacceptable, and unreasonable to punish a player for that random disconnect (they did nothing wrong!).
This is a classic non sequitur fallacy. You create a point out of something that isn't true. The professional sports teams also do not have absolute control over anything. The bus or plane that they're using to get to the match may break down for example (and many more similar things). Such fallacies may work on most posters here, but some may actually see through it. So please be honest with your posts. Thank you.
They do have absolute control over their own actions. Remembering to maintain and bring their equipment to a match falls in this category. As such, it is fair to punish them for not having their equipment. A bus or plane breaking down falls in the same category as random disconnects, which excludes it from punishment, but then the team wouldn't have shown up to the match in the first place. Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I certainly did not intend to deceive anyone with my post. So please do not use an ad hominem abusive argument ("So please be honest with your posts") to reject my conclusion. Thank you.
As for your suggestion: by your logic, even if a player disconnects as he's killing his opponent's last building, then the game goes to a re-match instead of awarding the win. This has been brought up several times in this thread, and the general consensus has been that the TSL administration's method, as defined in the handbook given to all participants and in the OP, is the fairest way of dealing with this situation.
You did not understand my logic as a whole, but rather just a part. For the case you're describing there is the institute of a GG which every professional player should follow if he feels that he is going to lose no matter what he tries. If he doesn't GG, it means he wants to try something to come back. And this right must not be taken from players. And if he refuses to GG even with last building standing, then such a player would loose all his credit and would not be allowed to participate in such tournaments any further. But this should be covered by a general rule that must be present in every tournament (and it is present in professional sports): exploting the rules is a basis for a disqualification.
I understood your logic perfectly, I simply applied it to a situation in which it would be laughable to contest the outcome of the game. Yes, obviously a well-mannered player would have GG'd long before that point in a game. However, simply because a player hasn't offered a GG yet and wants to try something to come back doesn't mean he has a chance to win. This is covered in the rules here: the disconnecting player is awarded a win if and only if the panel of experts unanimously believes the other player had no reasonable chance to win; otherwise, the game is discarded and replayed. For example: had Boxer disconnected a minute earlier in that game, it would have gone to a rematch because there was no clear advantage, let alone an "absolute advantage." But because he disconnected AFTER he gained an overwhelming (absolute) advantage, as found unanimously by Nazgul, Min Chul, and MorroW, he was awarded the win. This also prevents exploitation because of the extreme circumstances required to avoid a re-match. You have to have such an obvious, irreversible advantage (about to end the game) before you can abuse the disconnect policy, at which point it becomes much easier to simply finish the game.
Excellent job with the test-scenario Nazgul, its great that you (TL staff) explained and showed the route that you took to create your decision and also gave everyone the thoughts of the panel judge’s who are experts at the game and gave Incredible analysis on it, it would be pretty hard not to agree that you all handled it as best as humanly possible.
I myself agree 100% with the decision after watching the replay’s last minute several times, shown in the test-scenario even if boxer did not micro at all or use the three EMP’s he had available he would have won the skirmish that’s excellent proof there. However boxer had every building with units que’d up the only building that was doing nothing was his factory, so that said if all his buildings are que’d what else BUT micro? Does boxer have to do?
Besides all that Nightend did not even have the buildings to make the upgrades that were necessary to come back, His gateways would not be ready again before the battle that decided his expansion was over.
The rules were fine in this situation but they weren't implemented correctly. First off it seems the panel only consisted of 3 judges in contrast to the 5 stated in the rules. Secondly the panel doesn't seem to have fully understood the rules.
1. A disconnecter can be identified
If all five people on the panel can identify an advantage for the non-disconnecter he will be awarded the game. If all five people on the panel determine that the disconnecting player has the game absolutely won, the disconnecter will be awarded the win. If not, a regame will be issued.
At least two of the panel members just thought that Boxer had "an absolute advantage" but voted that Boxer had "the game absolutely won".
Having "an absolute advantage in the game" and having "the game absolutely won" is not equivalent.
On March 20 2011 22:41 Blueblister wrote: The rules were fine in this situation but they weren't implemented correctly. First off it seems the panel only consisted of 3 judges in contrast to the 5 stated in the rules. Secondly the panel doesn't seem to have fully understood the rules.
If all five people on the panel can identify an advantage for the non-disconnecter he will be awarded the game. If all five people on the panel determine that the disconnecting player has the game absolutely won, the disconnecter will be awarded the win. If not, a regame will be issued.
At least two of the panel members just thought that Boxer had "an absolute advantage" but voted that Boxer had "the game absolutely won".
Having "an absolute advantage in the game" and having "the game absolutely won" is not equivalent.
You quoted the simplified version of the rules that was given to the players. If you read on, you find this:
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." This operates from the mindset that a player will make all the mistakes in the world that can be expected from a professional level player. So missing EMPs and other micro mistakes can definitely happen but right clicking units and not touching them for five minutes can't. It is important to keep in mind that our standard is NOT that the game must be mathematically over 100%.
Thus, having "an absolute advantage in the game" does translate into having "the game absolutely won." All three of the panelists provided their explanations of why Boxer had the game absolutely won at the point of disconnect.
Edit: forgot to address issue of 3 panelists vs 5.
The administrators were searching for 2 more panelists to replace Cloud and Tyler, but the players asked for the decision to be made by 3 panelists due to time constraints and the amount of time it was taking to find 2 more. The administrators have already said that they will not grant this request for future disconnects, so it's a moot point now.
On March 20 2011 22:41 Blueblister wrote: The rules were fine in this situation but they weren't implemented correctly. First off it seems the panel only consisted of 3 judges in contrast to the 5 stated in the rules. Secondly the panel doesn't seem to have fully understood the rules.
If all five people on the panel can identify an advantage for the non-disconnecter he will be awarded the game. If all five people on the panel determine that the disconnecting player has the game absolutely won, the disconnecter will be awarded the win. If not, a regame will be issued.
At least two of the panel members just thought that Boxer had "an absolute advantage" but voted that Boxer had "the game absolutely won".
Having "an absolute advantage in the game" and having "the game absolutely won" is not equivalent.
No, you're choosing to make that distinction, they didn't. Considering their vote, no matter how they chose to word it they did think Boxer had the game absolutely won.
Learn to make a distinction between an action (their decision) that says something and some words which may or may not have been written by law experts. You're not exactly expecting they be 100% exact in their wording, are you, they don't go about writing explanation with "I have to write/make this perfect or it's not valid" in mind.
On second part, the players chose to go with 3 cause of time constraints.
I just want to say bravo to the TSL team. You guys are doing an amazing job. As a SC2 player, when Boxer left the game, it was clear that he was marching to victory. I was wondering what was the ruling tho. The ruling is very clear. No controversy, just unfortunate for Nightend that he didn't have a chance to battle back, even tho it was a lost battle.
Just for fun; Idra would have gg'd right after the big battle lost. I heard him say on his stream : "yeah i left cause i was a good 10 drones behind..."
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.
My point is clear. The the disconnecting player should never get a win. The player that remained in the game and did nothing wrong should never get a loss. And finally, if there was a rematch, then or today before the second part, the viewers would only gain, not loose. And this thread would not be necessary.
Again, this was a bad decision and process by Teamliquid. And it does not matter much how many people come here to patt their backs. The truth is not in numbers. But even if it was, this thread was biased by the posting rules and I beleive many potential posters with negative opinions were scared off by the banhammer (rightfully so or not). And as someone else stated eralier, Boxer has many more fans out there than Nightend.
On March 20 2011 22:46 Aflixion wrote: Edit: forgot to address issue of 3 panelists vs 5.
The administrators were searching for 2 more panelists to replace Cloud and Tyler, but the players asked for the decision to be made by 3 panelists due to time constraints and the amount of time it was taking to find 2 more. The administrators have already said that they will not grant this request for future disconnects, so it's a moot point now.
On March 20 2011 22:41 Blueblister wrote: The rules were fine in this situation but they weren't implemented correctly. First off it seems the panel only consisted of 3 judges in contrast to the 5 stated in the rules. Secondly the panel doesn't seem to have fully understood the rules.
1. A disconnecter can be identified
If all five people on the panel can identify an advantage for the non-disconnecter he will be awarded the game. If all five people on the panel determine that the disconnecting player has the game absolutely won, the disconnecter will be awarded the win. If not, a regame will be issued.
At least two of the panel members just thought that Boxer had "an absolute advantage" but voted that Boxer had "the game absolutely won".
Having "an absolute advantage in the game" and having "the game absolutely won" is not equivalent.
You quoted the simplified version of the rules that was given to the players. If you read on, you find this:
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." This operates from the mindset that a player will make all the mistakes in the world that can be expected from a professional level player. So missing EMPs and other micro mistakes can definitely happen but right clicking units and not touching them for five minutes can't. It is important to keep in mind that our standard is NOT that the game must be mathematically over 100%.
Thus, having "an absolute advantage in the game" does translate into having "the game absolutely won." All three of the panelists provided their explanations of why Boxer had the game absolutely won at the point of disconnect.
Thanks for the clearification.To move on my point is that rules should by default only be able to benefit the player who has done nothing wrong.
As I'm not a native reader I think the rules is slightly ambiguous in this part: "This operates from the mindset that a player will make all the mistakes in the world that can be expected from a professional level player."
