Originally posted by Master-Borg
inorganic matter manip could be used to create tech, just not INSTANT tech at least from what I gathered
Nothing I did was instant, it was just fast. Evangel knew this, and she banned it mid-tourney after approving it. So if she re-worded it since then, maybe I'm wrong. But the way it was originally presented, it dealt with matter manip and tech creation, instantaneous or otherwise.
Originally posted by Evangel94
Look, I am not ignoring you. It takes time to reply to everyone's messages. But also, what do you want me to say that hasn't already been said? What is your objective here? What do you want out of all of this? Do you want this to go on for pages and pages into a he said she said debacle Digimark?
Nah, I wanted you to leave me alone and stop dragging my name through the mud. All of my objections were reasoned and respectful, at least until I realized they were falling on deaf ears. Then I was ignored, told to leave, banned from the tourney, and then I come back after a few weeks to see you misrepresenting my words and actions again.
So that's what I "want." But if I'm being slandered, I'll defend myself. Simple as that. I was the one that let it go...you pulled me back in by not letting it die.
Of course, in all of this something akin to an explanation would've been nice. Why change the rule in the first place (no reason was given past Stacks' irrational protests), especially after approving it and seeing me use it in matches? You screwed up, and now seem to be trying to pin the negativity on me. Own up to it rather than attempting to play dictator with your tourney and maybe you wouldn't be dealing with this mess.
Originally posted by Master-Borg
inorganic matter manip could be used to create tech, just not INSTANT tech at least from what I gathered
I'll do my best to explain my thoughts on the matter and how I personally viewed the situation which can hopefully help you understand how I came to this decision. I am not trying to bash Digimark or anyone else. I know this is alot to read, but bear with me here.
In Digimark's first match, the only tech related thing he did in his prep, was create psi disrupters. Now I am not trying to judge anyone's prep, but to me it was possible. The Doctor could create the components and with Lex, Reed, and 15 minutes, a quick and fast and cheap psi disrupter seemed feasible.
The instant tech issue never really came up until Digimark's 2nd match when it made the jump from making psi disrupters to ....the galactus busting gun. As you could see from some of the votes of comments made in the 2nd match, some people were a little wary about the possibility of either competitor pulling of their plan and basically reduced the plan in their vote to a "possible" working/non-working gun vs a few "possible" flawed/cloned adaptoids. Others were not so wary. 1 billion adaptoids vs Galactus busting gun. I myself was actually quite surprised by both plans.
The reason I didn't ban the plan right then and there is because I felt that every competitor tends to embellish their write-ups as much as possible in order to attract votes. In addition I don't like "regulating" write-ups. Digimark may claim to build a galactus busting gun, but I wanted to leave it up to the voter to decide if that were actually true or not. That's why I repeatedly stressed for everyone to take into account the amount of prep-time that was purchased.
The issue of it being instant technology didn't just get brought up in the third Digimark match. If you check the later end of Digimark's 2nd match, Typhus brought up the issue of it being Instant Technology.
Now in the third match, in when plans started to push it. Digimark was basically just recreating lots of technology and devices that Reed or Lex themselves had built themselves. Devices such as machines that create holographic/light based teams of avengers (a device that required the entire eastern seaboard of united states to power) to Anti-Superman suits. But I decided to leave it to the voters again they would decide for themselves whether the plan was feasible or not though I was thinking this was pushing it. I believed, as the business term calls it, in "market regulation." I stated the rules and everyone would police themselves.
However, the general attitude of the voters of the match was to me "if Evangel doesn't say anything, then it's legal." This isn't true. I don't think like that. While it is true sometimes I don't say anything, I do it because I feel people know the rules (which I wrote in great detail) and there shouldn't be a need to say anything.
People bring up TricksterPriest vs Darthgoober as an example of "Evangel being hands-off" and leaving it to voters. This isn't the case at all. What people don't realize is that TricktersPriest and I communicated through PM ahead of time way before the match even started about his possible team choices and the related Time Manipulation. TricksterPriest's general attitude was "This is outrageous. I have a right to pick someone you didn't think of." I let him pick who he wanted (as long as it was ok with the participants.) to show to show that he couldn't get away with rule breaking plans.
Anyway, in Digimark's third match voters were voting as if Digimark's plan was not questionable or illegal at all and completely true. This is not what I wanted at all by leaving it up to voters. If I didn't do address it now in this match now, it would only escalate further and it would be unfair to those who actually bought a lot of prep time (hint).
On a side note, underneath it all the match seemed to be laced with a lot of hatred. There was a lot of animosity against Papa Smurph I didn't understand. People were attacking him, from what I could tell, were just general statements he was making. People voting against just because they didn't like him or he said something about a comic character they didn't like.
Regardless of that, I saw public and received private concerns about how I should step in and say what is and isn't legal in write-ups regarding instant technology. While I don't like "regulating" write-ups, I felt it was getting a little excessive and I should say something.
End Evangel's Thought's Part 1 of 2.
