BRACKET 1 REACTION THREAD?

[HeavyMetalHero]

general vitriol

Have you tried just writing your absolute best, and trusting that quality trumps preference? I think the judges have proven thus far that we can trust them with that.

Pre-emptive: This is targeted at all the vitriol, not just yours. Yours was simply the first to come out of the gate hard.

I guess I just expect people to be intelligent enough to differentiate and draw the proper conclusions. Could be a mistake.

Whoa. WHOA. This is the internet, sir; we'll have none of that, now.

 

[TheHopper]

WHAT?!



WHAT?!

There is only one way to respond to this as a viewer....


YES! YES! YES!


It made me laugh....but I do agree with Christian on the need for judges to probably stay away from the things that could push them any direction....but that is difficult as some handle with other characters.

 

[Aaron]

YES! YES! YES!

YES! YES! YES!

 

[LQJT86C]

Have you tried just writing your absolute best, and trusting that quality trumps preference? I think the judges have proven thus far that we can trust them with that.

Pre-emptive: This is targeted at all the vitriol, not just yours. Yours was simply the first to come out of the gate hard.



Whoa. WHOA. This is the internet, sir; we'll have none of that, now.

General vitriol=making a suggestion on how the tournament could improve.

Now I could really bring the vitriolicityness and tell you how much your statement makes me cringe for the future of humanity, but I would rather tone it down a notch and say: quality is a subjective term. People define it based on their...preferences. If it was easy as "quality should be known at once by all", we'd only need one judge. There's a reason we have a whole panel of judges, and that brings me back to my original point, which you ignored 'cause you thought you were witty...

Sorry. I was brought up on trash talk.

 

[The Minstrel]

Judge transparency isn't a bad idea because you had one bad experience with TEAM. On the other hand, I'm not suggesting it is needed because of ONE potential bad call. Again, the podcast discussion last night (which centered on Blaine/Zero) led to Chad saying that not all the judges were expected to provide reasoning for votes, something that surprised me and a few others, and now here we are. It's a good thing that one small controversy has led to this discussion; that's how models improve.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to say "I get it, you're pissed at a result, it's a game, move on" when I clearly stated it wasn't about results. Judge transparency doesn't guarantee a good or bad result, but it lets people know that we have competent, critical-minded people reading over all the work people spend time writing. Some might spit up their soda at the thought that I don't automatically vest faith in anybody who signs up to be a judge, especially when most of those people are respected, but it wouldn't matter if me and all my good friends were calling this thing - it's an expectation that should be there in a big tournament like this.

If the goal is to avoid drama, that went out the door as soon as ULTRATITLE was announced. It's a tournament, people are going to be dissatisfied every round because we're picking winners and losers. So what? Let it happen. Let people vent, and when the judges make their reasoning, that's the end of it. If people start attacking judges personally for their subjective views, I dunno, it's a forum - the admins can use their discretion as to what's appropriate like they would do for anything else. This doesn't need to be complicated!

Drama is more likely to result from less openness than more, as has already been the case. It's nice that most of you have chosen to be open, but I really don't think it should be an option. You volunteer to judge, you should be expected to show that you're actually, you know...judging.

I don't believe full transparency is necessary - no one should have to go down the list of matches and provide in-depth feedback for each one unless they choose to do so. These people are already devoting time to reading and grading out the RPs - providing detail explanations on each match takes more time, which they may not have to devote (nevermind not want to devote).

Feedback is certainly helpful and consrtructive, however, so if a judge does not want to explain themselves publicly - they should be courteous and respond to any request in PM from someone looking for FEEDBACK provided they have the time to do so.

 

[LQJT86C]

I don't believe full transparency is necessary - no one should have to go down the list of matches and provide in-depth feedback for each one unless they choose to do so. These people are already devoting time to reading and grading out the RPs - providing detail explanations on each match takes more time, which they may not have to devote (nevermind not want to devote).

Feedback is certainly helpful and consrtructive, however, so if a judge does not want to explain themselves publicly - they should be courteous and respond to any request in PM from someone looking for FEEDBACK provided they have the time to do so.

