Originally posted by Scoobless
If i know that certain arguments being made aren't actually possible should i say so?
If you want to see it dealt with, rather than broadcasting it to the public, you might PM the person. They can deal with it in their 9 posts if they want, and it would probably be in their interests to do so since you're a judge and might use that to make your decision.
...that would be best, because I'd like it to remain unsaid in the battles unless their opponents mention it.
🙂
Originally posted by DigiMark007
If you want to see it dealt with, rather than broadcasting it to the public, you might PM the person. They can deal with it in their 9 posts if they want, and it would probably be in their interests to do so since you're a judge and might use that to make your decision....that would be best, because I'd like it to remain unsaid in the battles unless their opponents mention it.
🙂
You mean PM the person making the bogus strategy or PM the person it's being made against?
Originally posted by illadelph12
I was really surprised at the LOCOs Vs. Khells outcome. Even without KVD posting it was a lot closer than that. Oh well.Who are the judges for this week? I'd like to stay in the judges pool for future rounds if possible Digi. I can judge from work until I get a new home PC.
I've been rotating, so that no one has to judge 2 weeks in a row. But I'll probably be asking you again for next week.
Originally posted by Scoobless
You mean PM the person making the bogus strategy or PM the person it's being made against?
Well, I was thinking the person who posted the strategy, but I guess either one would work. lol.
hmm, i'lll disagree with both, digi, wholeheartedly. the opponent should KNOW what is being used as bs, or ask for validation if they have doubts. having scoob or anyone else say directly what is wrong is like having scoob or someone else on the team debating. judges SHOULD be a little more active perhaps though -- requesting clarification or proof of something that they are not sure of for instance, to make a well educated decision would be all right.
Originally posted by leonidas
judges SHOULD be a little more active perhaps though -- requesting clarification or proof of something that they are not sure of for instance, to make a well educated decision would be all right.
But the situation is that Team 1 is making claims against/about team 2 that i know aren't possible.... and i will vote (partly) based on that fact..... shouldn't the team(s) be warned that they are wasting their time with those BS arguments?
Originally posted by Scoobless
But the situation is that Team 1 is making claims against/about team 2 that i know aren't possible.... and i will vote (partly) based on that fact..... shouldn't the team(s) be warned that they are wasting their time with those BS arguments?
Just post what the problem is in this thread. If it's anything from me or Accel, I'll try and talk to Accel so we can clarify things. Possibly find comic issues with scans that support our arguments. Then again, some of GF's strategies seem a little bogus. 😖hifty:
Originally posted by Scoobless
But the situation is that Team 1 is making claims against/about team 2 that i know aren't possible.... and i will vote (partly) based on that fact..... shouldn't the team(s) be warned that they are wasting their time with those BS arguments?
i get what you're saying scoob, i'm just not sure there's a good way to go about it. maybe the best way would be to simply ask whoever you have the problem with to prove the claim with a scan. guess you could pm the other judges and say, hey, i know this is bs, maybe disregard it. or just say in the thread -- without proof of the claim, the claim will be disregarded? 😬
it's a fine line to walk . . .
Originally posted by Adam Warlock
Just post what the problem is in this thread. If it's anything from me or Accel, I'll try and talk to Accel so we can clarify things. Possibly find comic issues with scans that support our arguments. Then again, some of GF's strategies seem a little bogus. 😖hifty:
I'm going to remain the bigger man and not stoop to Warlocks level in here , i'm not trying to cause Strife unlike Adam...
Originally posted by grey fox
I'm going to remain the bigger man and not stoop to Warlocks level in here , i'm not trying to cause Strife unlike Adam...
I don't want any strife.
If something needs to clarified, I want to know what it is. I have an idea of what the problem is, but I think I already addressed it in my posts
Originally posted by grey fox
Goodnight gentlemen
Good night. 👆
Originally posted by Scoobless
But the situation is that Team 1 is making claims against/about team 2 that i know aren't possible.... and i will vote (partly) based on that fact..... shouldn't the team(s) be warned that they are wasting their time with those BS arguments?
The Thing is thought that half of what people say are trying to strech what a character can do. I think it is up to the other team to spot some of this and argue against it why just because something is wrong doesn't mean it isn't good debating that is what this tourny is primarily about debating between two teams not just spewing out correct facts. I mean if the other team catches on then it just discredits the one team further. A tourny match needs to be decided onb the strength of arguements from the people(unless a specific concrete Rule is being broken and I mean a concrete one not one that can be loosely interpreted but a concrete one like 9 posts) everything else is open to deabte and depends how well something is being done not on what a Judge thinks should or shouldn't be happening.
At the same time I don't want to take away a Judges ability to get informed correctly. I think some of it is just Judges becoming looking up more on a character themsleves so they can be informed. I mean Judges should be able to ask questions so certain things can be clarified but Judges shouldn't be allowed to win matches for a team and if something is out ofa characters league the other team should be the ones to say so not a Judge but I think a Judge could maybe hint on it in a question and see how a team responds to how they are doing it and what proof they can come up with.
Like Leo said there is a fine line going on here that can easily be crossed if you ask me.
I guess in the end what I'm saying is that a Judge has got to be unbiased and not simply spew their minds on something that should be up to the teams to debate and Judges should only be making decisions based on the arguements the teams bring.