So why didn't you let the voters decide like always? You decided to take the tourney match into your own hands by declaring something illegal as soon as you thought it was no longer possible? Voters have minds of their own, and most actually saw that what I was doing was not only possible but relatively easy (I defended my strategy ad naseum). Hell, the only one who expressed concern in mine and goober's match was YOU. Some were wary of the number of dupes goob would make, but never questioned that he could do it.
So basically, it's exactly what it looked like. You didn't like how we were using the rules you established, and changed the rules so that something you thought was unlikely was made illegal...what, so that the matches would meet with your expectations?
How...very dictatorial of you. And also unfair to the competitors. I happened to be the recipient of the change, but it could've been anyone. The principle of the matter is far worse than the fact that I'm the one who was screwed by it.
😬
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Voters have minds of their own😬
sorry to take this on a tangent, but I think that one of the more glaring problems in Evangel's tourney was that it was open voting...pretty much anyone can vote
this presents a couple of problems
1) uninformed people vote - for example, I generally don't vote because I'm simply not knowledgeable enough to decide which debator is more convincing. Many of the debates don't have scans supporting critical points of controversy, and therefore you have one guy saying its possible and another saying its not.
2) biased voting - there are certain members of the board who shall we say are not very popular with other members. When they enter matches, it seems like a certain group of KMC members will vote against them regardless of the debate. On the other hand, there are members who have many friends who will vote FOR them regardless of the debate. I prob don't have to name names as anyone can see who is who.
3) I am strongly convinced that many people who vote don't even bother to read the entire debate or even most of it, which is really unfair to the contestants who put in alot of time in their arguments.
these two issues coupled together really results in almost a popularity contest rather than a debating contest. There are some members who are pretty much guaranteed a certain number of votes for them and others who have a contingent who will vote against them.
So, I think in the future, matches really should not have open voting. THe ones where judges are selected before hand often have much better thought out responses from judges as well as those judges are usually impartial, knowledgeable to a degree, and is willing to invest time in reading and analyzing the debate.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
So why didn't you let the voters decide like always?
During Papa Smurph's match?
1. The whole attitude of "If Evangel doesn't say it's illegal, then its legal."
2. I felt I needed to step in and define a clear line between matter manipulation to build technology and instantly creating it.
3. The fairness towards those who actually bought large amounts of lab-time.
4. The concerns I received and saw regarding instant technology.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
You decided to take the tourney match into your own hands by declaring something illegal as soon as you thought it was no longer possible?
When you started pushing the limits of matter manipulation, it started to be unfair to those who bought a lot prep time ranging from 2 hours to 36 hours. You only bought 15 minutes.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Voters have minds of their own, and most actually saw that what I was doing was not only possible but relatively easy (I defended my strategy ad naseum). Hell, the only one who expressed concern in mine and goober's match was YOU. Some were wary of the number of dupes goob would make, but never questioned that he could do it.
That's not true and you know it. In the goober match for example, I'll pull a few examples from the thread.
Originally posted by darthgoober
The first time Reed built it he had to research and find an appropriate universe to power the thing, and Digi doesn’t have the means to do that in his 15 minutes of prep.
Originally posted by ExodusCloak
and that there are plausible scenarios for Darth to counter it if in the very unlikely scenario that Digi's team managed to get it up and running.
Originally posted by Blair Wind
Voting for Darth.If Digi could get his gun up, it may be a different story, but I cannot see him doing that. Lex and Reed getting along? Reed being able to access a universe in 15 minutes?
Originally posted by Typhus
Secondly, wouldn’t the building the gun instantly be considered instant tech and require the 6 point ability?
Originally posted by DigiMark007
So basically, it's exactly what it looked like. You didn't like how we were using the rules you established, and changed the rules so that something you thought was unlikely was made illegal...what, so that the matches would meet with your expectations?
I said you could build technology with matter manipulation. But not instantly, plus you were completely clear with me on what exactly you were going to build. I was just as surprised as everyone else when you built the gun. If your not completely honest with me on what your going to do ahead of time, then I won't be able to say if its legal or not. If it is illegal you put me in tough position in which I won't be able to make ruling until the actual match itself after everyone has put effort into their write-up.
In your first match, I didn't see anything wrong with what you did so there was no need for me to saw anything. Your 2nd match with darthgoober (while entertaining) really did push the limits of the rule, and it was going to be unfair to those who bought large amounts of prep time.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
How...very dictatorial of you. And also unfair to the competitors. I happened to be the recipient of the change, but it could've been anyone. The principle of the matter is far worse than the fact that I'm the one who was screwed by it.
Principal? There is no principal for you to stand on here. It couldn't have happened to anyone else because you and darthgoober are the only ones who were using matter manipulation in such a manner.This issue only really affects you and darthgoober. It seems darthgoober doesn't haven't a problem with it and can adapt. Why can't you? You and I both know your team was fully capable of competing despite the rule clarification so why are you still arguing with me?
Originally posted by Master-Borg
sorry to take this on a tangent, but I think that one of the more glaring problems in Evangel's tourney was that it was open voting...pretty much anyone can votethis presents a couple of problems
1) uninformed people vote - for example, I generally don't vote because I'm simply not knowledgeable enough to decide which debator is more convincing. Many of the debates don't have scans supporting critical points of controversy, and therefore you have one guy saying its possible and another saying its not.
