Shortpacked DOES rock. Also bumping this:
Fangirl:
PC Brainiac 5 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainiac_5 - 15 points
Faust- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Faust - 30 points
Matrix - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergirl_(Matrix) -25 points
Grunge - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grunge_(comics) -25 points
Echo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_(comics) -10 Points
Artemis(Classic) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_of_Bana-Mighdall -15 points
Jarvis- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Jarvis-5 points
Digi:
Death’s Head II (Minion) (30 pts.) - http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/dhminion.htm
Iron Man (30 pts.) - http://www.marvel.com/universe/Iron_man
Optimus Prime (30 pts) - http://www.comicvine.com/optimus-prime/29-6467/
Osiris (30 pts.) - http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Amon_Tomaz_%28New_Earth%29
Joker (5 pts.) - http://www.dcuguide.com/who.php?name=JOKER
Charlotte
Emma Frost (30pt)- http://www.uncannyxmen.net/db/spotlight/showquestion.asp?faq=10&fldAuto=69
Miss Martian (30pt)- http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/M%27gann_M%27orzz_(New_Earth)
Magik II (25pt)- http://www.uncannyxmen.net/db/spotlight/showquestion.asp?faq=10&fldAuto=88
Zachary Zatara (25pt)- http://en.dcdatabaseproject.com/Zatara_(Zachary_Zatara)
Oracle (5pt)- http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Barbara_Gordon_(New_Earth)
Lex Luthor (10 pt)- http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Alexander_Luthor_(New_Earth)
Smurph and the other guy
Nimrod-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod_(comics)
Mr. Sinister-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_Sinister
Air-Wave III-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Wave
Mr. Terrific-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_Terrific_(Michael_Holt)
Mantis-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis_(Marvel_Comics)
I was just reading through some old tourneys, and realized something:
Judges used to post EPIC reasoning for their votes. I trust the competence and diligence of our judges completely, but I feel a little left out with a few sentences as explanation. Especially now with blind PM voting so that other judges can't influence one another.
So heck, judges, you guys are putting in all the time reading our hideously long battles. Share your thoughts a bit more! It'll sate our curiosity and show us why you guys are so smart.
....
Also, I had forgotten beating down Joey Stacks in Evangel's tourney. It was worth that debacle of a tourney for me just to prove him wrong with numerous scans on every ludicrous thing he said about the Authority, and the Doctor in particular.
But long posts with space in between DO suck.
😛
Originally posted by illadelph12
Heh...I'd gotten numerous complaints about my long drawn out judgments...
Yours were a tad overwrought occasionally, yes. I'm talking about a happy medium. We don't need talking points for every detail of the match. But a few paragraphs containing general trends and major points are always welcome, since it's nice to know what judges find important, and what things they are and aren't believing.
Basically I just want enough "why" to a win/loss decision to be able to tweak accordingly in the future. Otherwise we could be doing something all tourney, unaware that it's having no affect on the judges. Or vice versa, and not playing up tactics that have success.
Example: "Both good arguments, but I thought Digi did a better job of proving his case. He gets my vote." I'm happy to get the vote in this scenario, but it tells me nothing more, nor does it help whoever loses to see where they went wrong. This is slightly embellished, but some of the rulings haven't been far from this. I'm fine with it, but I get the feeling I'm not the only one wishing for more, and also think the judges might enjoy indulging us with their opinions.
...
I may mention it in my next match in a friendly manner, so that the judges can consider it.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Example: "Both good arguments, but I thought Digi did a better job of proving his case. He gets my vote." I'm happy to get the vote in this scenario, but it tells me nothing more, nor does it help whoever loses to see where they went wrong.
I'd like to see more just to prove that the judges actually read through the whole match at least once. There's been quite a few judgements with that type of explanation ... and when they come in late, in particular, it's not inconceivable to think the matches are just being skimmed through (at best)
😬
Originally posted by Scooblessagreed 100%. also, beyond your suspicions that some judges just skim matches, I think there are other judges who play the favoritism card.
I'd like to see more just to prove that the judges actually read through the whole match at least once. There's been quite a few judgements with that type of explanation ... and when they come in late, in particular, it's not inconceivable to think the matches are just being skimmed through (at best)😬
in a match between a well-known member and a newbie, I seriously believe some judges basically just pick the well-known member who also happen to be their friends...I won't name names, but those judges know who they are.
and when they post 2 sentence explanations like "oh, X was more convincing therefore he gets my vote" it just allows them to get away with it. Whereas if they were actually required to provide a detailed explanation for why they picked who they picked, this abuse of power would be alot less likely.
I really do think judges have to provide some semblance of explanation for their decisions. Contestants spend so much time on these debates that the least the judges could do is to read everything before deciding. They shouldn't be allowed to just state subjective opinions "X made a better argument" WITHOUT providing some CONCRETE examples why.
just my 2 cents
Originally posted by DigiMark007I think the selecting judges should be done alot better.Judges used to post EPIC reasoning for their votes.
As I see it now, certain members in thepopular clique on KMC are always judges yet they pretty much halfass their jobs and just vote for their friends. I think judges, in the future, have to demonstrate that they will take their jobs seriously.
ya know what, we should make a list of good tourney judges that have demonstrated they take their jobs seriously and without bias in the past and are trustworthy to judge future tournaments.
And for new judges, they must enter a writeup of a decision for some makebelieve match that the tourney director can use to determine whether that person would be a good judge.
Seriously, Im following this tourney a bit, and I see some tremendous competitors who are taking the tourney very seriously and doing an awesome job (really every competitor in this tourney deserves a thumbs up) that I really think they deserve really good judges who WILL read EVERYTHING and provide a WELLTHOUGHT OUT and IMPARTIAL response.
anyways, as for a list of people who imo I think would make good judges (disclaimer: this list is not exclusive, I may have left out some good people..feel free to critique):
Illadelph
Digimark
Mr. Master
Scoobless
Leonidas
darthgoober
Smurph
Charlote Debel
Symmetric Chaos
Blair Wind
Starscream M
Originally posted by fangirl101Meh. I don't see anybody voting on just politics, personally... I've had friends vote against me in some of my most important matches. And I don't really see who would be accused, so...
😆 😂 😆 😂He may not be so politcal tho. You have to admit, there are some politics. Longer Drawn out explainations would make it hard to just vote based upon politics.
Originally posted by Cavalier
Meh. I don't see anybody voting on just politics, personally... I've had friends vote against me in some of my most important matches. And I don't really see who would be accused, so...
Originally posted by fangirl101No. I was up against someone completely different. And I don't hold against them any ill will for doing so... they were just doing their jobs.
In the case were freinds are competing, and freinds are judging, then of course you would have freinds vote against you. Think about it. That isn't politics. And that isn't what starscream was talking about.
And how is that not politics? That's exactly what Brucey is talking about.
"yet they pretty much halfass their jobs and just vote for their friends"
Originally posted by CavalierI said biased voting only takes place when one competitor is the judges friend and the other is a relatively unknown poster
I've had friends vote against me in some of my most important matches
when the judge has to judge between 2 friends, obviously he will go against one of them