Delph's League of Champions Season One Discussion Thread

Originally posted by Cavalier

"yet they pretty much halfass their jobs and just vote for their friends"

I mean the least a judge could do is point out some specifics to support their generalities

Starscream should be ignored on these points. Earlier in this thread he admitted to wanting to judge so that he could put a member in their place who he thought was too arrogant. Favoritism indeed.

🙄

Personally, I think the judges are very objective as it pertains to the participants themselves. Numerous times I've seen "friends" vote against each other because they legitimately thought the opposing side did a better job. And I certainly don't remember being suspicious of any ruling in this tournament, nor in any tourney for a long time. Hell, I would've won my tourney with Scoob if judges were playing favorites, as leo's a good friend who voted against me. And not only do I not hold it against him, but it's commendable.

So accusing people of it is the easy part. Finding evidence of it beyond vague conspiracy hunches is the hard part, and such baseless accusation should be ignored unless there's a reason for it.

Also, short explanations don't alwys equal not reading. It might, but treating it like it's an obvious certainty is cynical bias at its worst.

Originally posted by Starscream M
I said biased voting only takes place when one competitor is the judges friend and the other is a relatively unknown poster

when the judge has to judge between 2 friends, obviously he will go against one of them

No need to specify, I'm just looking for a yes or no.

Originally posted by Starscream M
I'm sorry but it smells rotten to me when judges basically write a 2 sentence bs explanation that one guy was just more convincing without delving more into why he felt one side was more persuasive

I mean the least a judge could do is point out some specifics to support their generalities

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hell, I would've won my tourney with Scoob if judges were playing favorites, as leo's a good friend who voted against me.

yeah, you sure don't mind a 2 sentence response when it's not against you.

I wonder how much you'd like it, after an intense debate, a judge ruled AGAINST you with a brief general statement such as "digi's prep was less convincing than X's"

I'm sure then you'd want to hear why the judge thought what he thought.

and I wasn't including everyone in the broad statement of biased judges. Guys like Leo I know are upstanding guys who take these debates seriously and would vote against his friends.

Originally posted by Starscream M
yeah, you sure don't mind a 2 sentence response when it's not against you.

I wonder how much you'd like it, after an intense debate, a judge ruled AGAINST you with a brief general statement such as "digi's prep was less convincing than X's"

I'm sure then you'd want to hear why the judge thought what he thought.

and I wasn't including everyone in the broad statement of biased judges. Guys like Leo I know are upstanding guys who take these debates seriously and would vote against his friends.

Yes, I'd want to hear more. But I also wouldn't assume that it was judge bias that caused the vote. I'd want to hear more so that I could tweak my plans, which was my original point. You're still accusing people of bias without any evidence. Put up or shut up, dude.

Originally posted by Cavalier
And I would've won Red's tourney against Leo if that were the case...

Or your match with Charlotte. Or...

So we have 3 examples off the top of our heads that disprove what he's accusing judges of. Probably more if we looked into it. And given mb's history of, well, baseless assertions, I think it's safe to say we're ok.

If I thought there was any reason to believe it, I'd be raising the hell myself. As it is, he's an outside observer trying to stir sh*t. Show us a reason to believe you or be quiet, mb.

Originally posted by Cavalier
Well, now that we're narrowing it down, any judgments that you disagree with between an unknown and a popular?

No need to specify, I'm just looking for a yes or no.

you both are fabulous debators and prob deserve to win

but there were instances where I got the feeling (yes completely subjective) that certain judges didn't really read a debate and basically voted for one of the more popular KMC members when faced against a less popular member

I'm not saying judges should write treatises on their decisions...just provide a few specifics to support their judgment...I don't know why that is so much to ask?

none of this effects me in anyway, its not like im competing. but I just think that in most events in real life, judges having any relationship with people being judged is an ultimate conflict of interest. and I know its not possible to have judges that are completely removed from the contestants on KMC, but putting a responsiblity for them to clearly explain their decisions would eliminate some of that conflict.

Also, this is why I really liked Illadelph's idea of having judges PM their decisions. In the past, I've noticed that some judges have waited until someone else posts a decision and then just parrots that point. I think the PM idea completely eliminates that issue.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

So we have 3 examples off the top of our heads that disprove what he's accusing judges of. Probably more if we looked into it. And given mb's history of, well, baseless assertions, I think it's safe to say we're ok.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And given mb's history of, well, baseless assertions

Originally posted by Starscream M
umm...I never said all or even most judges. there's really only one judge I really think is guilty of not really reading and doing favoritism.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion.