2) biased voting - there are certain members of the board who shall we say are not very popular with other members. When they enter matches, it seems like a certain group of KMC members will vote against them regardless of the debate. On the other hand, there are members who have many friends who will vote FOR them regardless of the debate. I prob don't have to name names as anyone can see who is who.
3) I am strongly convinced that many people who vote don't even bother to read the entire debate or even most of it, which is really unfair to the contestants who put in alot of time in their arguments.
these two issues coupled together really results in almost a popularity contest rather than a debating contest. There are some members who are pretty much guaranteed a certain number of votes for them and others who have a contingent who will vote against them.
So, I think in the future, matches really should not have open voting. THe ones where judges are selected before hand often have much better thought out responses from judges as well as those judges are usually impartial, knowledgeable to a degree, and is willing to invest time in reading and analyzing the debate.
Based on previous tournaments I've run, I decided to needed to do something about the lack of voters in later matches. Originally, the supervoter idea was created even before this tournament started when I made the very detailed list of rules. Its original usage was to be used to cover the lack of votes in later rounds and matches.
However, I saw this was starting to partially become a popularity contest . Not everyone was voting based on who they liked, but there was a clear slant with some people. Also, votes totals were getting really low. 16 votes at the highest to the low point of 4. So, I decided to implement the system sooner rather than later, and have participants themselves (since they would be the ones most likely to read write-ups and be objective) be supervoters for each match.
But I still have faith in some aspects of open voting. I believe there are good people out there who do read matches. That's why I didn't make Supervoters the sole people who decide matches. ALSO, Not that I think its true with everyone, but its possible that some participants could want to knock out a certain participant. So just to cover that base I had to come up with a check and balance system. I would still allow open votes, and have non-supervoters vote be worth 1 regular vote.
I would make Supervoters votes be worth 3 regular votes. There would be 3 supervoters per match. 2 participants who would be supervoters, and 1 non-participant regular supervoter. It would be same people for two matches in a row, and participants would rotate randomly per match to be supervoters. As to the non-participant, I would just select from whomever I could find that would be available.
Sure its not completely perfect, but its a lot better I believe. Supervoters could possibly disagree with one another, and vote completely different from one another, and you could throw in the random factor of outside votes from non-participants and regular participants. If there is a slant or bias because of popularity, it would be a lot harder to utilize.
-Evangel94
Originally posted by Evangel94
I said you could build technology with matter manipulation. But not instantly, plus you were completely clear with me on what exactly you were going to build. I was just as surprised as everyone else when you built the gun. If your not completely honest with me on what your going to do ahead of time, then I won't be able to say if its legal or not. If it is illegal you put me in tough position in which I won't be able to make ruling until the actual match itself after everyone has put effort into their write-up.
For those reading, a small mistake.
I wrote, "plus you were completely clear with me on what exactly you were going to build."
BUT I meant to write. "plus you weren't completely clear with me on what exactly you were going to build."
-Evangel94
Originally posted by Master-Borg
as a side question, why did you decide this to be your final tournament?
I'll answer that if this tournament ever finishes, and a champion is crowned.
Originally posted by Master-Borg
it's actually a quite significant mistake...changes my whole view on things, on the world in fact. 😐
Ah...heh...well even without the corrections I thought people would get it through context clues on me being surprised about plans etc. Anyway, I am out for the night, goodnight.
-Evangel94
Originally posted by Evangel94Sleep well and have sweet dreams, Angel.
I'll answer that if this tournament ever finishes, and a champion is crowned.Ah...heh...well even without the corrections I thought people would get it through context clues on me being surprised about plans etc. Anyway, I am out for the night, goodnight.
-Evangel94
Originally posted by Evangel94
Take the results as however you choose.[b]Votes for King Kandy:
Symmetric Chaos
Air Legend
psycho gundam - no stated explanation, however he came back before the match was up and gave an explanation
Typhus
id369 - voted after match closedVotes for Zeitgeist:
Ha-Son - voted within the intial 10 hour debate period. Initial vote doesn't count, but could have re-voted after debate period was up but didn't.
Creshosk - voted within the intial 10 hour debate period. Initial vote doesn't count, but could have re-voted after debate period was up but didn't.
Soljier - no stated explantion vote nullifeid. Explanation came after match ended.
Cerpin Taxt - no stated explantion vote nullifeid.
Newjak - no stated explantion vote nullifeid.
llagrok - no stated explantion vote nullifeid. [/B]
Was there a rule before you started nullifying votes that you didn't agree with? I mean that didn't agree with said rule.
Originally posted by llagrokTechnically there didn't need to be:
Was there a rule before you started nullifying votes that you didn't agree with? I mean that didn't agree with said rule.
Originally posted by Evangel94
I retain the power to nullify votes or change the rules if I feel it is necessary.
Though such actions really did help to prove my suspicions about her tampering with her own tournament to get the results SHE wanted.