My premise is that two of the judges reasons that Boxer could have made practical mistakes that would lead to NightEnd turning the game around. If above statement means that the judges should presume that the disconnecting in this case do all the micro-mistakes that is reasonable from a progamer, then the rules are fine and some judges in the panel just misunderstood them (thats ok with me, things happen). If not, the rules should be change to make the judges presume that the disconnecting in this case do all the micro-mistakes that is reasonable from a progamer.
So in short either it's the rules should be changed or the call of judges were wrong. In either case it's not OK to reward a player for disconnecting.
Edit: Done updating. Were can u read the full set of rules? It's very important for every serious competition to have them readily available.
On March 20 2011 22:52 Blueblister wrote: Ok, then it's the rules that's the problem. It's not OK to reward a player for disconnecting.
Were can u read the full set of rules?
Because the players didn't have time to wait for 2 more to be found and they agreed on only 3 judges.
The rules are not a problem. A problem would have been Boxer having to regame when he was in such a convincing economic and military lead (check the replay, units, production buildings, resources, Nazgul's sim). When the tide of who makes the most mistakes can sway between the 2 players on a game by game basis it's wrong to reset the mistake counter and go from 0 when one was clearly doing way better for the game that ended in a disconnect.
I mean what chance would a protoss with ~20 stalkers, 5 zealots, 1 colossus, 13 phoenix have against ~40 marauders, 10 marines, 5 vikings, 3 medivacs, 2 ghosts (army after the next warpgate production cycle). With the terran being ahead on upgrades (2-1) and more money. And even with mistakes we're not talking about bronze level play where Boxer wouldn't have capitalized on his huge advantage - 30+ more supply in army only to go higher for the following production cycle.
On March 20 2011 09:07 thragar wrote: Since Tyler and Cloud formed opinions, is there any chance we can see them? In particular, I would like to see why Cloud thought it would be a regame.
Cloud didn't think it was regame. That was just an illustrative example. They didn't say what tyler and cloud actually thought.
For sake of discussion and transparency we will say that Tyler thought it was over and Cloud thought it was a re-game.
I'm pretty sure transparency means that they're exposing that Cloud thought it was a re-game...
On March 20 2011 22:49 terrorist112358 wrote: Again, this was a bad decision and process by Teamliquid. And it does not matter much how many people come here to patt their backs. The truth is not in numbers. But even if it was, this thread was biased by the posting rules and I beleive many potential posters with negative opinions were scared off by the banhammer (rightfully so or not). And as someone else stated eralier, Boxer has many more fans out there than Nightend.
The decision itself is not bad, it's quite good.
But the rule is bad, it should not exist in that form. As you said, you can't punish the player who did not disconnect.
On March 20 2011 22:41 Blueblister wrote: The rules were fine in this situation but they weren't implemented correctly. First off it seems the panel only consisted of 3 judges in contrast to the 5 stated in the rules. Secondly the panel doesn't seem to have fully understood the rules.
1. A disconnecter can be identified
If all five people on the panel can identify an advantage for the non-disconnecter he will be awarded the game. If all five people on the panel determine that the disconnecting player has the game absolutely won, the disconnecter will be awarded the win. If not, a regame will be issued.
At least two of the panel members just thought that Boxer had "an absolute advantage" but voted that Boxer had "the game absolutely won".
Having "an absolute advantage in the game" and having "the game absolutely won" is not equivalent.
You quoted the simplified version of the rules that was given to the players. If you read on, you find this:
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." This operates from the mindset that a player will make all the mistakes in the world that can be expected from a professional level player. So missing EMPs and other micro mistakes can definitely happen but right clicking units and not touching them for five minutes can't. It is important to keep in mind that our standard is NOT that the game must be mathematically over 100%.
Thus, having "an absolute advantage in the game" does translate into having "the game absolutely won." All three of the panelists provided their explanations of why Boxer had the game absolutely won at the point of disconnect.
Ok, either it's the rules that's the problem or the call of judges . It's not OK to reward a player for disconnecting.
Rules should by default only be able to benefit the player who has done nothing wrong. As such a better rule would be to replace an "an absolute advantage" with
On March 20 2011 22:46 Aflixion wrote: Edit: forgot to address issue of 3 panelists vs 5.
The administrators were searching for 2 more panelists to replace Cloud and Tyler, but the players asked for the decision to be made by 3 panelists due to time constraints and the amount of time it was taking to find 2 more. The administrators have already said that they will not grant this request for future disconnects, so it's a moot point now.
Thanks!
Were can u read the full set of rules?
Edit: wait a minute .... updating...
The rules say that the disconnecter only gets a win if he was within reasonable judgement, the winner of the game. Any other way it's either a regame or loss.
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.
This is a classic non sequitur fallacy. You create a point out of something that isn't true. The professional sports teams also do not have absolute control over anything. The bus or plane that they're using to get to the match may break down for example (and many more similar things). Such fallacies may work on most posters here, but some may actually see through it. So please be honest with your posts. Thank you.
They do have absolute control over their own actions. Remembering to maintain and bring their equipment to a match falls in this category. As such, it is fair to punish them for not having their equipment. A bus or plane breaking down falls in the same category as random disconnects, which excludes it from punishment, but then the team wouldn't have shown up to the match in the first place. Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I certainly did not intend to deceive anyone with my post. So please do not use an ad hominem abusive argument ("So please be honest with your posts") to reject my conclusion. Thank you.
Ad hominem is only valid if I criticized you instead of the post. I criticized both. You claimed that professional teams have control over everything. I proved that they don't. You said that the disconnect is the same as a broken down bus or plane. I agree. But the you add that it excludes it from punishment. But that is only your oppinion with weak base. The team could've gone to the match much sooner to prevent a broken bus to cause a no-show. Or they could've picked a different/more reliable service. Boxer could've gone to a place with a core network connection, etc. The professional leagues have decades of experience with this. And there is big $$ in it. If that setup didn't have a logical and legal base, it would've been replaced ages ago.
On March 20 2011 22:49 terrorist112358 wrote: Again, this was a bad decision and process by Teamliquid. And it does not matter much how many people come here to patt their backs. The truth is not in numbers. But even if it was, this thread was biased by the posting rules and I beleive many potential posters with negative opinions were scared off by the banhammer (rightfully so or not). And as someone else stated eralier, Boxer has many more fans out there than Nightend.
The decision itself is not bad, it's quite good.
But the rule is bad, it should not exist in that form. As you said, you can't punish the player who did not disconnect.
You can't punish the player disconnecting either, not too much at least. The rules are clearly in favor of the player that doesn't disconnect but when the game is in the state it was for them you can't just default to auto-loss or regame (other sports games that end due to circumstances other than the teams' fault are stopped with their current score, no regame - any further decisions are taken by a panel of judges - actually regaming is extremely rare).
On March 20 2011 22:49 terrorist112358 wrote: Again, this was a bad decision and process by Teamliquid. And it does not matter much how many people come here to patt their backs. The truth is not in numbers. But even if it was, this thread was biased by the posting rules and I beleive many potential posters with negative opinions were scared off by the banhammer (rightfully so or not). And as someone else stated eralier, Boxer has many more fans out there than Nightend.
The decision itself is not bad, it's quite good.
But the rule is bad, it should not exist in that form. As you said, you can't punish the player who did not disconnect.
This is a classic non sequitur fallacy. You create a point out of something that isn't true. The professional sports teams also do not have absolute control over anything. The bus or plane that they're using to get to the match may break down for example (and many more similar things). Such fallacies may work on most posters here, but some may actually see through it. So please be honest with your posts. Thank you.
They do have absolute control over their own actions. Remembering to maintain and bring their equipment to a match falls in this category. As such, it is fair to punish them for not having their equipment. A bus or plane breaking down falls in the same category as random disconnects, which excludes it from punishment, but then the team wouldn't have shown up to the match in the first place. Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I certainly did not intend to deceive anyone with my post. So please do not use an ad hominem abusive argument ("So please be honest with your posts") to reject my conclusion. Thank you.
Ad hominem is only valid if I criticized you instead of the post. I criticized both. You claimed that professional teams have control over everything. I proved that they don't. You said that the disconnect is the same as a broken down bus or plane. I agree. But the you add that it excludes it from punishment. But that is only your oppinion with weak base. The team could've gone to the match much sooner to prevent a broken bus to cause a no-show. Or they could've picked a different/more reliable service. Boxer could've gone to a place with a core network connection, etc. The professional leagues have decades of experience with this. And there is big $$ in it. If that setup didn't have a logical and legal base, it would've been replaced ages ago.
And even with all these preventive measures, a disconnect can still occur. It's not reasonable to assume that a player will never disconnect, so the punishment for a disconnect must be reasonable. Automatically awarding a loss or a re-game (at most), regardless of the in-game situation, is not reasonable considering the fact that the disconnect can still happen despite a player's preparation.
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.
I actually, even before a decision was made, knew that Boxer had won the game. I completely agree with the final decision of the panel. That game had 3-5 minutes left at best and whatever happened Boxer was clearly in the lead.
As far as people comment on "hey if I'm ahead I can just disconnect", try to think it through. Assume you're a progamer and you play all day. You're somewhat confident in your ability to play, especially if you are ahead (enough so that it would warrant - in your opinion, a 5-0 vote in your favour). Would you risk a re-game from that situation, being so far ahead? Maybe the refs don't agree, maybe your opponent has some tech/units/base you haven't scouted. It doesn't make ANY sense to do it on purpose. NONE at all.
