Someone should link the Jann stream where the opper withdrawal was discussed (JK then being the replacement wild card) and he said we should give opper a few weeks to reconsider and if he did change his mind no-one would object to a new spot being created for him. The chair is always open if he wants to come back. The "no-one would object" seemed obvious at the time. Now we have some objections but ironically none of the objections are that opper came back but the end result of having the extra candidate. But logically one implies the other.
okei's version of the events is pretty accurate BTW:
"JK!
3 months ago schwinggggg -> FischyVishy
schwinggggg man jkiller really needs to be in the candidates, he just hit 2800!
FischyVishy O_O
+1
FischyVishy JK is in
schwinggggg that’s great!! nice job :) what’s the new format?
FischyVishy He's replacing opper :( :)
schwinggggg oh shoot, why’s that?
FischyVishy He said it's too long :(
schwinggggg whaaat? that’s bs, he’s online all the time"
What's funny to me is that you're so worked up over me letting opper back in (people were pleading him to reconsider!) but have never once showed any concern for anything else. But no, JK should not be let in if only just ONE person had an objection...and who does that person happen to be? Oh, you! But not so for other rules, and not so for other aspects of the event, of course.
Better documentation, though, of course couldn't hurt!
"JK!
3 months ago schwinggggg -> FischyVishy
schwinggggg man jkiller really needs to be in the candidates, he just hit 2800!
FischyVishy O_O
+1
FischyVishy JK is in
schwinggggg that’s great!! nice job :) what’s the new format?
FischyVishy He's replacing opper :( :)
schwinggggg oh shoot, why’s that?
FischyVishy He said it's too long :(
schwinggggg whaaat? that’s bs, he’s online all the time"
What's funny to me is that you're so worked up over me letting opper back in (people were pleading him to reconsider!) but have never once showed any concern for anything else. But no, JK should not be let in if only just ONE person had an objection...and who does that person happen to be? Oh, you! But not so for other rules, and not so for other aspects of the event, of course.
Better documentation, though, of course couldn't hurt!
Before the matches start, I guess it's very important for participants to know, what will be the tiebreaker in case of a tie?
@fischyvishy, please clarify all the relevant rules to avoid further questions.
@fischyvishy, please clarify all the relevant rules to avoid further questions.
No tiebreaker @IgorBugMate as explained in the blog.
Oh you mean at the end of it all...
Matches won
Games won
Then I'm not sure if those are still tied. Probably a playoff.
Matches won
Games won
Then I'm not sure if those are still tied. Probably a playoff.
Yep. That's what I had in mind. In that case, all matches have all 10 games to be completed. No more 6-1 wins :)
Wow, what a lot of drama one participant can cause! To me it looks like a case of stubbornly putting principles ahead of common sense.
@FischyVishy it might be worth adding a clause into the rules that if a situation arises that's unforeseen by the current rules then the TD has discretion to act in the way he feels is best for the event. Either on his own, or with a panel of others to vote on it.
@FischyVishy it might be worth adding a clause into the rules that if a situation arises that's unforeseen by the current rules then the TD has discretion to act in the way he feels is best for the event. Either on his own, or with a panel of others to vote on it.
@IgorBugMate Yeah, 6-1s need to be played out (just like last year). If somehow the first two tiebreaks okei posted are equal, there will be a playoff, yes.
@tipau That's in (some of) the rules basically, but yeah maybe add it in as a separate clause.
@tipau That's in (some of) the rules basically, but yeah maybe add it in as a separate clause.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.