Here is what I sent to Chad for my judging. I'm not always nice about what I say, so I'll take any heat from that, no problem. But, I know what I like and what I don't. I have a clear vision of that. So, if you have a particular problem with what I say in my judging, please put it here, so I have one conventient place to tell people to go **** themselves.
I'm kidding.
Sort of.
-------
Hopper vs. King: HOPPER over KING, 7-3
I just enjoyed Hopper's posts more. King's first one almost put me to sleep with all the backstory. I'd rather he just get to the point. King's second was better and addressed his opponent, but it seemed really brief. Hopper's second was just as strong as his first, so this is an easy pick for me.
Tact vs. Martin: TACT over Martin, 8-2
Tact was really ****ing good here. Martin was game, but was just outclassed I think. Tact was really on his A-game.
Whealdon vs. gideon: GIDEON over WHEALDON, 5-5
I called this even but I gave a slight edge to Gideon because I liked the way he got over the characterization of his character more. His first was a real risk, making most of his post the scrambled up mutterings of the guy without punctuation or grammar checks, right down to his name itself being all lower-case. I thought it was kind of novel, and I bought it. Whealdon was good too and was good solid character work, but I guess it just comes down to enjoying the gideon character more.
Stevens vs. Murray: STEVENS over MURRAY, 6-4
Close call for Stevens here. On the strength of the first RP apiece, I had Murray with a slight edge, but I think Stevens pulled away on the strength of his second. Murray's argument that implies seedings matter as far as what the "organizers" think or that it took some people more to get a spot and others less is a red herring argument to me, and that's a bit annoying.
Spooky Doom vs. Brigsby: SPOOKY DOOM over CARL BRIGSBY, 10-0
Jobbertime
Mike C vs. Niles: MIKE C. over NILES, 7-3
Eh, Niles did absolutely nothing for me. His first post looked like he mailed it in, and it was hard to come back from that. Mike C was solid, not spectacular, but good enough here.
Leyendo De Ocho vs. Alex Leblanc: LEYENDA DE OCHO over ALEX LEBLANC, 6-4
Both of these guys bored me, but Ocho bored me less. I thought his talk was stronger, but the trash talk in general in this thread made me want to put my eyes out.
Space God vs. Orphan: ORPHAN over SPACE GOD, 10-0
Jobbertime.
Strife vs. Jaguar: CASTOR STRIFE over JAGUAR, 10-0
No show for Jaguar.
Brown vs. Harvey: BROWN over HARVEY, 7-3
Harvey was weak weak weak, here. Brown didn't set the world on fire, but it was perfectly acceptable, he addressed his opponent and the match, and it was enough.
Eddie Whisky vs. Walker: EDDIE WHISKY over CHRIS WALKER, 10-0
No show for Walker.
Colossus vs. Keller: KHRISTAIN KELLER over KC COLOSSUS, 10-0
Jobbertime.
Sergeant vs. Gemini: SERGEANT over GEMINI, 5-5
I really REALLY liked both of these guys, and I don't think either should be eliminated based on some of the other roleplay I've been reading where someone has to win between two crappy roleplayers. BUT -- I'm gonna man up and pick a guy here, so I went with Sergeant, who I enjoyed just a bit more.
Allen vs. Eagles: DERRICK ALLEN over EAGLES, 10-0
Sorry, but Eagles broke a cardinal rule of e-fedding, using another character without permission and even giving him dialogue. Permajob.
Doc Silver vs. Mateo: DOC SILVER over ERIK MATEO, 7-3
Mateo's RPs made my head hurt. You gotta be really really good to be able to pull off an accent that thick in e-fedding. I'm not sure this was quite there. I spent way too much time trying to figure out what he was saying. Doc was good if not spectacular.
Anarky vs. Terminator: ANARKY over TERMINATOR, 10-0
Jobbertime.