Personally, I think I'm friends with or on really good terms with like 6 or 7 out of all 9 judges. I don't want to create a ton of work for anybody who volunteers for something like this. But I do not believe asking for a couple of sentences - nothing in depth - on a handful of matches that they already read and formed an opinion on is a big deal at all. Again, almost all of them are already doing it. And for the ones who are not and don't plan on it, I will tell you straight up, I don't trust that you're not skimming and pulling a score out your ass. ::shrugs::

Sorry, it's human nature. How many times has someone really close to you told you they read something you wrote when they didn't? "Oh yeah dude, I read that e-mail". Really? What did it say? "It uh...something about...re-scheduling for the game next week..." You didn't read it, did you? "Sorry dude, I promise I will tonight." I've got nothing but love for the guys running this thing, but we're ALL guilty of stuff like that. Kudos once again to the majority of judges who saw fit to do this in the first place.

 

[J The Ripper]

I'm...so...sorry but I just have to join in...

YES!! YES!! YES!!

 

[The Great Eye]

I don't believe full transparency is necessary - no one should have to go down the list of matches and provide in-depth feedback for each one unless they choose to do so. These people are already devoting time to reading and grading out the RPs - providing detail explanations on each match takes more time, which they may not have to devote (nevermind not want to devote).

Feedback is certainly helpful and consrtructive, however, so if a judge does not want to explain themselves publicly - they should be courteous and respond to any request in PM from someone looking for FEEDBACK provided they have the time to do so.

When I enter a tournament I want to win it, and in a hobby that is as totally subjective as ours, the only way to win a match is to know what the judges are looking for and to write things to meet the judges views on what should be a good Rp, so the problem becomes when you don't know what a judge wants, it's next to impossible to figure out how to write to please them. Clearly three judges on the panel for this match had different judging standards than what most people thought were the guidelines for the tournament, if they don't want to explain why they voted for this match the way they did then at the very least what I would ask is for them to explain what they are looking for in Rp's since if I drew those judges in a future round I know I'd want to have an understanding of what they want me to do with my character for them to judge my Rp's in a favorable way.

 

[The Minstrel]

When I enter a tournament I want to win it, and in a hobby that is as totally subjective as ours, the only way to win a match is to know what the judges are looking for and to write things to meet the judges views on what should be a good Rp, so the problem becomes when you don't know what a judge wants, it's next to impossible to figure out how to write to please them. Clearly three judges on the panel for this match had different judging standards than what most people thought were the guidelines for the tournament, if they don't want to explain why they voted for this match the way they did then at the very least what I would ask is for them to explain what they are looking for in Rp's since if I drew those judges in a future round I know I'd want to have an understanding of what they want me to do with my character for them to judge my Rp's in a favorable way.

While I totally understand and respect your point of view, I think what you and other people are missing is that the Podcast explained that the judges did not want people to completely ignore the UltraTitle tournament - does that mean you should address your opponent? Yes. Does that mean addressing your opponent is the only way? Absolutely not.

If a narrative RP addresses a personal journey back to the ring - it is still about wrestling. If a narrative RP is addresses a ninja assassin's mission - it is not. That is the line I believe was being drawn on the podcasts. Do not write a roleplay that is not about wreslting and I think that is where the misinterpretation is coming from.

At the end of the day, it is a writing competition - if you don't like the narrative style than that's okay, but it is still a writing style. I think the judges are looking for good writing moreso than anything, which is difficult to quantify because it is such a subjective thing.

I doubt Chad would have selected judges who would show an overwhelming bias towards one style over the other. Sure, people have preferences, but it's entirely possible to be narrative and beat a trashtalker, to be a trash talker and beat a hybrid, and all the other variations you can make. Good writing is good writing and by executing YOUR style better than the YOUR OPPONENT executes their's is the key.

Now if you believe Blaine's work was better - that's your opinion that is fine and understandably, you want to voice it. However, if you think Blaine should have won because Zero did not trash talk at all - I think you may be missing the point.