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.
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:
"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.
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. I myself load players who only nags without saying anything constructive, but someone complaining in itself is 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.
TL showed a lot of professionalism with their ruling, but i still think it was a wrong decision.
They should have analyzed the situation from the players' point of view and how frustrating it is to play a set in which situations like this occur. Taking a decision like this simply takes out the beauty and the pleasure out of the game.
Isn't this, though, the whole idea? Taking an extreme decision *only and only if* it is as clear as a blue summer sky for 5 people, unanimously? What, "when needed"? There's nothing needed, the scenario was someone losing a game through a disconnect and people needing to judge if he was sufficiently far ahead to be granted either a regame or even the win itself.
And, as it's been said before, it was Nigthend's folly to agree on a 3-man panel, since most likely in a 5-man panel at least one person would have stated it's a regame. A bit funny how Boxer's iview kinda points to that with his 8:2 balance ^^
You even agreed that a 5 man panel would make very hard for a unanimous decision to happen, which explains why I believe a 3 man panel is more than enough so the hard decisions(the ones that don't involve a re-game) can ever occur. I believe 3 person is more than enough to decide about this, perhaps some would think 5, 7 or even 12(like in USA court trials) should be required, but that is a opinion we will never know for sure which is best. So I maintain my suggestion that 3 expert man panel not only would be more pragmatical as would be more efficient to achieve the right and fair decision. 3 and 5 are arbitrary numbers just 12 is for the court trials, and is subject to opinion the right amount people need to achieve a "absolute advantage" as a "guilty without reasonable doubt" decision. Because the 3 referee would all have completely expertise on the matter and wouldn't be laymans I believe a 3 man unanimous decision carry the weight required for the decision to be considered fair.
You seem to be missing the point. What does "hard decisions can ever occur" mean? Why would hard decisions ever occur, unless they're perfectly crystal clear? If something is certain to 3 people but questionable to 5, then that action shouldn't be taken. Obviously the higher the number gets, the more probable is for someone to disagree - but in the case of "awarding someone who lost a win" 5 not only seems like a well rounded number, but the decision itself is hard enough that it should be taken only and only if it is obvious to all the 5 members of the panel. As is, pretty much, the case (from my understanding).
Again. This is not a "zomg must take unanimous decision!". It's a way of deciding the most normal course in an already difficult circumstance. The standard, easy, decision of remaking is already there. The panel just has to judge the situation, there is no obligation to agree on something extreme.
You are the one missing the point. we are simply disagreeing on the number of people required to achieve a fair decision. The same you saying 5, someone could say 7 is necessary, is completely subject opinion. I could say: "If something is certain to 5 people but questionable to 7, then that action shouldn't be taken"
5 is an arbitrary number, that is my point. And my suggestion that to change to 3 is better carry as much weight as your opinion that should stay the same or someone's that should be 7 or 9.
"Why would hard decisions ever occur, unless they're perfectly crystal clear?" Crystal clear to whom? To 3 people? to 5 people? to 7 people? to you? to the whole starcraft community? to everyone that clicked on the youtube video where the commentary was show?... that is my point. "Hard decision" would never happen if we required everyone to agree so every game would be rematched. Nothing is crystal clear to everyone. The discussion is which is the best balance between incising the number to decrease doubt and ensuring that the rules be pragmatical.
3 man panel is more than enough so the hard decisions (the ones that don't involve a re-game) can ever occur
First of all, I will say this again - hard decisions don't ever have to occur. Crystal-clear decisions have to. Second of all, I know it's the internets and all, but let's try not to argue unless we have to. Your statement implies that there's already a chance that if 4 judges are on the panel, the decision could not stand - which is something huge.
Next, the reason we're not just "throwing out numbers" is the following
For sake of discussion and transparency we will say that Tyler thought it was over and Cloud thought it was a re-game
Essentially, this is just an example of what I was saying before - Yes, ideally, you'd want as many people as possible to agree on the decision before taking it - since that's not feasible, I think 5 is the least required.
You say 3. I respect that. However, as I've tried to explain, please take into account the example that this very thread in which we're posting represents - there's a huge difference between 3 and 5. I'm not just randomly saying "Yeah, 6 guys and their moms sounds about right".
Eh, losing your entire army as P and having marauders clearing your third is not really a situation you can recover from. What are you going to do, throw unupgraded zeal/stalker at stimmed marauders from 1base income, with no sentries and only 2 lifts, and hope he goes afk?
Agree with the judges on this decision. Good show TL for releasing all the information on the process, as well.
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.
On March 20 2011 23:40 nudal wrote: TL showed a lot of professionalism with their ruling, but i still think it was a wrong decision.
They should have analyzed the situation from the players' point of view and how frustrating it is to play a set in which situations like this occur. Taking a decision like this simply takes out the beauty and the pleasure out of the game.
Why, Boxer was so far ahead I doubt even NightEnd thought he had any chances after watching the replay. He was simply too far behind, mostly from the colossus count perspective. Unlike the first round of getting 200/200 Boxer was already 30 army supply ahead (most of those marauders which you can't argue, destroy gateway units), better upgrades and a lot better on the economy side (4th was done when he dced so on the way to getting 3 mining bases, he had a ton of gas and ~2k minerals/1k gas in already paid for units - check his production buildings) while NightEnd had 2 bases mining and barely enough gas for another colossus and a few stalkers.
Disconnecting or otherwise crashing from a game is always going to be an issue so long as computers and networks are fallible systems, and some kind of system needs to be in place that is fair to all parties involved.
Yes in these situations you have to be hyper aware of the possibility for abuse, and walk a very fine line between fairness and risking an advantage for someone disconnecting. Short of requiring all members to either be in the same room or have some kind of webcam system up following the wires and showing what they're doing IRL, I don't see how it'd be possible to ever be 100% sure, and neither of those are particularly good options.
So, that all said, a transparent judging method where players can pick out perceived bias, which only awards wins that were absolutely guarenteed, seems like the best possible method for a bad situation, and I'm happy to see it.
Rules are rules, if the players are given them and agree to them, then that's that. Didn't know what to do about it at first, then read the OP and have decided; happy with the panel's decision. Game 1 to the Emperor.
On March 20 2011 08:43 JackDino wrote: [quote] So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame.
Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell?
In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true.
And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s
EDIT: I only just realised you have 12 posts total >_< Nvm, then. Enjoy you ban.
You cant have 100% certainty to win in sc2 only in "very few" scenarios (im sure there would be a way to work around that) besides i doubt any pro gamer with a sponsor would ever do that, it wouldn't exactly be good publicity. That he had won the game (100%) certain was an opinion, not a fact. If you refuse to comprehend that, then there is no point in discussing this.
Ps. Why should i get banned for giving my opinion? That's what the forum is here for now isn't it?
EDIT: @JackDino: there is no point in argueing about what would happen in an offline tournament. Simply because this isn't.
Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong.
No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that.
Exactly the same thing could've happened at an offline tournament. The only problem here is you thinking people dc on purpose, which is why there is a panel. If you would actually read the OP properly(You really haven't done that), you would know that dcing when you're winning wouldn't give you a win. You want as little people as possible to judge yet you want to judge when to and when not to judge. The people in the panel are professionals, if a single 1 of them would've said nightend could've won they would've rematched, a single one. If you would understand when people can and can't win you might make it up there. Life isn't fair, better get used to it.
I have read the OP. Cheap shots aren't gonna get you anywhere. God i hate arguing with people who aren't interested in understanding eachother. There is no "winning" in this arguement if that's what you are looking for. We just have two way of seeing things.
That being said. BoxeR could (if he had known about this rule) have dc'ed deliberately to avoid that 1% chance of losing - even with the panel. You gotta take these things into account. Even if they are only hypothetical. Being a pro sc2 gamers doesn't neccesarily make you good at taking these kinds of decisions. They "can" be biased. I'd much rather watch BoxeR than NightEnd myself - if i were given the choice to let BoxeR go through... hell i would do it. Mainly because i'm such an irrational bastard. ^_^ - anyways ... only wasting time on this debate. I've made my point clear and so have you. I just hope that TL reevaluate the rules.
Good night.
The reason it's impossible to understand you is because you keep contradicting yourself, using different standarts that are fine according to YOU yet saying OTHERS aren't allowed to decide those exact things.
I see, my point is simply too advanced for you Jokes aside. Tbh. the only thing there is to understand is that i want to minimize the use of judges to the absolute minimum. To be VERY specific. And in this situation i didn't see the need for one, because there still was a chance of NightEnd winning. I think this game still was to uncertain to judge on. I think it should be even more obvious who is gonna win, before you go away from a rematch. I'm talking like 20 marauders vs 1 probe and a nexus. To me that would be okay to judge in BoxeR's favor. This game was still too open. Eventho' a panel said otherwise. - I know my opinion isn't "mainstream", but that's really how I feel. I'm not trying to piss anybody off, but this would just make so much more sense in "my" head. - In and ideal world we wouldn't need judges, but we do. The least we can do is to try to minimize the use of them.
EDIT: Typo
According to you, I guess the court system should also enact rules to have 100% DNA match, fingerprint match, about 20 witnesses with identical stories to get a conviction.
Also, why would Boxer leave when he had the lead? It is more likely that Boxer got drop hacked by NightEnd than Boxer left the game so he could get an autowin.
