|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Aug 19, 2010 13:13:23 GMT -5
Yeah, that's a good start =)
|
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Aug 31, 2010 5:32:23 GMT -5
Well, there is grand total of 11 registered warlocks for now. I hope there'll be at least 5 more, otherwise I'm not sure the tournament makes sense...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Sept 1, 2010 11:25:07 GMT -5
Bio, judging by the recent surge of not-Bio players, you really ought to be *in* this Tourney.
We can agree to trust your judging (and several of us will judge your judging even if you don't want us to) and everyone wants a shot at taking you out.
so, you in?
|
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Sept 2, 2010 14:06:08 GMT -5
DubberThanks, but I suppose this can only work fair if literally all attendants will confirm that they have nothing against it... which will require quite enough of a hassle and mailing. Doesn't worth it, if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
Post by maven on Sept 3, 2010 19:05:02 GMT -5
I'm more than fine with it. Very rare there is a problem when we are dealing with standard rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Sept 4, 2010 8:22:18 GMT -5
I have to recommend against having the judge play. I trust Bio completely and don't think for a second that he would be biased. And if the role of the judge were restricted to more perfunctory judgments, it would be fine. But under the current system, the judge has quite a bit to do. When I judged using this system, I encountered some extremely close matches where the decisions I made were both time-consuming and contentious. And last year it sounds like there were just a very large number of matches that ended up going to the judge's discretion. I certainly would not be comfortable "judging" my own match... while I have equal faith in my own ability to be emotionally impartial, it's hard to be intellectually impartial when you have spent an entire battle looking at things from your own side's perspective. Plus, judging is potentially a lot of work to undertake while also playing high stakes matches yourself. And then there is the question of how it looks to outsiders when the same person organizes, judges, and wins a tournament... not good, even if everyone involved agrees that the judge/winner did a great job and was fair and deserved to win.
I'm not volunteering, incidentally, because I will be busy and realistically, I'll flake. But those are my two cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by salvor on Sept 4, 2010 9:23:16 GMT -5
How about having a judge comitee?
Saying three judges decide the outcome of the game by simple majority of votes. Then we'll have no problem with self-judging.
|
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Sept 4, 2010 11:23:36 GMT -5
Three judges will take even more time to reach a decision, and majority's vote is a really poor way to judge a warlocks game. I don't think it will work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Sept 8, 2010 9:27:15 GMT -5
I'd say I'll judge... ...but I'd get laughed off the plane of Brimstone and Screams  |
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Sept 14, 2010 14:35:52 GMT -5
So do we get a non-preliminary discussion thread now that the tournament's running?
|
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Sept 14, 2010 14:51:10 GMT -5
|
|