 

[The Great Eye]

While I totally understand and respect your point of view, I think what you and other people are missing is that the Podcast explained that the judges did not want people to completely ignore the UltraTitle tournament - does that mean you should address your opponent? Yes. Does that mean addressing your opponent is the only way? Absolutely not.

If a narrative RP addresses a personal journey back to the ring - it is still about wrestling. If a narrative RP is addresses a ninja assassin's mission - it is not. That is the line I believe was being drawn on the podcasts. Do not write a roleplay that is not about wreslting and I think that is where the misinterpretation is coming from.

At the end of the day, it is a writing competition - if you don't like the narrative style than that's okay, but it is still a writing style. I think the judges are looking for good writing moreso than anything, which is difficult to quantify because it is such a subjective thing.

I doubt Chad would have selected judges who would show an overwhelming bias towards one style over the other. Sure, people have preferences, but it's entirely possible to be narrative and beat a trashtalker, to be a trash talker and beat a hybrid, and all the other variations you can make. Good writing is good writing and by executing YOUR style better than the YOUR OPPONENT executes their's is the key.

Now if you believe Blaine's work was better - that's your opinion that is fine and understandably, you want to voice it. However, if you think Blaine should have won because Zero did not trash talk at all - I think you may be missing the point.

I don't care about trash talk Vs narrative. This isn't about that. What this is about is the guidelines laid down before on the opening podcast. You say that Zero's Rp was a way to build up Ultratitle and so it was justified to vote for him so I went back and re-read his Rp's and to me, his opening Rp could be an intro for a returning character to any league at all, or any tournament at all, Ultratitle didn't get mentioned once and didn't matter at all in the Rp. The ground rules were 'hype Ultratitle' I could literally write anything and declare it 'Ultratitle hype' by your standard. His second Rp mentions Ultratitle once, at the start of the Rp explaining why he's stuck in the airport, you could replace the word Ultratitle with "TEAM" or "GTT" and it would fit in any tournament, or "NFW" or "fWo" and it would fit in any league as a introductory Rp for a character, so the promo feels generic when it comes to explaining to me that this character is in Ultratitle.

Again this isn't about Zero's Rp's, they are well written and clearly three judges felt like he won the match so he did, what this is about is that I thought we had established ground rules for this tournament about what the judges were looking for, and your reply seems to be stating Zero met them, when I feel it's really a stretch to say that.

 

[AUMedina]

The internet is serious business.

 

[Colin]

I am pro-good judging and anti-bad judging. I know these are very strong words but I stand by them in my heart of heads.

 

[The Great Eye]

I am pro-good judging and anti-bad judging. I know these are very strong words but I stand by them in my heart of heads.

In the guts of your heart's mind's eye?

 

[DBrunkGXW]

THAT'S RIGHT

 

[Colin]

In the guts of your heart's mind's eye?

Deep down I feel in the back of my head that they were just the stronger side today.

 

[Chad]

1) Judges should not remain anonymous.

They aren't. They've been announced, and I said directly who judged Bracket 1 and will do the same for hte other brackets. Some of the judges who weren't on the podcast have posted comments on the board (I believe Joey, Dusty and/or Justin did), and Keegan gave his on one of the EFG podcasts.

2) All judges should explain their votes.

The vast majority did when they sent me their votes. Others did on the podcast. Judges are welcome to post their notes or to answer questions -- I'm not going to post their verbatim comments. I did set the expectation that I would read them on the podcast, and I did.

Transparency is not at issue here. What's at issue is that a couple of people believe there are specific "guidelines" we're operating under that were never set up that way. In the judges' podcast the number one view expressed was to "write well" no matter what style or format. After that, several judges suggested they would look at making sure the tournament and the opponent were addressed, and then we talked about addressing the "sport" itself and not going off the rails with murder, etc.

