Round 2 Bracket 2 Results Discussion

[Chad]

And you are one of 11 judges who I invited to be involved. I'm going to say this one final time -- I invited judges and deliberately kept the "guidelines" loose to allow for different perspectives, backgrounds, etc.

In your specific case, you failed to sway THREE of the judges, not one. Apparently your "adapt and survive" gene is lacking against Anarky.

Stop trying to force others to engage based on your personal guidelines that you've decided to judge/write by.

I have voted 3 draws in the tournament so far.

 

[The Great Eye]

And you are one of 11 judges who I invited to be involved. I'm going to say this one final time -- I invited judges and deliberately kept the "guidelines" loose to allow for different perspectives, backgrounds, etc.

In your specific case, you failed to sway THREE of the judges, not one. Apparently your "adapt and survive" gene is lacking against Anarky.

Stop trying to force others to engage based on your personal guidelines that you've decided to judge/write by.

And we had a podcast for the judges to explain their views, many judges showed up, a few didn't I wish those judges had explained what they were looking for when it came to judging a match, that's all I've been looking for, knowledge of what judges wanted to see.

Have I complained once about losing to Anarky? No, I fully respect other two judges who voted against me. I have not once said I was robbed/ripped off/treated unfairly by this match result, you throwing the match result in my face as a way to prove I'm wrong is completely off-base, since I've never said the judges ruled in error when they voted for Anarky.

All I have said is that it seemed to me that a judge voted on this match based on a style bias. Something that had these forums up in flames over the whole Zero/Hollywood thing, because I and others were told that we had a bias against narrative or some such mindset, and that wasn't the case at all, I voted the match based on content, and that if we're going to have judges who are going to judge based on style bias that at the very least they should state what they want to see in Rp's before we write them so we know what to write to please those judges.

 

[Chad]

You've asked and Dusty has answered. You challenged and Dusty answered again. No one is going to be happy with any "response" at this point. I've addressed the "guidelines" and the "what judges are looking for" questions in podcasts and here. There are 11 judges with 11 different points of view. I'm fine with discussion, but at some point running it into the ground or running folks away is unproductive and not something I'm interested in around here. Thanks.

And we had a podcast for the judges to explain their views, many judges showed up, a few didn't I wish those judges had explained what they were looking for when it came to judging a match, that's all I've been looking for, knowledge of what judges wanted to see.

Have I complained once about losing to Anarky? No, I fully respect other two judges who voted against me. I have not once said I was robbed/ripped off/treated unfairly by this match result, you throwing the match result in my face as a way to prove I'm wrong is completely off-base, since I've never said the judges ruled in error when they voted for Anarky.

All I have said is that it seemed to me that a judge voted on this match based on a style bias. Something that had these forums up in flames over the whole Zero/Hollywood thing, because I and others were told that we had a bias against narrative or some such mindset, and that wasn't the case at all, I voted the match based on content, and that if we're going to have judges who are going to judge based on style bias that at the very least they should state what they want to see in Rp's before we write them so we know what to write to please those judges.

 

[DBrunkGXW]

Re: Voss' B2-R2 Judging Comments

Brunk, what the hell is bi*ches

The queen's loss its top, the pawns have two tops?

You know what it means.

I just hate the "take your ball and go home" approach and melodramatic behavior in general. Always will.

 

[DBrunkGXW]

You've asked and Dusty has answered. You challenged and Dusty answered again. No one is going to be happy with any "response" at this point. I've addressed the "guidelines" and the "what judges are looking for" questions in podcasts and here. There are 11 judges with 11 different points of view. I'm fine with discussion, but at some point running it into the ground or running folks away is unproductive and not something I'm interested in around here. Thanks.

To be fair, Chad, and with all due respect, you can't "run folks away". A person either decides to stand up and defend their position, or they run from it. If they make the decision to post feedback, but can't defend that feedback against criticism without being so sensitive that they threaten to not help anymore, they probably shouldn't post feedback in the first place.

And that's not a personal attack, Dusty. It's just, they asked for feedback, you gave it. They think your feedback is bogus. You're the one turning it into drama. Sorry, that's just how I feel about it.

 

[Linguistic]

Little known fact, Brunk took 7 years of drama in high school.

 

[fugginVOSS]

Little known fact, Brunk took 7 years of drama in high school.

Brunk took 7 years of 8th grade.

OH NOZ HE DID-DINT!

 

[TheHopper]

Brunk took 7 years of 8th grade.

OH NOZ HE DID-DINT!

Just think of what his statistics were for 8th grade basketball, football, etc etc

He must have unbeatable numbers! WOW!

 

[DBrunkGXW]

Just think of what his statistics were for 8th grade basketball, football, etc etc

He must have unbeatable numbers! WOW!

You've heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates?

MORONS.

 

[Spike Saunders]

Nah Brunk, I get it. I just didn't want to create any more controversy bullsh!t derailing threads like this one.

I have no intention on stopping and have stated so to Chad and co as well.

Which you would know this so I'm not sure why I typed this now that I look back... oh well.

 

[DBrunkGXW]

Nah Brunk, I get it. I just didn't want to create any more controversy bullsh!t derailing threads like this one.

I have no intention on stopping and have stated so to Chad and co as well.

Which you would know this so I'm not sure why I typed this now that I look back... oh well.

Your mom, Dusty.

YOUR MOM.

 

[Linguistic]

You've heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates?

MORONS.

With that sort of extensive training in high school, I totally understand.

 

[brusch]

I for one don't see what all the fuss is over the judging...anyone who gives me a winning vote is a-ok in my book!