After reading the post and looking at the rules I have one concern:
It seems like it may be a good idea to avoid players competing in the tournament, they have an apparent conflict of interests. While I am sure the judges tried to be impartial, the fact that they may have to play one of these players later on could easily influence their vote towards whom they would rather play.
So my suggestion is just to keep your criteria for judges but add "and who are not competing in the tournament where the match was played."
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.
On March 20 2011 23:48 zeru wrote: If you disagree with the decisions for no reason, can't suggest any way to do it differently, it just means that you don't understand the decision or haven't thought it through. You contribute nothing, your opinion doesn't matter because you simply disagree for the sake of disagreeing.
If you have a valid reason for disagreeing then you should explain it, not simply state that you disagree. TL is known for trying to maintain a high level quality posting standard.
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 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.
I knew the moment i saw boxer DC they would award him the game. if it was the other way around(nightend clearly in the lead) I'm not so sure since Nightend is not as huge a name as boxer. but then probably having to replay it would be more unfair to boxer than the loss to nightend so its whatever. its clearly sc2(blizzards) fault for not even having a reconnect function for custom games its utterly ridiculous. Im no expert but im pretty sure something like that is rather easy to implement
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.
Yes this is another problem. Players wasn't informed of the detailed rules. The administration should have objected when NightEnd wanted a veto and explained to him that his action could confusingly only be to his opponents benefit.
I applaud the transparency of the decision-making process though. I get the impression that the administration is very professional =D
I'm impressed with the transparency which took place for this decision. And I agree with the decision. People who are saying there should always be a regame should consider the alternative: what if they did an auto regame, and nightend won? Would that be fair to boxer, considering how much of an advantage he had built in the first game?
My only thought is I want to echo others' concerns that players in the tournament should not be on the panels regarding disconnects, as those players may have a stake in the decision.
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.
I'm impressed with the explanation. Every question I had about the decision was answered, clearly and transparently. I am however glad that you are going to require 5 referees on the panel in the future.
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.
On March 21 2011 00:45 Double Letters wrote: People who are saying there should always be a regame should consider the alternative: what if they did an auto regame, and nightend won? Would that be fair to boxer, considering how much of an advantage he had built in the first game?
Dood, if the game was played at a venue and the power went out, or if bnet went down and both players dc'ed, your argument would be completely valid.
As such, since Boxer ended up disconnecting and technically losing the game, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In a hypothetical 70-30% win scenario (if there is such a thing), the decision for a regame would have been completely fair. If both player dc'd, sure, you're right, but in our case, the only way to award anything than regame was a obvious winning situation for one of the players. As it is also stated in the rules.
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.
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 00:34 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 00:34 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 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 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.
Yeah, my bad, I misunderstood "we will say" as "let's assume".
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 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.
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 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 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.
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 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
Wow I'm blown away by this thread. I was about to go on a mindless rage about the decision, but reading the op, I might want to reconsider that. I still disagree with the overall decision to give a win to a disconnecting player unless his opponent has like nothing but buildings left. There is no way anyone can safely say what would have happened. The simulation is interesting, but what if boxer decided to move back and not kill the expansion after seeing a wave of warpgate units coming in? I'm not saying this is likely, but I feel like this is an option. MorroW kinda adressed this possible scenario (the others did not), but he makes a lot of assumptions about what would've happened. The thing is: I agree with everyone's opinion, but even if Nightend's chances to still win this game were less than say 10%, I feel like he got ripped off that 10% and you guys opened doors to disconnect on purpose. Obviously I'm not saying boxer wanted to disconnect or anything and obviously reproducing a similar scenario is going to be tough, but still - if I'm way ahead of my opponent I might rather disconnect than maybe completely fuck up and lose the game.
We've seen all kind of weird comebacks and fuckups by even the best of the best (Jinro - Check comes to mind) and this might have happened here as well. That said I'd like to repeat how amazing I feel like your decision making was. Even if I disagree with the result, I hold the process and the work you put into your decisions in high regard.
Edit: Messed up the quotes. I just wanted to say this to the people complaining about free speech.
It should be noted that freedom is speech is freedom from government censoring your speech. Team Liquid is a private website and if they say you can't say whatever you want, then you can't say whatever you want. You're rights aren't being violated because the governments not the one keeping you from saying it.
I think the referees should watch the game in 1st person view of one of the players first and make a decision, and then watch the full replay and make a decision. If the player does not know they have an advantage, then they can not exploit it. This is not a problem for this game, but may affect future games. It is not the be all and end all, but it should be acknowledged that a player doesn't have perfect information, so even if they are 3 base versus 1 base, but don't know it, they could lose. possibly this isn't as important at their level of play, but it seems like there are some advantages that would seem clear in observer mode but not in 1st person, and that could sway the outcome from outright win to unsure.
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:
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?
is warned because of it criticizes the decisions of the administration and judges without any explanation he disagrees, or what could've been done differently. (rule #1 of the thread)
"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
is warned because it quotes 1 sentence of nagzuls statement which in the same paragraph says:
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.
(rule #4 of the thread)
You are intentionally lying to support your cause. You say that poster #1 broke the first rule, but you yourself wrote the rule in one of your posts:
#1 Criticize the rules and administration without a suggestion on how to do it differently or better But how does this
absolutely wrong decision
User was warned for this post
criticize rules and administration? The post only disagrees with the decision. You got it there in bold. And disagreeing was supposed to be fine, according to rule #3:
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.
Poster #2 is NOT presenting incorrect facts (which is forbidden in your rule #4). He is only drawing a conclusion that you disagree with. But many others here made the very same conclusion as he did, but never got flagged.
If you have to lie like this and use fallacy in every post, you obviously don't have many arguments.
Thus my points still stand. A player that did nothing wrong should never be awarded a loss. The panel should only consider two options: re-match or a loss to the disconnecting player. And the game between boxer and nightend should be rearranged today, so that we, viewers, are not robbed of the fun!
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.
What's there to elaborate on agreeing with the panel? The panel already gave all the reasons for favouring giving the win to boxer. Should we post "I agree with the panel because *repeats whatever the panel said*". I don't see a point of posting more than that if there's nothing to add. Posts that agree with the panel are important because it gives an indication to the organisers that they are moving in the right direction. Of course you can agree with something but also provide suggestions to improve the rules, which some posters indicated.
Disagreeing is an entirely different thing, because there are no arguments for disagreement posted up in the first place as the panel all favoured the Boxer win. Posters who disagree should elaborate on the reasons why, like "I disagree with the panel's decision because NE had a huge chance of coming back. His phoenix will rhave enough energy to lift in about 10 seconds, and he will be able to warp-in sufficient reinforcements to block off the attack etc." (I didn't watch the game, this is all made up.)", basically identifying some points that the panel may have missed out. So posting one liners like "I disagree" are worthless: yes it shows disagreement but it does not identify what is wrong. Some of these posts may just be from posters who don't even put in any effort to think about what they're writing.
Mandalor, if the panel felt that nightend had anywhere close to a 10% chance of winning, a regame would absolutely have happened. a win was given to boxer because the panel members felt that he had the game virtually 100% won - even if boxer started playing much worse than before, if he didn't launch another emp, only made marauders and marines and did nothing but attack move, basically played the rest of the game at the level of a reasonably high diamond player, he would still win..
On March 21 2011 01:46 Liquid`Drone wrote: Mandalor, if the panel felt that nightend had anywhere close to a 10% chance of winning, a regame would absolutely have happened. a win was given to boxer because the panel members felt that he had the game virtually 100% won - even if boxer started playing much worse than before, if he didn't launch another emp, only made marauders and marines and did nothing but attack move, basically played the rest of the game at the level of a reasonably high diamond player, he would still win..
On March 21 2011 01:46 Liquid`Drone wrote: Mandalor, if the panel felt that nightend had anywhere close to a 10% chance of winning, a regame would absolutely have happened. a win was given to boxer because the panel members felt that he had the game virtually 100% won - even if boxer started playing much worse than before, if he didn't launch another emp, only made marauders and marines and did nothing but attack move, basically played the rest of the game at the level of a reasonably high diamond player, he would still win..
Yeah I agree with this and what I was saying was: What if Boxer backed up and didn't engage at that point? Seeing 14 stalkers might have triggered him to play it safe and back up. Having complete vision of the map, this clearly would not be a wise decision, but boxer didn't have that. Maybe I'm doing too much what-ifs, but I just don't see how this was a 100% win in every possible scenario.
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
Cloud plays terran actively, Tyler plays protoss actively. If they'd be objective they'd recognize that either it wasn't 99% chance won by Boxer or that there would be no chance to come back for NightEnd (and I agree with both, no chance for nightend but boxer wasn't exactly destroying his main).
As for NightEnd dcing in a reversed situation we will never know. The legion of angry fans would have come whine after the decision would be taken, with no relevance or power to do anything.
And as for the last part, living in Romania turned you too paranoid. Not everyone tries to screw others over, unfortunately it's just a disease for us. Going to give TL the benefit of being innocent until someone will prove them guilty.
Talking about not being a clear win for Boxer, did you check his minerals/gas and production facilities? overall I think it's about 2x the resources NightEnd had stored or in production. On top of a 100% larger army food wise (phoenix/viking removed due to ghosts and vikings dying by default to that many phoenixes). Without any AoE attacks. There is no chance to break that many marauders with just gateways and I'd be willing to change my mind if you can find at least one game where that happened.