Again, Zero/Hollywood was judged 3-1 for Zero. The judges didn't "disregard guidelines" or change their tune. It is what it is. Moving forward, other judges come into play as well, since there are 5 assigned to each bracket. I'm sure we'll see some differences in how different judges (and sets of judges) make their decisions. That's part of a broad tournament like this where there are a broad number of judges. This is not a fed where one or two guys makes the decisions or sets the structure of the "world" -- this is an open invitation tournament with judges that span different communities, experience, etc.

 

[Steve]

You mean there aren't secret judges?

I don't think anyone fears discussion. The problem was the Blaine/Zero match took on a life of its own, and the "discussion", while some of it jest would have scared the hell out of me if I was Andy. Its one thing to go match by match and offer constructive criticism. I'm not so sure Zero's rps were given that treatment. He was the poster boy for "do we write for a fake audience or not" and told repeatedly his writing was ****. I'm sure he's a big boy, but in pleading for an open discussion i think its fair to ask those who reply stay grounded.

I enjoy the debates. Its certainly better than putting up polls, begging for show feedback, or "book your own fed" discussions.

I would have voted for Jamar, but like most of us that's because of my bias towards a style, and in some cases knowing him personally, etc. In reading Andy's rps more in-depth, I like what he did. While not addressing Blaine directly, both rps centered on Zero's return for the UT.

Spooky's point was we've seen the rich, greedy asshole before. Jamar certainly writes the hell out of him, but I wouldn't call his rps flawless. Whether a judge would hold it against him or not, I thought he got Carlton over far more than Blaine. And Hollywood's character while sharply written was a bit surface level. Those are minor quibs, but point is, it wasn't a slam dunk some think it was. IMO.

There's going to be a battle of styles here, but why some people feared that going in, I'm not sure. I certainly don't think Blaine's loss means no script writer could ever get past a good narrative rp.

Judging by nature is subjective. But there's a good mix of judges in terms of what they value. Another issue I haven't seen anyone address other than Pete is rp limits. Interesting food for thought. Obviously if Brunk couldn've had one more, he wins. Maybe Jamar wears down Andy with one or two more.

2 rp limit has proven to be interesting already.

 

[bloxham]

Is there a general discussion podcast planned for the near future? I had obligations last night and had to listen to the archive, and I'll be out of the country for an extended period of time soon and won't have (non-expensive) phone access. But I've heard lots of talk in every direction, and... well, as the writer of Zero... it could be fun to contribute to that.

 

[Justin]

This is also why I am and have been for most of two decades against "voting" in all of its capacities toward eWrestling.

 

[Chad]

Regarding judge transparency:

You realize I just posted the results less than 24 hours ago, right? Were the judges supposed to be on secret lockdown and then released to answer questions from the media?

Stanton was on the podcast last night to give his thoughts. I did the same regarding matches I voted for. Joey isn't able to join podcasts and Justin just started a new job. Keegan is six time zones into the future and couldn't join.

Keegan is planning to discuss his votes on EFG. I'm sure Justin and Joey are happy to address it as well.

*I* made the decision not to release specific judges' notes verbatim, because that's not what they were intended for. All the judges have been considerate, measured, and have put a lot into going through reams of roleplay to make decisions. I released how many votes were made in which direction and even the "scores" that various judges gave the matches.

The idea that somehow there isn't "transparency" is laughable, and I find it even more amusing that it's being raised not by "outsiders" but by folks who know the majority of the judges and have worked with them.

The "guidelines" are as I set them. If you didn't like them, didn't understand them, or didn't take the time to view/listen to all the content available to you, I'm sorry for you. The judging has been consistent and reasoned. There is a multi-judge panel making each decision and in some cases, judges disagree. Just like there are winners and losers in the matches, not all judges are going to "get their way" even if they think the result should have been clear.

I've been doing this a long time, and not everybody agrees with every decision I make. No problem. You want to ***** about it? Fine. You want to keep *****ing for a prolonged period of time screaming your point louder and louder (literally). Fine. Just don't be surprised when I react.

Now on with Brackets 2-4 and more discussion about who's right and who's wrong!

-Chad