It's your match, and I don't mean to intrude; but you really should save any further discussion/argument for after all the judges have voted and a winner is declared.
A small disclaimer "Don't take this into account" doesn't make the judges un-read it, so to speak.
I only posted that because what Fangirl said can aswell affect the opinion of other judges once they read her post, and it's not fair that she gets to make arguments in Srank's favour without me defending myself.
Either way, I was adressing Fangirl's argument directly, and not really further sustaining my arguments or arguing against Srank's points, and I even put a warning beforehand, that this should not be used when judging the match, aswell as made it clear when the match ended.
__________________
“Perhaps this is the ultimate freedom. The freedom to leave.”
Last edited by Philosophía on Nov 17th, 2008 at 07:30 PM
I think that judges should explain their choices, its their thing to do. They should probably give their judgement at the same time so one doesn't affect the other, but there wasn't really lots of organization in that regard.
If you are allowed to address that argument, Srank's should be given the chance too, because Fangirl doesn't necessarily affects Srank in a positive way. You answering could be beating a dead horse even more.
Justifying an opinion and giving opinions on what tactics Srank could have mentioned so that Bullseye would supposdley use to have an advantage over Batgirl are 2 different things. If a judge would have read Fangirl's post before making up his mind, it might aswell have influenced his decision. They could go 'hey, you know, that tactic might work', despite Srank never mentioning it (and so, me not having the opportunity to contradict it), so I felt I had to defend my side. Even so, I made it clear that the match ended at a specific hour, and even in my post in regards to Fangirl's vote I said that it should not be taken into consideration to the match.
And Srank should be allowed to defend an argument he didn't even make in the first place ? Nice.
In the end, all I did was use counter-arguments in regards to a point Srank didn't even make, so even if the judges read fangirl's post and mine, it should have no influence over their decision.
__________________
“Perhaps this is the ultimate freedom. The freedom to leave.”
The judges you picked know better. We don't judge based upon our opinions of the characters or what would have worked. Because My personal opinion isn't what I used to make a choice. I went off of who did the better job at debating.
I'm not criticizing your for your decision to put your personal opinion on what argument Srank could have used to gain victory, I'm just saying that it might influence other judges, and thus why I've reponded to it. Either way, this should have no bearing on the other judges's decision.
__________________
“Perhaps this is the ultimate freedom. The freedom to leave.”
Just as easily they can think "hey, its true, Srank had that option and didn't take it, he doesn't deserve to win". Its not a battle about the characters, is about the debate involved, so criticizing his arguments CAN affect him in a negative way.
It shouldn't be considered to judge the match we all agree. You shouldn't have countered the argument in my opinion.
Most tournaments have banned the practice of competitors offering opinions of any nature in response to judges' votes, even when they're posted in the thread. It may influence others, yes, and it may not. Personally, I won't be reading FG's vote until after I make mine, nor Phil's response to it.
This isn't a tourney, so no harm I suppose. But one needs to be careful, because (as I think has been pointed out) if you respond to a judge with what you feel is a legit point, what's stopping srank from responding to you? Or you responding to that? And so on. Which is why time limits are set. It's a dangerous precedent to set.
Anyway, its clearly just for pride and fun's sake. Lighten up.
And if you had bothered to read the entirety of my post, instead of finding a single line to gripe about, you'd see that I'm planning on ignoring the extraneous opinions until after my decision, so that the final decision isn't tainted. Yet somehow you're attempting to make me the bad guy for downplaying this, when I'm actively taking steps to ensure the integrity of the match. Context is crucial, chum.
Sarcasm's not appreciated. He dropped it once I explained myself, and a few posts hardly commandeers a thread, especially when I was initially coming on to resolve any disputes and focus on the match.
I said my vote would be in tonight, and it will be. Snippy people ruin otherwise fun endeavors. I hope Phil and srank enjoyed themselves.
I feel like a lot was left unsaid that could have worked for Bullseye. Maybe a slightly longer time limit next time?
In any case, I usually want to side with the character who has some sort of documented "power" beyond H2H skill, but not enough was shown of Bullseye for me to justify that tendency. Phil did a better job of countering specific arguments made by srank, and while I get the feeling that Cassy has some low showings too, saying that she has been tagged by people like Robin and Nightwing (which I believed entirely, btw) isn't enough to counter the dismantling of certain feats that Phil was able to accomplish by either showing context or very low showings for Bullseye.
Also, as it pertains to ABC logic, I actually think it can be used occasionally, and so the "Elektra has done these things and Bullseye has beaten her" seemed valid to me, though only because the two characters have fought so many times that direct comparisons like this are more valid than ABC chains that are between character who have only met once or twice. It was, however, not enough in the end, especially since Elektra has also beaten him on occasion.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 17th, 2008 06:40 PM