Maybe earlier in the game he could have made a comeback but not when NightEnd needed colossus and couldn't afford mass sentries or templar tech or charge or blink. The entire standing army of NE was from a recent warpin and the phoenix did nothing for him yet he continued to produce them. 2 bases aren't going to support 9 gates a robo and 2 stargates. Can probably barely go with 1 robo 5 gates and some upgrade against 2 base with gold mineral support and a 3rd 20 sec from being online, that apparently could run reactor starport, 6 rax and 2-3 upgrades (infantry and/or air weapons). It was unfortunately over when he lost the first batch of colossus. Unless Boxer would have actually allowed him to get back to 4+ colossus, gateway can't do much vs outnumbering marauders that are also +1 ahead in upgrades (2-1 vs 1-0).
The games were close but after game 3 it was pretty clear mass viking/marauder + ghost beats mass phoenix/colossus. Templars were needed for the 1st 200/200 battle and they just were never there, in either game.
TL did a very good job handling this in a very transparent manner. I wish MLG would be this open with the community about the rules decisions they make.
By the way, if this happened at an MLG, the game would be replayed, no matter how one sided it was. This happened in Halo at the national championships one year, where a team was literally a second away from winning a series, and they disconnected and ended up losing the series.
Here's their rule "3. In the case of a Computer/Monitor/Internet/Battle.net malfunction, the Game will be restarted from the beginning."
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
Unlikely to be luck.
Boxer obviously knows who MC, Morrow, and Tyler are. He may even know Nazgul since Naz has been in Korea for a while and at events with Huk/Jinro/oGs-TL
But he probably isn't familiar with Cloud so why not veto the person you are unfamiliar with?
I don't think its fishy at all. If you know someone is a good player or associated with a good team then you are more likely to trust their analysis to be good.
Boxer probably unfamiliar with Cloud the most so he's gonna veto Cloud. It's what I would do in his position, and what I think most people would do as well -- veto the person you know the least about
No offense, but I think a lot of complainers are barking up the wrong tree.
The point isn't to punish DCers, but to deter anyone from intentionally DCing to gain an advantage. There's nothing morally wrong with DCing, and it's not in anyone's control (except when they cheat). By having this panel, and requiring unanimous support for the DCer to be granted a win, there is NO point in trying to cheat by DCing. If you are at such a huge advantage, it's easier to just win. Also, how do you know if your opponent just made some DTs, got some sneaky upgrades, can hit a gosu EMP/storm, etc? You can't, except through maphacking lol.
Also, it'd be great to have MKP and others on speed dial to ask as refs...but they're busy. Sure, it'd be great to pay top players to not play in TSL and act as refs...but TL made the best out of this situation.
The real question is why nightend vetoed.
Maybe boxer's gf told him about cloud's comments against koreans in NASL lulz (if memory serves me correctly)
That was a good decision in my opinion. I believe that Boxer would have won this game hands down. His stim-marauder-medivac army would have destroyed the third base and Nightend's remaining army.
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.
What's there to elaborate on agreeing with the panel? The panel already gave all the reasons for favouring giving the win to boxer. Should we post "I agree with the panel because *repeats whatever the panel said*". I don't see a point of posting more than that if there's nothing to add. Posts that agree with the panel are important because it gives an indication to the organisers that they are moving in the right direction. Of course you can agree with something but also provide suggestions to improve the rules, which some posters indicated.
Disagreeing is an entirely different thing, because there are no arguments for disagreement posted up in the first place as the panel all favoured the Boxer win. Posters who disagree should elaborate on the reasons why, like "I disagree with the panel's decision because NE had a huge chance of coming back. His phoenix will rhave enough energy to lift in about 10 seconds, and he will be able to warp-in sufficient reinforcements to block off the attack etc." (I didn't watch the game, this is all made up.)", basically identifying some points that the panel may have missed out. So posting one liners like "I disagree" are worthless: yes it shows disagreement but it does not identify what is wrong. Some of these posts may just be from posters who don't even put in any effort to think about what they're writing.
Some of the agreeing posts "may just be from posters who don't even put in any effort to think about what they're writing" as well. They may be terran, they may be boxer's fans. There is plenty of reasons why. The point is that only criticizing the rules or administration without any alternative provided is not allowed. Disagreeing is entirely allowed by the rules and it is specifically written there. No one said that you can't disagree without stating the reasons. Yet there are posts obviously flagged for it. Agreeing and disagreeing is so simple that you are a lot of times provided with just two buttons in a poll and nobody really cares about the reasons. You on the other hand want to prevent the disagreeing from posting and if not possible, at least make it as difficult as it can be for them. (having them write some kind of analysis). I really wonder why you're so scared of a different opinion.
I disagree with the decision, I disagree with the rules and have provided an alternative. All following the rules. Can you live with that?
I don't see anyway for Nightend to come back in that game. Boxer is about to get his fourth base running with nightend unable to get a fourth. Boxer has almost complete vision of his side of the map along with all possible expansions for nightend, a superior army, better upgrades, and all of his bases are as safe as you can get. Let's say he survives the engagement at the third how is Nightend going to go on the offensive with the unit composition he has and is unable to transition out of? I mean he could attack a planetary fortress with inferior numbers, attack the main without being able to reinforce, or harass with phoenixs once they have energy and have no lifts for any battles.
I don't see any problem with giving boxer the win for a game he had practically won. I think some people just think that since its Boxer he is being favored for some reason. If this was a different player i don't see it being that controversial.
On March 21 2011 01:46 Liquid`Drone wrote: Mandalor, if the panel felt that nightend had anywhere close to a 10% chance of winning, a regame would absolutely have happened. a win was given to boxer because the panel members felt that he had the game virtually 100% won - even if boxer started playing much worse than before, if he didn't launch another emp, only made marauders and marines and did nothing but attack move, basically played the rest of the game at the level of a reasonably high diamond player, he would still win..
Yeah I agree with this and what I was saying was: What if Boxer backed up and didn't engage at that point? Seeing 14 stalkers might have triggered him to play it safe and back up. Having complete vision of the map, this clearly would not be a wise decision, but boxer didn't have that. Maybe I'm doing too much what-ifs, but I just don't see how this was a 100% win in every possible scenario.
If Boxer backed up he was 10s away from 34 marauders, 5 vikings, 10+ marines, 3 medivacs, 2 ghosts (and already paid for 5 more marauders, 2 more vikings, few more marines). Plus a decent line of turrets in sensitive spots, and a PF to camp everything on and a 4th CC on the way to being saturated. Versus what, 15 stalkers, 1 zealot, 1 colossus? 5 more stalkers and a few more zealots soon after that? Can you actually say the protoss has any chance in an engagement? Just build turrets and camp the protoss gold and it should be enough. He was so solid in prduction that he could have kept the food advantage easilly until he would have reached 200/200 again.
Imo NightEnd just engaged too early after he got 200/200, didn't plan on a tech upgrade/switch in the event he lost the first time, he had no money stockpiled and he gave what he had away to get that stalker defense force. All he needed was to stall for 1 min to get templar archives going and the gold base up and defended and a few k of minerals and gas.
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.
I have not personally been involved in selecting the panel members - but I also do not really perceive this as a big problem, or at least not a significant problem, especially not when you take into account that all players can veto one panel member. (The issue of the non-disconnector essentially never wanting to veto a player is a different issue though - my honest opinion on this is that we probably didn't think about it. But we learn as we experience stuff and get good feedback!)
Let me however write something about selecting panel members.
1: the panel members must not just be knowledgeable about starcraft 2. they must be very recognizeable as people who are knowledgeable about starcraft 2. for the panel members' opinions to hold validity, people must assume that whoever wrote it knows what he is talking about, it being a highly recognizeable name is beneficial. As this is the team liquid forums and the TSL is the brainchild of this community, a name being familiar to this community thus becomes even more important. hardly any names are more recognizeable than a) participants in the TSL, and b) moderators/admins/teamliquid members/long time community contributors. All the 5 mentioned panel members involved in this decision fit very nicely with this group.
2: accountability is also important. This further solidifies the point made in 1:; we need to know that panel members will spend time and effort into doing as good of a job as they can do. Participants in the TSL are to a very high degree interested in this tournament looking as good as it can look, and they are to a very high degree interested in maintaining as good relations as possible with the tournament organizers. Now, this point is of enormous importance because: the panel knows the result before the result goes live. What happens if someone spoils the result? The tournament is seriously hurt - this is the biggest fear we can possibly have when hosting from replays. Will someone who is still in the tournament spoil these results, knowing that it could lead to serious consequences for their own participation? Obviously we can never know, but the likelihood is much, much smaller than someone who has no real affiliation with the site/tournament..
3: players must not only be skilled, but also very knowledgeable and capable of articulating their knowledge.
Now, I will admit that say, sen, would have been a bad choice for helping decide the winner of this match, as it would possibly enable him to choose his own opponent. Morrow might not have been ideal, as he only has to win two games before he possibly meets boxer. But there aren't THAT many players who fit all these three criteria to the necessary degree.. They also must be willing to participate - and being a panel member does require quite some time spent on analyzing and writing responses to just one game.
