Lucky Loser

[Chad]

It's looking like there will be one "Lucky Loser" spot due to a double no-show. Once Bracket 4 is voted on, I'll present the judges with the "closest" matchups and allow them to vote on who should get in. If a judge's character is included in the list, he'll either have to abstain or vote for someone other than his character.

The "Lucky Loser" will face the winner of the "Jester" Chad Allen vs. Tarrasque matchup in Bracket 1, so we'll try to make the decision before the start of the second round roleplay in Bracket 1. If for some reason we can't, we'll extend roleplay for that match or make any other changes needed to err on the side of fairness.

 

[Ernie]

I thought there were two double no-shows. I know someone no-showed against a jobber and Ace Andrews/Jay Connor was a double no-show.

 

[TheHopper]

I thought there were two double no-shows. I know someone no-showed against a jobber and Ace Andrews/Jay Connor was a double no-show.

In the judges podcast it was already decreed that if someone no showed against a jobber....the jobber goes over

 

[Ernie]

I thought that was just on the card. I didn't know that meant someone got a bye in round 2, also.

 

[HeavyMetalHero]

Jobbers deserve love, too!

Also, how does this affect the bracket contest? If the best loser from the entire tourney goes to the top of bracket one, logic dictates they might tear through it all the way to the Elite Eight, or even higher.

 

[Chad]

Great point regarding the Tournament Challenge. I haven't seen how that site does the scoring yet. I'll have to go in and put a "winner" I'm assuming -- and I may be able to change the name and insert the Lucky Loser in the bracket, but I don't know.

We'll have to play by ear and make sure it's fair for everyone. I would suggest that since everyone had to pick a "winner" out of the match that was listed, that everyone loses access to those "points" moving forward. Don't know if there's a way to make that happen in the system or if we'll have to do some manual adjustment at the end. But if the guy you picked to get the Final Four in the first round is out and just happens to get back in as the Lucky Loser -- you won't get points for selecting him.

Any other thoughts/concerns?

 

[fugginVOSS]

I think this is the fairest way forward.

Great idea, guys.

 

[HeavyMetalHero]

I think this is the fairest way forward.

Great idea, guys.

^^^^^^

 

[ORPN]

My suggestion:

I agree 100% that the jobber should go over, but that doesn't necessarily mean someone should have a bye in Round 2. In-character wise it could easily be explained that said jobber got injured and has to be replaced, or you could even add a bit to the show where a second "lucky loser" tears the jobber apart and takes their place. Things like that happen in wrestling, heh.

More importantly it'd be better for the tournament as a whole to not have any more walkovers now that you've weeded out the jobbers and no-showers in the first round. Would also be good to reward a second person who lost his match, as it can clearly be seen from a lot of the prediction threads that a fair few of these matches are almost too close to call outright and boil down to personal preference. Allowing a second "loser" a second chance makes sense, but that's just my opinion I'm throwing out there. You guys are doing a great job.

 

[BMorris]

I second ORPN's suggestion. The jobber should go over, just not advance, and allow the Round Two match to be a competitive one between two RPers who have shown a willingness to put their time and effort into participating.

 

[HeavyMetalHero]

I second ORPN's suggestion. The jobber should go over, just not advance, and allow the Round Two match to be a competitive one between two RPers who have shown a willingness to put their time and effort into participating.

On the other hand, the lucky loser will completely eat Bracket 4 alive, haha.

 

[ORPN]

I wouldn't be so sure about that, especially seeing as that spot would face Deacon in the second round. He put up two very strong unopposed RPs for my money, no doubt he could do even better with an actual opponent to feed off.

 

[HeavyMetalHero]

I wouldn't be so sure about that, especially seeing as that spot would face Deacon in the second round. He put up two very strong unopposed RPs for my money, no doubt he could do even better with an actual opponent to feed off.

Ooh, good point. I've already learned enough around here to notice that that's a pretty big deal, lol.

 

[DEF_Vagabond]

I think the too-close-to-call people, or the lost-by-an-inch people, should be put in a separate match to declare a Lucky Dog, or Lucky Loser as you call it.

Because I'm just one of the people who (though unconfirmed) lost their match, when there's been no-showers and such all over the tournament. I'd like to nominate myself of course, but I'd also like to see the other "misfortunates" get a second chance too. No-showers shouldn't ruin the fun for everybody.