Eat a Snickers, Leo. It'll be ok.
As I outlined in my earlier post, there's a lot I agree with leo on. But I also think each judge is doing a damn good job trying to be true to their opinion, and that curry's model has (mostly) worked. This may mar the tourney some, but we also can't let it overshadow my impending victory the fun matches still to come.
How can you hate Snickers?
On the tourney rules versus tourney coordinator's independent rulings on specific questions superseding all, I think in order for that to be the case transparency is necessary so that all participants are in fact acting under the same understanding of the rules (this can be done without giving away the specifics of a participant's plan, and if necessary, be verbose), and amendments to the rules should be posted into the tournament rules post at the beginning of the thread so that everyone is aware of all developments and operating on an equal playing field at all times, participants and judges.
I asked for the rules to be updated on page 9.
Leo shouldn't quit. It's the only way my high will come down
Originally posted by Charlotte DeBelThat was one of the greatest takedowns on this site, being the victim in such a poetic strike should be a source of great pride 😈
And to think I managed to lose to him once in leo's tournament semis due to poor draft choice and thinking that amps of already-borderline characters beyond amalgamation are allowed...fills me with shame.
It was like a Leopard snatching a pheasant from the air. Beautiful
Originally posted by leonidas
really want to face you id..... lol
I will clear a path of destruction. Charlotte will fall. Digi/PG will fall. And finally Leo would once again, stand in my way from claiming what is rightfully mine.
/End Nerdgasim.
Originally posted by leonidas
i still disagree with your stance. judges should be asked to vote on plans/strategies and who debated better. they should NOT be put in a position to decide what is or isn't legal (i've no doubt some of the judges haven't been following the discussion thread (and i wouldn't really expect them to follow all that close as it takes a lot of time to follow closely....) and some may not even have read all the rules--they just read the match and make a decision as they have been asked to do so determining legal/illegal can only lead to issues......)
I understand your position. I think it's a bit ironic, because "almost breaking the rules" tends to be a great plus in a debate, shows a lot of creativity, but the individual ruling here wasn't crystal clear -as I you could tell by my question, the time manipulation rule poses some trouble-. I could've voted differently, and that's partly why I'm surprised of the unanimous vote.
I'll try to capitalize all this to make a better judging next time.
I realize that I should've made a post in Leo and Psycho's fight.
I thought telling Psycho to drop it, Leo to quote me and posting in this thread would've been enough, but apparently not 🙂
Me and Delph sent some PMs back and forth, since I read his verdict before I knew that I was going to judge the match. I told him that Leo's strategies had been allowed per my rules, but that it was ultimately up to him to judge the effectiveness of the strategy.
