Diamond 21 - 24 iPro [GG Clan Tourney]

[jesusfuentesh]

(10-25-2013 03:31 AM)Mag!cGuy Wrote:  When both concerned clans agree on something, there is no point to come as the boss and declare that what you want to happen happens.

This applies when a fixed rule has't been established before and anyway the last decision would be made by the referee/moderator. Even if they agreed with something, participants would have no right to make a DEFINITIVE decision, but the referee. We've seen this in all sports and fompetitive events.

Despite I said I would be firm, I would let this go for some reasons:

- I don't want there is any grudge because of this
- I'd consider terence and thurtchy's attitude
- There is no price at stake

BUT, I would allow you to play the match if you agree with the following:

- Good Game team's leader has his right to defend their situation in his favor, using the rules that were given before in a correct manner, just like iPro and Diamond have done before.
- Players must be more careful about the rules and take them seriously because they would have no chance like this again.
- If leaders don't agree with any rule that has come up, they have to give an opinion about it between the next two days
- once the time of a rule to be applied has come, there is no chance to change it for fun (there was enough time if they wouldn't agree with this).
- if someone is going to complain about something, try to write without suppositions and in a formal way.

Also I would allow this considering what a participant might think. But not as a good referee.

So, if you agree with this, then you can play the match. I wait for Terence or Thrutchy, and amoffett or Memories.

[His_Daddy]

Considering Jesus is also a member of GG, he's just saying he's not intended to make things in favor of GG. He's doing it as a referee rather than a GG member.

If he wanted to, then it really should be the other way.

If you could see the atmosphere in our team right now, see how Jesus organizes every single of us, including these top guys: pharmafan, cor13:4. torbreck, greatgonzale's input in the team game, you'll understand, at least right now, none of us is thinking of the second, and it's funny to see someone thought Jesus was.

So I hope however this forteit thing ends up with, there will be no question to Jesus's honesty.

And yes I'm proud of my team.

(10-25-2013 06:11 AM).Memories. Wrote:  I see how you might think that has to do the the members of GG, but I don't think amoffett was questioning if GG's members had input. It was rather jesus' intentions.

[Thrutchy]

Personally, I'd prefer to keep the peace. Forfeit wins are not very satisfying anyway. But, I think it is perfectly reasonable for Jesus to apply rules strictly. I will be satisfied with whatever decision he makes.

[.Memories.]

(10-25-2013 06:31 AM)jesusfuentesh Wrote:  So, if you agree with this, then you can play the match. I wait for Terence or Thrutchy, and amoffett or Memories.

Wait, what are you waiting for from us? Obviously we all agree.. as we discussed several posts ago..

(10-25-2013 06:31 AM)jesusfuentesh Wrote:  Despite I said I would be firm, I would let this go for some reasons:

- I don't want there is any grudge because of this
- I'd consider terence and thurtchy's attitude
- There is no price at stake

And you are considering iPro's attitude, but not mine? I was the one being completely considerate of any time constraints or other obligations they might have had.

ANYWAY, the game started several hours ago, as I thought this issue was resolved then.

[Thrutchy]

(10-25-2013 06:31 AM)jesusfuentesh Wrote:  Also I would allow this considering what a participant might think. But not as a good referee.

So, if you agree with this, then you can play the match. I wait for Terence or Thrutchy, and amoffett or Memories.

Memories, I was just responding to the above from the last post of Jesus.

[.Memories.]

(10-25-2013 07:48 AM)Thrutchy Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 06:31 AM)jesusfuentesh Wrote:  Also I would allow this considering what a participant might think. But not as a good referee.

So, if you agree with this, then you can play the match. I wait for Terence or Thrutchy, and amoffett or Memories.

Memories, I was just responding to the above from the last post of Jesus.

I was, too. I started typing the post in a meeting but didn't finish it until the meeting was over and you guys must have posted already . I'll edit my post so that it responds to jesus'.

[amoffett11]

I've been away all day, and unable to get back to this until now. I should maybe have waited until I'd have a chance to respond to any responses in a somewhat timely manner; I was hoping things I said wouldn't get taken out of context while I was away.

I'd like to make a few things clear: I am not accusing Good Game Team of any wrongdoing; they are essentially not involved in this particular conflict at all, and I was not trying to suggest they were involved in some kind of conspiracy to eke 4 points from us. What I did say was this event could be construed as somewhat biased in favour of the moderators team.


I am also not accusing IPro of any wrongdoing. From the posts above they've clearly been nothing but sporting about this.

On the other side, .Memories. did everything in his power to keep this game from being a forfeit for the other team . To hold that against him, or Diamond League, because "the other team was not bound to answer" is unfair.

Quote:- Good Game team's leader has his right to defend their situation in his favor, using the rules that were given before in a correct manner, just like iPro and Diamond have done before.

This is somewhat strange to me. Good Game Team is not involved in this disagreement at all, but yet you seem to by implying/admitting that you took your own team's situation into consideration when making this decision.

Quote:If leaders don't agree with any rule that has come up, they have to give an opinion about it between the next two days

Yet, if you didn't agree when you read, why didn't we read your opinion at that time

It's not a problem with the rule, it's a problem with your ruling on it. This rule has not been enforced with any consistency, which again suggests that this decision is not being made impartially.

Quote:- if someone is going to complain about something, try to write without suppositions and in a formal way.

Whatever you're going to call my complaint, you can't call it informal.

Quote:I realize you haven't been in a real tournament before, where many sport players are looking lawfully for forfeits as soon as they have the chance

A) I play sports. I've been in tournaments.
B) This is not Major League Baseball. This is not the National Football League. This is not the Soccer Champions League Association or whatever. No one is being paid to win games. I have been in several tournaments where the other teams shows up late, they're short a player, whatever, and we could've forced a forfeit but we did not. That's not fun for anyone.

[Gf!sh]

Can we all just shut up for a moment?

[Mag!cGuy]

It's not the most elegant way to say it, but I agree.

[Harti]

Thanks for the solution you came up with, Jesus! I hope you didn't do it because you were afraid of the silent lion lurking and waiting for you? haha jk

It could have been resolved better by DL starting the game on Saturday indeed, no matter what - but Memories was only trying to respect a former agreement between iPro and DL, namely the asking for confirmation. With the PM system having been down (until Monday or so?) there was essentially no other way (except further spamming this thread) to contact them, or am I missing something?

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue. I think it is important for a tourney host to apply rules like they were set, but putting up seemingly arbitrary (for me, that is) deadlines isn't really a rule everybody agreed with. In fact you played God right there, but let's not go there. It's alright if you are strict and consequent about this, but you need to stick to your ideals. Love your neighbor as yourself.

We're all human, there can be misunderstandings and if there's something wrong I would suggest you are investigating if there was any malicious intention of bypassing a rule first before you make a final judgment. I for my part have been a TCG judge for eight years and had I always judged things by the rules, I would have had to disqualify or issue forfeits like crazy. Most players would have lost interest in playing that particular TCG by that point.

Still, I'm not arguing about this at all, it seems to have been sorted out and even if you had stuck to your decision, I would have had to be fine with it. Please don't consider me a nitpicky douchebag!

Peace!