In all honesty I'm still trying to get my head around the way you play tourney's here. I'm used to players trying to push the rules "stretch" them as it were, go beyond the allowed limits. On other sites like Ledger, hero chat, CV etc most players try to exceed the rules and wait to see if their opponent calls them on it. For example in a tourney battle I had with one of the forum leaders on Ledge ( where frankly my chances were buckley's and none, many of the lower level debaters their leave those highly regarded elsewhere for dead IMO and I was a real Guppy, way out of my depth - shame that recently it's become so damn inactive). We selected specific powers and traits from a list of characters with points ( to add up to a total allowed) and other defining characteristics. He had the combat speed (reaction) of Silver surfer with the travel speed mack 18 running. I had the combat speed of Wonder woman with travel speed of mach 20 flight. He started a debate saying how much faster than me he was because of SS's FTL speed. If I hadn't called him on that point as being a breach I would have had no leg to stand on in regards to battle feats. Since i could argue WW has shown better actual reflexes and he didn't have the superior speed his point was gone. had I not argued that his point despite being a massive breach of the rules would have stood.
I quite expected PG to have called me on the Doom thing straight away. Everywhere else his not doing so would be costly because his debate hadn't pointed out the flaw, so since the entire voting goes off the debate and not the rules not challenging a breach costs you the win rather than the breach. It would seem from the comments here and my discussions with Curry in PM that isn't the case here. Many of you are PMing him asking what is or isn't allowed and getting ruling on said. I'm used to debating actually trying trying things that are breaches of the spirit of rules because of wording omission or making outright recalcitrant and flagrant breaches against the rules to see how far they get challenge.
I'm used to things being a lot more like a law case where you try to introduce evidence your not allowed to by the finer points of law and if opposing solicitor misses the objections your point stands but if he makes them and it's ruled on it is stricken.
I thought based on the statements of some member like Blair Wind that debate point are taken to extreme or higher levels here that there would be even more of this type of thing. In all honestly in most tourneys I play 30 to 40% of the debate is calling on the legality of the points made and seeking rulings and as such the rules are rarely fully defined until the second or third round.
In hind sight I should have just watched this one played to see the method used here, Still all good. That's part of the learning curve after all. Guess I'll have more of a feel for the next one