On March 21 2011 01:46 Liquid`Drone wrote: Mandalor, if the panel felt that nightend had anywhere close to a 10% chance of winning, a regame would absolutely have happened. a win was given to boxer because the panel members felt that he had the game virtually 100% won - even if boxer started playing much worse than before, if he didn't launch another emp, only made marauders and marines and did nothing but attack move, basically played the rest of the game at the level of a reasonably high diamond player, he would still win..
Even Boxer said it was 8:2 for him, thats a 20%.
I think that's just some "lost in translation" thing or whatever. there's no way boxer would lose this game 20% of the time, boxer knows that, nightend knows that, everyone who watched the replay and stopped it after 18:49 rather than 19:00 knows that.
The issue is rather whether nightend had even 1% chance of winning, because being robbed of even 1% chance of winning is something you can argue should not happen. personally, I think if they played out the game after boxer disconnected 100 times, boxer would win 100 times. I think if I took over boxer's control right after he disconnected, I myself would win 100 times. if you watched the replay and examined the situation after 19:00, I understand that it looks differently, because nightend had 11 seconds to damage boxers units, form a proper arc, gain more mana on his phoenixes and be closer to finishing his round of warpins, but when you look at it from the 18:49 mark there's just no way boxer can lose. he wins the fight if they fight right away, and his reinforcements are both closer and more numerous than nightends, his tech is superior, his income is superior..
On March 21 2011 01:46 Liquid`Drone wrote: Mandalor, if the panel felt that nightend had anywhere close to a 10% chance of winning, a regame would absolutely have happened. a win was given to boxer because the panel members felt that he had the game virtually 100% won - even if boxer started playing much worse than before, if he didn't launch another emp, only made marauders and marines and did nothing but attack move, basically played the rest of the game at the level of a reasonably high diamond player, he would still win..
Even Boxer said it was 8:2 for him, thats a 20%.
I think that's just some "lost in translation" thing or whatever. there's no way boxer would lose this game 20% of the time, boxer knows that, nightend knows that, everyone who watched the replay and stopped it after 18:49 rather than 19:00 knows that.
The issue is rather whether nightend had even 1% chance of winning, because being robbed of even 1% chance of winning is something you can argue should not happen. personally, I think if they played out the game after boxer disconnected 100 times, boxer would win 100 times. I think if I took over boxer's control right after he disconnected, I myself would win 100 times. if you watched the replay and examined the situation after 19:00, I understand that it looks differently, because nightend had 11 seconds to damage boxers units, form a proper arc, gain more mana on his phoenixes and be closer to finishing his round of warpins, but when you look at it from the 18:49 mark there's just no way boxer can lose. he wins the fight if they fight right away, and his reinforcements are both closer and more numerous than nightends, his tech is superior, his income is superior..
But boxer did NOT have all that info you have now when he was still playing. That's the point. And it was because of this that he said 8:2 as I understand. He might have pulled back and give Nightend some critical time.
his reinforcements are both closer and more numerous than nightends, his tech is superior, his income is superior..
I've seen so many situations where the leading player screwed this advantage. Strong advantage is not guaranteed win. Such a sentence you said sets a pretty dangerous precedence and grounds to dc exploitations. They might just think "Hey, I would win 99% sure, let's not risk it and DC". The panel should have only two options: rematch of loss for the DCed player. And only if the non-dced player was abusing the rules or game mechanics to prolong the game unreasonably, should such a player be awarded a loss (and disqualified afterwards). That's my solution.
On March 21 2011 01:46 Liquid`Drone wrote: Mandalor, if the panel felt that nightend had anywhere close to a 10% chance of winning, a regame would absolutely have happened. a win was given to boxer because the panel members felt that he had the game virtually 100% won - even if boxer started playing much worse than before, if he didn't launch another emp, only made marauders and marines and did nothing but attack move, basically played the rest of the game at the level of a reasonably high diamond player, he would still win..
Even Boxer said it was 8:2 for him, thats a 20%.
I think that's just some "lost in translation" thing or whatever. there's no way boxer would lose this game 20% of the time, boxer knows that, nightend knows that, everyone who watched the replay and stopped it after 18:49 rather than 19:00 knows that.
The issue is rather whether nightend had even 1% chance of winning, because being robbed of even 1% chance of winning is something you can argue should not happen. personally, I think if they played out the game after boxer disconnected 100 times, boxer would win 100 times. I think if I took over boxer's control right after he disconnected, I myself would win 100 times. if you watched the replay and examined the situation after 19:00, I understand that it looks differently, because nightend had 11 seconds to damage boxers units, form a proper arc, gain more mana on his phoenixes and be closer to finishing his round of warpins, but when you look at it from the 18:49 mark there's just no way boxer can lose. he wins the fight if they fight right away, and his reinforcements are both closer and more numerous than nightends, his tech is superior, his income is superior..
But boxer did NOT have all that info you have now when he was still playing. That's the point. And it was because of this that he said 8:2 as I understand. He might have pulled back and give Nightend some critical time.
yes, that may be true if army sizes and everything were the same and boxer was sitting in his base. boxer was in his face. he sensed a huge advantage. why in the world would he just turn around? there was also really nowhere left for him to expand that boxer would not find out about quickly, IIRC.
sensing 8:2 advantage is NOT 2:8 odds that you'd just turn around. more like .1%, imo
To be honest I can't support this decision... IMO if YOU get disconnected it's YOUR responsibility and I'm sure Boxer couldn't control the DC at all still... tough shit.
My biggest criticism of this game is that because it's so hard to make a comeback the game is full of quitters and nobody even tries to come back if they are behind. If you even stay in the game and try to make a comeback half the people just talk trash about how bm you are for not leaving... the people that play this game don't believe in the "never give up" attitude and I guarantee you a LOT of pros have quit out of incredibly important games that they could have won because the general attitude of this game is that if you are behind you should just quit instead of "wasting everyone time" trying to come back. Imagine if a basketball team was down 20 and they just walked off the court at half time and went home... we would never see any amazing comebacks.
Would nightend have won? Probably not. Probably not. I don't think it's fair to deny him that chance because the other guy got disconnected..
All that being said if the panel can sleep at night after denying nightend a chance at making an epic comeback then I guess it's fine. Hopefully I won't get bashed for my comments but sometimes it feels like this community (sc2 in general, not necessarily TL) is a dictatorship and if you say anything the people in authority don't like they cut your head off... but I have to give you guys props for actually coming out and letting us know exactly what happened instead of saying "this is our decision deal with it".
Just out of curiosity, what happens if a boxer (no pun intended...a fighting boxer not a slaying one) is incredibly far ahead after the 11th round of a 12 round fight and he breaks his leg walking back to his corner after the round? Does he get an auto-win because he was far ahead? (I doubt it)
On March 21 2011 01:46 Liquid`Drone wrote: Mandalor, if the panel felt that nightend had anywhere close to a 10% chance of winning, a regame would absolutely have happened. a win was given to boxer because the panel members felt that he had the game virtually 100% won - even if boxer started playing much worse than before, if he didn't launch another emp, only made marauders and marines and did nothing but attack move, basically played the rest of the game at the level of a reasonably high diamond player, he would still win..
Even Boxer said it was 8:2 for him, thats a 20%.
I think that's just some "lost in translation" thing or whatever. there's no way boxer would lose this game 20% of the time, boxer knows that, nightend knows that, everyone who watched the replay and stopped it after 18:49 rather than 19:00 knows that.
The issue is rather whether nightend had even 1% chance of winning, because being robbed of even 1% chance of winning is something you can argue should not happen. personally, I think if they played out the game after boxer disconnected 100 times, boxer would win 100 times. I think if I took over boxer's control right after he disconnected, I myself would win 100 times. if you watched the replay and examined the situation after 19:00, I understand that it looks differently, because nightend had 11 seconds to damage boxers units, form a proper arc, gain more mana on his phoenixes and be closer to finishing his round of warpins, but when you look at it from the 18:49 mark there's just no way boxer can lose. he wins the fight if they fight right away, and his reinforcements are both closer and more numerous than nightends, his tech is superior, his income is superior..
But boxer did NOT have all that info you have now when he was still playing. That's the point. And it was because of this that he said 8:2 as I understand. He might have pulled back and give Nightend some critical time.
his reinforcements are both closer and more numerous than nightends, his tech is superior, his income is superior..
I've seen so many situations where the leading player screwed this advantage. Strong advantage is not guaranteed win. Such a sentence you said sets a pretty dangerous precedence and grounds to dc exploitations. They might just think "Hey, I would win 99% sure, let's not risk it and DC". The panel should have only two options: rematch of loss for the DCed player. And only if the non-dced player was abusing the rules or game mechanics to prolong the game unreasonably, should such a player be awarded a loss (and disqualified afterwards). That's my solution.
But there is no critical time. Boxer has about double the useful army value, more money, better economy. NightEnd needs at least 4 minutes to get to 5 colossus and can get to ~40 stalkers while not attempting to ever expand or tech switch. In 4 minutes Boxer has map control, gets to 15 vikings, can get as many marauders as he likes, as many new raxes as he likes or just pushes in within 1-2 minutes and destroys everything NightEnd has due to being maxed while NightEnd is not (if you check supply when he DCed he also has a few less harvesters than NightEnd, the army difference is high and he can maintain and possibly increase it.
I don't know why there are some people whining about this decision. This is not a random decision based on Boxer's reputation. It was based on tourney rules and a decision by the panels with absolutely top players in the world right now. What I love the most is the player was given a veto on panel members. Don't know why NightEnd didn't veto out MC though. Always admire TeamLiquid for their by the book decisions. TSL go go go !!!
