|
Post by BioLogIn on Jan 21, 2010 14:44:50 GMT -5
Yeah, BigJim is pretty much absent, but there isn't much anyone can do about that. We will drop him from league next month for sure, and that's it.
As for Ellipsis-MikeEB problem, it's a tricky one. I really don't want to award a match loss for failing to comply with vague written rule (partially my fault - I should have forced to make the rule more clear in the very beginning of the month). My decision is that Ellipsis gets -5 points for this game regardless of the game outcome and the game continues as is.
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Jan 21, 2010 18:10:17 GMT -5
Thanks, Bio, that seems reasonable to me (and as it turns out, a bit more lenient than match loss).
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jan 25, 2010 5:51:49 GMT -5
I tried to calculate standings (http://slarty.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=league2&thread=735&page=1) but for some reason there seems to be at least one mistake I totally cannot catch, so the thing is not entirely accurate. I'll give it another try later today.
Meanwhile, the Hour of Mist strikes tomorrow, so don't forget to report your finished games before then.
|
|
|
Post by spez on Jan 25, 2010 8:55:53 GMT -5
Sorry it seems the games I lost, the Winner didn't post the game results, i'll post them.
Also, is there a reason I'm singled out in the results post? :-P
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on Jan 25, 2010 16:37:41 GMT -5
Also, is there a reason I'm singled out in the results post? :-P My guess is that you joined the illustrious black rose this month. And it's a reminder that your score this month is a ronin score. Or, it could just be a cut-n-paste artifact.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jan 27, 2010 6:49:26 GMT -5
spezSorry bout that =) You were the only ronin that scored this month, so I needed to keep you scores separated to find a mistake. Hour of mist is here. Standings are updated. I'm the champion and Guild of the Black Art is the High Clan. However, there are two things to be clarified: 1) In a game between Ourjake and Dubber, on T7 Dubber successfully cast para2 at jake's monster. For now the game is accounted as +10 for ourjake, but I feel like T7 should be a subject to the bonus points for Dubber. @paramancers: let me know if I'm wrong. 2) My judgment on MikeEB vs Ellipsis game (which is currently scored as +3 for Ellipsis) is temporary suspended (by myself). This game outcome is crucial to the month results (the 15 points - difference between Elipsis getting +5 for penalized win or -10 for lose - is bigger then the gap between GBA and the Isle), so we really need an impartial take on this one. I've mailed the Unraveller (Slarty) on this case, and I hope he will find time to post his decision. If he won't post anything till February, my judgment will remain in effect, but I'll consider (temporary) stepping down from participating in GBA clan and from participating in League (I still be judging the thing). While I do my best to be impartial, I'm not sure I'll be able to keep Weaver's position unstained from doubts in future if I'll continue to participate.
|
|
|
Post by ourjake on Jan 27, 2010 12:50:07 GMT -5
in my game vs dubber: the turn when he hit my troll i hit him also netting 0 (i should have noted it as such, my bad) In the other: since it is a bit of a different situation than just forgetting the rule for a second (like most of the DQ's), i propose: does anyone know of a situation (with haste/perm/timestop anything) where the blank gesture wouldn't have been the one that was paralyzed? and, if nobody can think of one, let him have the loss; but if that situation might exist then call it a misunderstanding and give him the -5. either way, i wouldn't consider you stained if you kept on with the league/clans. unless someone gets out the UV lights, but then it might get gross around here
|
|
|
Post by xade on Jan 27, 2010 13:45:30 GMT -5
honestly, the decision was made prior to the results being so close. So I don't really mind. It seemed a fair call at the time- it still seems a fail call. ]
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Jan 27, 2010 14:16:06 GMT -5
Blank would always be blank (except a "-" just as paralyzee got in a time stopped turn where paralyzee could submit any gesture during timestop and that gesture would then be paralyzed following timestop)
That should have been a "-" not any other gesture... ergo, rule violation & therefore a loss
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Jan 27, 2010 15:59:14 GMT -5
Your judgment on my game vs. Ellipsis should be completely independent of what it means to the teams involved. You should judge it the same way you would had it been, say, BigJim vs. Spez. From my perspective, the main issue with your ruling is that it's inconsistent with every previous case. Consulting the league rules thread, the Weaver does not have the authority to assign a penalty such as the -5. The proper procedure is to rely on the honor system to work everything out within the context of the game, and if that fails to consult the Unraveller.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Jan 27, 2010 16:05:43 GMT -5
SOAPBOX:
BioLogIn has asked for my opinion on what to do with this situation. (This is why he's such a good person to run things -- he seeks out other perspectives besides his own! But I digress.) And I have to say...
