Originally posted by illadelph12
Man...Ok.
Let me put it in more common terms then. You are all obviously missing my point:
I'm not talking about rule violations. I'm talking about someone misrepresenting their case. If someone proposes a course of attack that's against the rules or over the limits, I'm all for it being pointed out and banned if necessary.
However:
If someone makes a claim that's within the rules but they're basing it on bad or invalid information, I believe it's up to that poster's opponent to point out their mistake, not just anyone who happens to be observing, and especially not another combatant participating in the same tournament. That could easily be misconstrued into Participant A trying to assist Participant B in defeating Participant C so that Participant A won't have to face Participant C themselves in a future round.
Also, by doing that you're essentially debating for the combatant. In the interest of fairness, it should have been Kandy that pointed out the feat was invalid, or at least it could have been handled in a manner in which Kandy was notified in the background via PMs.
I know you all may disagree, but logic is on my side.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This isn't a court.The evidence here is presented in a public forum. That means the rest of us have a responsibility to make sure that the evidence is in fact real since obscure non-canon sources are almost impossible for a contestant to see.
Each person in the Tourney should not be concerned with the validity of the evidence being used since the actually match is meant to be his/her focus. Hence, logic would dictate that any member of the public who sees a use of non-canon material should bring it up here.
Courtrooms are public forums also...
However, the deliberations aren't open for anyone present to present arguments and participate, just as King Mungi or myself can't step in and pose an argument on Leonidas's behalf. I happen to have a little experience in regards to this which is why I brought up the point.
I'm not saying that non-canon evidence should be used or allowed, that's where I believe the misunderstanding is stemming from, I'm just saying that the combatant's involved in the match should be the ones bringing up the objections within the battle. If Scoobs had simply PM'd Kandy and let him know it was a bad scan so that he could object himself in the battle I'd have no problem with it whatsoever (and that does actually happen in court, there are proxy investigators and additional lawyers doing research work behind the scenes to provide the lawyer information he then presents his/herself).
I simply don't like the way it was handled and I think that Pm'ing Kandy in the background so he could object himself would have been better.
I have no problem with due diligence, I just believe that in the interest of fairness it shouldn't be handled in the manner you all are advocating.
If Scoobs had simply PM'd Kandy and let him know it was a bad scan so that he could object himself in the battle I'd have no problem with it whatsoever
i can absolutely live with that idea. you seem to be opposed to the way the objection was presented. personally, i don't care about HOW it's decided the info is brought to light -- i just think it DOES need to be brought to light. via pm's or via this thread, doesn't matter to me. 🙂
Originally posted by illadelph12
Courtrooms are public forums also...However, the deliberations aren't open for anyone present to present arguments and participate, just as King Mungi or myself can't step in and pose an argument on Leonidas's behalf. I happen to have a little experience in regards to this which is why I brought up the point.
I'm not saying that non-canon evidence should be used or allowed, that's where I believe the misunderstanding is stemming from, I'm just saying that the combatant's involved in the match should be the ones bringing up the objections within the battle. If Scoobs had simply PM'd Kandy and let him know it was a bad scan so that he could object himself in the battle I'd have no problem with it whatsoever (and that does actually happen in court, there are proxy investigators and additional lawyers doing research work behind the scenes to provide the lawyer information he then presents his/herself).
I simply don't like the way it was handled and I think that Pm'ing Kandy in the background so he could object himself would have been better.
I have no problem with due diligence, I just believe that in the interest of fairness it shouldn't be handled in the manner you all are advocating.
I will appeal to the majority. Fallacy ftw!
anyway there are no polls for these battles yet. are they forthcoming? and are we REALLY using polls to decide who goes on from the loser's bracket? they are just so damn inaccurate and easy to . . . fudge. seems like the judges would be better suited to decide -- that might mean all judges need to read ALL battles, but they prolly do that anyway. 😬
just don't like the poll system at all.
and HAS it been decided yet just HOW the system will be set up in the next rd? random draw again? 😕
I just PMd goob about the idea of having a few judges talk amongst themselves and pick 2 of the losers to advance. I think the polls will work, but it's certainly a possibility if we can find some judges that feel comfortable doing that (I read enough of the matches even if I'm not judging that I'd be fine with it).
Originally posted by CasanoVaYou know I don't mind the judges doing that but at the same time I think it should be a little more complicated then Judges decide two guys.
😗Yeah, Leo's body being the currency.
I've read every match so far though, so I'd feel fine about choosing the two best losers with Digi if need be.
I think a point based system does work best.
There are going to be 6 losers after this round.
I say that the judges list them from 1-6 .
First place on their list gets 6 points and last gets one.
I think that if the person won the poll then they should get an extra 2 points and 1 point if they tied.
The two with the most points gets in.