On March 21 2011 02:47 Neo.NEt wrote: To be honest I can't support this decision... IMO if YOU get disconnected it's YOUR responsibility and I'm sure Boxer couldn't control the DC at all still... tough shit.
My biggest criticism of this game is that because it's so hard to make a comeback the game is full of quitters and nobody even tries to come back if they are behind. If you even stay in the game and try to make a comeback half the people just talk trash about how bm you are for not leaving... the people that play this game don't believe in the "never give up" attitude and I guarantee you a LOT of pros have quit out of incredibly important games that they could have won because the general attitude of this game is that if you are behind you should just quit instead of "wasting everyone time" trying to come back. Imagine if a basketball team was down 20 and they just walked off the court at half time and went home... we would never see any amazing comebacks.
Would nightend have won? Probably not. Probably not. I don't think it's fair to deny him that chance because the other guy got disconnected..
All that being said if the panel can sleep at night after denying nightend a chance at making an epic comeback then I guess it's fine.
How can it be his responsibility, he does not control the entire chain of ISPs from Korea to the US where the game was played. Epic comebacks happen if you have the tools or are normally a very creative player (let's say a WhiteRa that likes to be aggressive and sometimes sneaky, Boxer that never ever gives up even when everyone on TL whines that he should GG cause it's lost).
Watch game 3, it's a perfect example and NightEnd was in a better position on his way to recovery. After the first engagements Boxer kept poking and slowing down NightEnd's development until his army was big enough to just stomp - also reason why I believe Boxer could have also pulled back from NightEnd's 3rd, maybe just taking positions on NightEnd's gold for a while.
On March 21 2011 02:47 Neo.NEt wrote: To be honest I can't support this decision... IMO if YOU get disconnected it's YOUR responsibility and I'm sure Boxer couldn't control the DC at all still... tough shit.
My biggest criticism of this game is that because it's so hard to make a comeback the game is full of quitters and nobody even tries to come back if they are behind. If you even stay in the game and try to make a comeback half the people just talk trash about how bm you are for not leaving... the people that play this game don't believe in the "never give up" attitude and I guarantee you a LOT of pros have quit out of incredibly important games that they could have won because the general attitude of this game is that if you are behind you should just quit instead of "wasting everyone time" trying to come back. Imagine if a basketball team was down 20 and they just walked off the court at half time and went home... we would never see any amazing comebacks.
Would nightend have won? Probably not. Probably not. I don't think it's fair to deny him that chance because the other guy got disconnected..
All that being said if the panel can sleep at night after denying nightend a chance at making an epic comeback then I guess it's fine.
How can it be his responsibility, he does not control the entire chain of ISPs from Korea to the US where the game was played. Epic comebacks happen if you have the tools or are normally a very creative player (let's say a WhiteRa that likes to be aggressive and sometimes sneaky, Boxer that never ever gives up even when everyone on TL whines that he should GG cause it's lost).
Watch game 3, it's a perfect example and NightEnd was in a better position on his way to recovery. After the first engagements Boxer kept poking and slowing down NightEnd's development until his army was big enough to just stomp - also reason why I believe Boxer could have also pulled back from NightEnd's 3rd, maybe just taking positions on NightEnd's gold for a while.
I probably added the boxing example after you posted that but it's the same thing. Is it his fault he had a freak accident and broke his leg? Is it your fault that somebody hit you on the way to work so you were late and got fired? Or that your house got robbed and you can't afford to pay your bills? You can't necessarily control any of those things but you are the only person who should have to take responsibility for that.
I'm 99% sure that Boxer was going to win that game but I don't think it's fair to deny Nightend that chance because the other guy had a freak accident.
On March 21 2011 02:47 Neo.NEt wrote: To be honest I can't support this decision... IMO if YOU get disconnected it's YOUR responsibility and I'm sure Boxer couldn't control the DC at all still... tough shit.
My biggest criticism of this game is that because it's so hard to make a comeback the game is full of quitters and nobody even tries to come back if they are behind. If you even stay in the game and try to make a comeback half the people just talk trash about how bm you are for not leaving... the people that play this game don't believe in the "never give up" attitude and I guarantee you a LOT of pros have quit out of incredibly important games that they could have won because the general attitude of this game is that if you are behind you should just quit instead of "wasting everyone time" trying to come back. Imagine if a basketball team was down 20 and they just walked off the court at half time and went home... we would never see any amazing comebacks.
Would nightend have won? Probably not. Probably not. I don't think it's fair to deny him that chance because the other guy got disconnected..
All that being said if the panel can sleep at night after denying nightend a chance at making an epic comeback then I guess it's fine.
How can it be his responsibility, he does not control the entire chain of ISPs from Korea to the US where the game was played. Epic comebacks happen if you have the tools or are normally a very creative player (let's say a WhiteRa that likes to be aggressive and sometimes sneaky, Boxer that never ever gives up even when everyone on TL whines that he should GG cause it's lost).
Watch game 3, it's a perfect example and NightEnd was in a better position on his way to recovery. After the first engagements Boxer kept poking and slowing down NightEnd's development until his army was big enough to just stomp - also reason why I believe Boxer could have also pulled back from NightEnd's 3rd, maybe just taking positions on NightEnd's gold for a while.
Yeah, how can one says that the disconnect was Boxer's fail. And people don't seem to realize the this is not about the situation in the game. Its about the decision. This decision was made by a panels that BOTH players agreed upon and according to the RULES that EVERY players in the TSL accepted before entering the tourney. Whining against this decision will just make one looks silly.
On March 21 2011 02:47 Neo.NEt wrote: To be honest I can't support this decision... IMO if YOU get disconnected it's YOUR responsibility and I'm sure Boxer couldn't control the DC at all still... tough shit.
My biggest criticism of this game is that because it's so hard to make a comeback the game is full of quitters and nobody even tries to come back if they are behind. If you even stay in the game and try to make a comeback half the people just talk trash about how bm you are for not leaving... the people that play this game don't believe in the "never give up" attitude and I guarantee you a LOT of pros have quit out of incredibly important games that they could have won because the general attitude of this game is that if you are behind you should just quit instead of "wasting everyone time" trying to come back. Imagine if a basketball team was down 20 and they just walked off the court at half time and went home... we would never see any amazing comebacks.
Would nightend have won? Probably not. Probably not. I don't think it's fair to deny him that chance because the other guy got disconnected..
All that being said if the panel can sleep at night after denying nightend a chance at making an epic comeback then I guess it's fine.
How can it be his responsibility, he does not control the entire chain of ISPs from Korea to the US where the game was played. Epic comebacks happen if you have the tools or are normally a very creative player (let's say a WhiteRa that likes to be aggressive and sometimes sneaky, Boxer that never ever gives up even when everyone on TL whines that he should GG cause it's lost).
Watch game 3, it's a perfect example and NightEnd was in a better position on his way to recovery. After the first engagements Boxer kept poking and slowing down NightEnd's development until his army was big enough to just stomp - also reason why I believe Boxer could have also pulled back from NightEnd's 3rd, maybe just taking positions on NightEnd's gold for a while.
Yeah, how can one says that the disconnect was Boxer's fail. And people don't seem to realize the this is not about the situation in the game. Its about the decision. This decision was made by a panels that BOTH players agreed upon and according to the RULES that EVERY players in the TSL accepted before entering the tourney. Whining against this decision will just make one looks silly.
Just because the players agreed to the rules doesn't make them fair... what are they going to do not play in the tournament because the other guy might disconnect? I don't want to take anything away from this tournament because it's going to be insane and I don't have a HUGE problem with this decision in particular but I think it sets a scary precedent... let's just hope this doesn't happen as we get further down the road.
TSL is so good with its decision making. xD Getting top panel players to agree on the decision? That's really smart. Their expertise really gives this decision credibility, and I think the process itself is fair as well. It's unfortunate disconnects happen, but this one was very well handled. Bravo.
On March 21 2011 03:12 ghrur wrote: TSL is so good with its decision making. xD Getting top panel players to agree on the decision? That's really smart. Their expertise really gives this decision credibility, and I think the process itself is fair as well. It's unfortunate disconnects happen, but this one was very well handled. Bravo.
Yeah it's nice to have top players on the panel but do you really think it's a good idea to have top players who are still in the tournament on the panel?
On March 21 2011 03:12 ghrur wrote: TSL is so good with its decision making. xD Getting top panel players to agree on the decision? That's really smart. Their expertise really gives this decision credibility, and I think the process itself is fair as well. It's unfortunate disconnects happen, but this one was very well handled. Bravo.
I agree. The methodology is extremely proffessional. This is pretty much the best approach of any tournament. And even better is the complete transparency that is being implemented.
On March 21 2011 02:47 Neo.NEt wrote: To be honest I can't support this decision... IMO if YOU get disconnected it's YOUR responsibility and I'm sure Boxer couldn't control the DC at all still... tough shit.
I don't get how it is Boxer's responsibility. He is playing from Korea servers and TSL invited him.
My biggest criticism of this game is that because it's so hard to make a comeback the game is full of quitters and nobody even tries to come back if they are behind. If you even stay in the game and try to make a comeback half the people just talk trash about how bm you are for not leaving... the people that play this game don't believe in the "never give up" attitude and I guarantee you a LOT of pros have quit out of incredibly important games that they could have won because the general attitude of this game is that if you are behind you should just quit instead of "wasting everyone time" trying to come back. Imagine if a basketball team was down 20 and they just walked off the court at half time and went home... we would never see any amazing comebacks.