What a horrendous *puddle* of *porcupines*! Seriously, this is an atrocious rule that is atrociously worded. I have a very hard time understanding even very basic things about how this spell is supposed to work, by reading the rule. So no wonder these confusing situations have come up. You may recall that in the original league charter, monthly rules were proposed by the winning clan but had to be approved by the Unraveller, who could institute whatever changes he (well, I) deemed necessary. That was there primarily to avoid this kind of clustercluck. While I have to say that overall, the more democratic way things are done now is probably better than my old way, SOMEBODY needs to take responsibility for vetting monthly rules. If the winning clans aren't going to, somebody with a mind for technicalities and exceptions needs to be involved in the process as a mediator. Drag Awall or Rycchus back into the game if that's what's required. No offense intended to any of the Paramancers, as the idea behind this month's rule is clearly interesting and worth looking at, but the vagueness and ambiguity of the rule's wording is problematic.
Anyway, my opinion (emphasis on opinion: this is not a ruling and nobody is bound by it whatsoever) is that it's totally impossible to rule fairly on this matter given the vagueness and ambiguity of the wording. I would suggest the following as possible methods of resolution:
1) Give the players involved the option to work it out themselves. Either one may elect to concede; both may jointly elect to end the game as a tie; they may jointly elect to continue the game as is; or (barring agreement) they may simply elect to let Bio make a decision about it (and go to the options below).
2) Award each player the maximum score they could have won from the game, and assign corresponding negative points to the Paramancer clan (but not any individual warlock) since the ambiguity is essentially their responsibility.
3) Continue the game as is, but impose some kind of a point gain (and corresponding loss) for whichever player got ahead as a result of the confusion. And if that won't work,
4) Just call it a draw.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jan 28, 2010 2:58:22 GMT -5
Your judgment on my game vs. Ellipsis should be completely independent of what it means to the teams involved. You should judge it the same way you would had it been, say, BigJim vs. Spez. I do. Or, rather, I do my best to. But I'm not sure everyone will believe me, and getting the League stained with suspicions and accusation is the last thing I want. From my perspective, the main issue with your ruling is that it's inconsistent with every previous case. Consulting the league rules thread, the Weaver does not have the authority to assign a penalty such as the -5. The proper procedure is to rely on the honor system to work everything out within the context of the game, and if that fails to consult the Unraveller. You are right on target here. Unraveller should be the judge and Weaver should do the scorekeeping. The problem is that - as you may know - Unraveller is largely unavailable these days, and I was trying to save 'summon points' on important occasions =) @slartucker I usually approve\update\discuss wordings with rules authors. However, I was really short on time in the end of December. As I already said, this wording is mostly my fault... and dragging someone back to the game is easier said then done, as you may know =) I'm afraid we really need a ruling here. Can you please help us with this one.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Jan 28, 2010 10:33:31 GMT -5
@ BioLogIn & @slartucker: Using my earlier clarification of the rule post (page 1 of comments) as a base, here's the neutral (strict Warlocks Rules plus the League Rule for January) ruling: Blank would always be blank (except a "-" just as paralyzee got in a time stopped turn where paralyzee could submit any gesture during timestop and that gesture would then be paralyzed following timestop) That should have been a "-" not any other gesture... ergo, rule violation & therefore a loss IMHO, this is the way an uninterested observer (and the code would too, if implemented as described) would likely see it... (I'm uninterested as in: I don't fully understand the Clan points system still, but think the standings will effectively not change the forum colors to Black Rose Purple so, therefore, I have no real stake in the outcome of the battle)
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jan 28, 2010 10:46:32 GMT -5
Dubber No one doubts that Ellipsis broke the rule. But when I issued my ruling, I thought that punishment for breaking a poorly-worded rule should be less then punishment for breaking a crystal-clear rule. That was my original position.
|
|
|
Post by ourjake on Jan 28, 2010 11:38:39 GMT -5
my apologies on the vague wording again. i assumed people would associate para(2) with two turns (like: Health - 15 Paralysed(2)) not version 2, and forgot to explicitly say that (there is a lot of shorthand in my brain and it doesn't always get fully written down). the rule is actually only the first two lines, the rest was supposed to be errata for the first few questions that everyone always asks. i missed antispell because it honestly never occurred to me that it would be interpreted that way.
|
|