Not reading everything is one thing. I don't think it happens, but it may. Bias for/against participants is different, though, and would require a higher standard of proof. And like I said, we have evidence to the contrary and none for it.

But yeah, PM votes are a good idea. I'm happy we're doing it.

Originally posted by Starscream M
really...I have a history of baseless assertions? could you remind me of two of them?

Heh. I won't get baited into this entirely. But a few times you've chimed in for/against a particular draft pick, simply echoing someone's opinion, without actual knowledge of the character or the opposing side of the argument, then are lost when asked to corroborate the opinion with evidence.

You make good points sometimes, and I know I give you a hard time occasionally....maybe too much sometimes. But crying wolf doesn't help.

...

Anyway, sorry I stirred a sh*tstorm with my original suggestion. The judging has been fine. I just asked for more explanation from a strategic standpoint, not because I doubted any aspect of the judging.

Hmm...

Maybe we should institute a character quota for judge votes going forward. Like a vote must be 200-300 characters/75+ words in length to be acceptable. That should eliminate the 1-2 sentence judgments and instigate more drawn out explanations that aren't too wordy. I used to drop essays for judgments and cover all points but I'm trying to be more of a commissioner/facilitator in this tourney rather than directly effecting the outcome. 75 words should be enough to explain your point with a semblance of depth.

Meh. You don't want to slow down judge votes or risk judges reliability any more than we need to. Just something to keep in mind...

Originally posted by illadelph12
Hmm...

Maybe we should institute a character quota for judge votes going forward. Like a vote must be 200-300 characters/75+ words in length to be acceptable. That should eliminate the 1-2 sentence judgments and instigate more drawn out explanations that aren't too wordy. I used to drop essays for judgments and cover all points but I'm trying to be more of a commissioner/facilitator in this tourney than directly effecting the outcome. 75 words should be enough to explain your point with a semblance of depth.

like.
1. What was the strongest part of the winning side's Plan?
2. What was the Weakest or most stretching part of the Losing Side's Plan?
3. Please cite 3 examples of actual proof posted from the winning side that backs thier strategy.
4. Please cite 3 examples of where the losing side failed to show conclusively that thier plan was plausible.

I"m not a tourney expert. But you guys could come up with like 7-10 questions that could be used as a standard.

Originally posted by illadelph12
Hmm...

Maybe we should institute a character quota for judge votes going forward. Like a vote must be 200-300 characters/75+ words in length to be acceptable. That should eliminate the 1-2 sentence judgments and instigate more drawn out explanations that aren't too wordy. I used to drop essays for judgments and cover all points but I'm trying to be more of a commissioner/facilitator in this tourney rather than directly effecting the outcome. 75 words should be enough to explain your point with a semblance of depth.

just require judges to state some (maybe 2 or 3) specific points to support their decisions as opposed to complete generalities like "his argument was better"

I really don't think that's too much to ask

I'm actually in agreement with mb, shockingly enough. I'd be against a quota or set questions like fangirl said. I don't think we should require anything other than their earnest judgment and a vote. Suggesting it is fine in my book. Mandating it would not be, imo.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm actually in agreement with mb, shockingly enough. I'd be against a quota or set questions like fangirl said. I don't think we should require anything other than their earnest judgment and a vote. Suggesting it is fine in my book. Mandating it would not be, imo.

My thing is that the matches end Thursday nights at midnight, and judgments are due by the following Sunday at noon. That's 60 hours from the close of combat for a judge to come up with a substantiated explanation, be it in 75 words or not, of why they made their decision the way they did. I purposely set the scheduling for this league as such to give ample time (2.5 days) for a judge to read the matches and PM the judgments to me. I don't think it's out of the question to expect more than a couple sentences, all things considered. I know verbosity is not everyone's strong point, but given the effort you guys as competitors put in to researching and presenting each week's battle posts, meeting you half way isn't too much to ask.

Do what you think is best, ill. I feel like a suggestion would be enough to get the intended response, since all the judges are pretty accommodating and nice guys, without having to mandate it. But either way works, and meeting us halfway, as you put, would indeed be nice.

Originally posted by illadelph12
Good to have you back id. Could you please post your current roster?

You also Smurph.

Originally posted by illadelph12
Scoob/Leo, Kfish, and Id/Kandy, please post your current rosters.

Warmachine (30)
Spawn (30)
Cable (20)
Gambit (20)
Spot (20)

BTW. I wanted to ask if I could make a last minute draft? I know, its a pain in the ass just wanted to know if you could make an acceptation.