Comebacks are hard because Blizzard maps are too small. You win a battle then you're in the base after 10 seconds. If this were a GSL map, a regame would've probably been called imo.
Just out of curiosity, what happens if a boxer (no pun intended...a fighting boxer not a slaying one) is incredibly far ahead after the 11th round of a 12 round fight and he breaks his leg walking back to his corner after the round? Does he get an auto-win because he was far ahead? (I doubt it)
TL did a good job with this game and I'm happy that the community is seeing this as such. Very through explination from tyler and morrow. Good decision. With the explination I feel a little bit better about the outcome.
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.
Yes this is another problem. Players wasn't informed of the detailed rules. The administration should have objected when NightEnd wanted a veto and explained to him that his action could confusingly only be to his opponents benefit.
I applaud the transparency of the decision-making process though. I get the impression that the administration is very professional =D
What you forgetting is that according to the rules the vetoed judges would be replaced by others judges so the panel could remain with 5 judges. Was a logistic problem that TL was not able to find the replacement fast enough.
"While we were looking for more panel members, both players agreed to a 3 man panel instead of 5. We want to thank everyone for stepping up and helping us out. "
Nightend was right on vetoing , the only problem is since he was nice enough to let the panel be small for the sake of convenience for the tournament organizers he lost his chance of getting a another 2 judges.
Interesting analysis of the decision, glad to see that you like to clarify such and not keep it hidden. I don't know how I feel about the decision, but I'll trust that a panel of pros at least know a little bit more than me Good work guys, keeps it up.
Thank you very much TL for taking the time to study this DC very in depth. The thought process put into this issue is a lot and it is very nice to see the deep consideration and immense care put it this process. This shows the immense amount of professionalism put into what you guys do and its awesome to see.
Thank you TL for making sure a clear and well-thought out explanation post. This process seems extremely fair and the decision reached was reasonable. Keep up the great work ^^
I think a system that could work is that, in this situation, Boxer gets the 1-0 as he clearly had a large advantage but the game turns into a best-of-5, to slightly punish Boxer and give Nightend more of a chance of a comeback. Thoughts ?
On March 20 2011 08:43 JackDino wrote: [quote] So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs.
You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame.
Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell?
In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true.
And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s
EDIT: I only just realised you have 12 posts total >_< Nvm, then. Enjoy you ban.
You cant have 100% certainty to win in sc2 only in "very few" scenarios (im sure there would be a way to work around that) besides i doubt any pro gamer with a sponsor would ever do that, it wouldn't exactly be good publicity. That he had won the game (100%) certain was an opinion, not a fact. If you refuse to comprehend that, then there is no point in discussing this.
Ps. Why should i get banned for giving my opinion? That's what the forum is here for now isn't it?
EDIT: @JackDino: there is no point in argueing about what would happen in an offline tournament. Simply because this isn't.
Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong.
No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that.
Exactly the same thing could've happened at an offline tournament. The only problem here is you thinking people dc on purpose, which is why there is a panel. If you would actually read the OP properly(You really haven't done that), you would know that dcing when you're winning wouldn't give you a win. You want as little people as possible to judge yet you want to judge when to and when not to judge. The people in the panel are professionals, if a single 1 of them would've said nightend could've won they would've rematched, a single one. If you would understand when people can and can't win you might make it up there. Life isn't fair, better get used to it.
I have read the OP. Cheap shots aren't gonna get you anywhere. God i hate arguing with people who aren't interested in understanding eachother. There is no "winning" in this arguement if that's what you are looking for. We just have two way of seeing things.
That being said. BoxeR could (if he had known about this rule) have dc'ed deliberately to avoid that 1% chance of losing - even with the panel. You gotta take these things into account. Even if they are only hypothetical. Being a pro sc2 gamers doesn't neccesarily make you good at taking these kinds of decisions. They "can" be biased. I'd much rather watch BoxeR than NightEnd myself - if i were given the choice to let BoxeR go through... hell i would do it. Mainly because i'm such an irrational bastard. ^_^ - anyways ... only wasting time on this debate. I've made my point clear and so have you. I just hope that TL reevaluate the rules.
Good night.
The reason it's impossible to understand you is because you keep contradicting yourself, using different standarts that are fine according to YOU yet saying OTHERS aren't allowed to decide those exact things.
I see, my point is simply too advanced for you Jokes aside. Tbh. the only thing there is to understand is that i want to minimize the use of judges to the absolute minimum. To be VERY specific. And in this situation i didn't see the need for one, because there still was a chance of NightEnd winning. I think this game still was to uncertain to judge on. I think it should be even more obvious who is gonna win, before you go away from a rematch. I'm talking like 20 marauders vs 1 probe and a nexus. To me that would be okay to judge in BoxeR's favor. This game was still too open. Eventho' a panel said otherwise. - I know my opinion isn't "mainstream", but that's really how I feel. I'm not trying to piss anybody off, but this would just make so much more sense in "my" head. - In and ideal world we wouldn't need judges, but we do. The least we can do is to try to minimize the use of them.
EDIT: Typo
You don't want as little judges as possible yet you see yourself fit to judge about this specific situation afterall, deciding it should be a rematch requires judges aswell. You're doing it right now, saying 3 judges on the panel are wrong in this situation while you are right. You need to realize that dcs can happen for whatever reason instead of assuming people dc purposely or people have a bad connection.
I am very impressed by the depth of consideration given towards the situation. I don't follow SC2 at all (just came to peak at results since I'm rooting for my favorite ex-BWprogamers) but it looked very thoroughly thought out and the simulation was... well, wow.
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.
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!
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
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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).
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.
This thread seems to be in a deadlock. Clearly people have different opinions and no matter how well professional players calculate the game people will still believe that miracles and impossible comebacks can happen. If this would've been a regame I believe that even more people would have disagreed with the decision.
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.
When the disconnect happend - i was thinking: "ohh god... i hope that they dont have to make a remake. if so then there will be a lot of spam from haters of the community.." Godd decision
For those who have an issue with the rules as they are in place, below I explain all possible options of how to handle a DC by a player.
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.
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?
The situation was clearly handled in a good tranparent way.
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..
Disconnects are bad. At that point there is no good way to handle it, only a least worst way. I think the current rules are a good least worst way.
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.
I'd like to note how the three panel judges all approached the matter differently but came to the same decision. It shows a huge diversity in playstyle and how they analyze the game.
Absolutely spectacular handling of a stick situation. TLers- you really manned up to this one. Most major american sports leagues could learn a serious lesson here. Even if i didn't agree with the decision (which i do) I commend the process wholeheartedly. Many thanks
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.
I don't want to argue about the decision obviously the players composing The Panel: Liquid`Nazgul, oGsMinchul, mouz.Morrow have more experience than i do . But what i want to ask is 1 .What is the reason for the disconnect (i am sorry if this is mentioned in the article it must have slipped me). 2. If the reason was the battle connection why no proxy has been made to prevent this kind of situations.
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.
I haven't read all the pages of this discussion but I was wondering if this question has been covered: 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.
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.
Thanks for being so forward with all the information, TSL admins It does suck for Nightend too, but at least the decision making and the rules were crystal clear.
I loved how you guys did a really thorough job of making sure everything stays fair. Especially the contributions by Nazgul.
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.
Good decision, that simulation in nazgul's quote kinda proves that the game was pretty much over. I think you guy should continue to run simulations like that in cases like this.
Good call, although it is true that a 5 member panel would make the decision seem more justified.
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...
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.
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.
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.
This decision was obvious. It would be the most amazing comeback in history if Protoss was able to pull that one out. Boxer would have had to make bronze-level mistakes to let that one slip away!
Really cool that you guys posted everything involved in the process, though.
I would just like to add that I think this kind of transparency is great for the game (and big events). It gives more insight and trust from the viewers/fanbase.
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.
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
TL handled the situation with professionalism.Good job guys and I agree with the decision; by the time Protoss would had been able to warp in enough units,he would had already lost his 3rd and stay with almost no income against a gold base Terran.
Situations like this are never easy. My dad owns a drag racing strip and they have a very robust ruleset to prevent drama. Well done and I appreciate you guys taking the time to inform the community rather than just saying something like "we decided.. deal w/ it"
I think the way to handle this really is proffesionnal but i think this is not the good decision even if Boxer was 99% sure to take the game. 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.
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!
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.
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.
I know this is an old post but I would like to thanks everyone evolved for taking the time to deal with this issue. I can not wait for if these two ever play each other again.
It is true that BoxeR may had that game, but as u saw the GRAND FINALS ThorZaIN escaped NaNiwa's push on the 4th game. NaNiwa escaped the "block" made by ThorZaIN in the first match on Metalopolis. You never know what will gona happend. The decision was correct indeed and I'm proud of the TL staff but I realy think that NightEnD could find a way to escape. Anyways... good job to the TL staff and GOOD JOB to all the TSL3 players. Congratulations to mouz.ThorZaIN and GG to Dignitas.NaNiwa. !!! GREAT JOB !!!
EPT
<3 Artfully and effectively well done!
![[image loading]](http://www.gogaminggiant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/facepalm.jpg)
