(In Progress) Guild War Z: An AA1 Tournament (Challenges Thread)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayzie

I think next time save attempts should be independent of challenges. There's no real reason why they have to be free. If they die in the attempt, I can't see their opponent being too upset.

---

When I first glanced at the rules, until I went through them thoroughly, I was actually under the impression that anyone could save, regardless of other challenges...

But I quite like the way it is now, it forces a lot of strategic decision making as a team that would otherwise be absent, it forces you to work together more as a team, getting timing to matches right, posting saves timeously, etc. It makes it feel like guild wars, not just a bunch of mu's that count cumulatively. Plus these rules give me something to do even though I am dead :p

If it ever came down to a vote for future tournaments (geez, you can see who is alive and who is dead this tournament) I would vote for things to stay as they are, because it forces teamwork and team strategy, beyond just getting good mu's and winning games.

Luminosg 2-0 TJ Nataku

I wasn't able to catch you in IRC afterwards, so I'm not sure what exactly happened that second match, so let me know if this is off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSt4lker

If it ever came down to a vote for future tournaments (geez, you can see who is alive and who is dead this tournament) I would vote for things to stay as they are, because it forces teamwork and team strategy, beyond just getting good mu's and winning games.

---

Really? I've found it has promoted people using well intended rules to stall games, and people delaying their matchups (for the same reason). Any mechanic that results in a tournament dragging out longer is a bad mechanic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayzie

Really? I've found it has promoted people using well intended rules to stall games, and people delaying their matchups (for the same reason). Any mechanic that results in a tournament dragging out longer is a bad mechanic.

---

+1

Such a complex format and set of rules always comes up with this kind of controversy.

Rayzie, I didn't take offense from your post - don't worry about it. Bottom line regarding the save mechanic is that if I have been removing a save option point for each "declare", none of the remaining guilds would have had any remaining points by now.

Also, due to the occurrence of unexpected events in RL, I won't have time to immediately reply to queries on this thread. I urge the players to PM me with their questions instead for a faster response. Sorry about the inconvenience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayzie

Really? I've found it has promoted people using well intended rules to stall games, and people delaying their matchups (for the same reason). Any mechanic that results in a tournament dragging out longer is a bad mechanic.

---

+2.

I still have my objections but will refrain to post any further so as not to antagonize the tournament, TO, and the other players.

I'm trying to sum up where things stand.

BP Tcsnider and I will play asap when he returns from vacation.
BP Emigor and TJ Bayushi will be playing with save of BP Kelala on the line.

Do I have this right?

BP has to regrettably point out that according to the rules of the tournament Bayfighter is dead. I'm going to put on my lawyer mode (which I'm not actually), because I find precision helps me thing ;)

According to rule 1.
"Each player will have a time frame of 5 days to issue a challenge to an opposing participant. If a player fails to do so, they will be announced dead."

As per post #32 on this thread, the TO ruled that an exception could be made, and extension granted, if there are no available targets during the 5 day period.

Here is the sequence of events (all times quoted in GMT+0)

24/07 11:57pm Bayfighter reports a victory over SamuelJ
25/07 12:07am SamuelJ declares a save
27/07 9:38pm Emigor reports a victory over mongoosey
27/07 9:44pm Mongoosey declares a save
28/07 9:45pm Mongoosey's save expires, Emigor is now available to be challenged
29/07 5:50am Emigor declares save for Kelala (all previous saves being declared invalid), Emigor is now no longer available to be challenged
31/07 12:08am 6 days have passed since Bayfighter posted his victory, 5 days have passed since the save decleration by Mongoosey expired

As can be seen, Bayfighter had a window of over 8 hours, which coincided with his usual play times, in which to challenge Emigor. The exception to rule#1, as per post #32 therefore does not apply, and Bayfighter is unfortunately dead as per rule#1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSt4lker

BP has to regrettably point out that according to the rules of the tournament Bayfighter is dead. I'm going to put on my lawyer mode (which I'm not actually), because I find precision helps me thing ;)

According to rule 1.
"Each player will have a time frame of 5 days to issue a challenge to an opposing participant. If a player fails to do so, they will be announced dead."

As per post #32 on this thread, the TO ruled that an exception could be made, and extension granted, if there are no available targets during the 5 day period.

Here is the sequence of events (all times quoted in GMT+0)

24/07 11:57pm Bayfighter reports a victory over SamuelJ
25/07 12:07am SamuelJ declares a save
27/07 9:38pm Emigor reports a victory over mongoosey
27/07 9:44pm Mongoosey declares a save
28/07 9:45pm Mongoosey's save expires, Emigor is now available to be challenged
29/07 5:50am Emigor declares save for Kelala (all previous saves being declared invalid), Emigor is now no longer available to be challenged
31/07 12:08am 6 days have passed since Bayfighter posted his victory, 5 days have passed since the save decleration by Mongoosey expired

As can be seen, Bayfighter had a window of over 8 hours, which coincided with his usual play times, in which to challenge Emigor. The exception to rule#1, as per post #32 therefore does not apply, and Bayfighter is unfortunately dead as per rule#1

---

Wow, are u a real stalker?

Well, All's fair in love and (guild) war. And your detailed explanation seems valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSt4lker

As can be seen, Bayfighter had a window of over 8 hours, which coincided with his usual play times, in which to challenge Emigor. The exception to rule#1, as per post #32 therefore does not apply, and Bayfighter is unfortunately dead as per rule#1

---

Maybe, but it would be good to have the TO's perspective on this. The eight hours that he technically had was during the whole confusion about whether or not certain save attempts were valid, and emigor posted 3 separate times that he was saving. Only the third one was valid, which makes it tricky to figure out how much of a chance bayfighter actually had to get in on things.

Emigor was in a challenge the whole time really, since it wasn't ruled that bayushi's contentional save attempt was invalid until after the fact.

Yes, my save for Mongoosey should have locked Emigor in a save challenge but then other players had their opinion on the save attempt so I think this is the best time that we let the TO have a say in this.

Bayushi declared he would be saving vs emigor AFTER Kelala declared a save attempt by BP vs him.

The posts follow one after the other. Bayushi was locked, and couldn't declare that save (as we have already discussed at length).

The fact his false declaration may have caused some confusion is regrettable, but if you read the posts consecutively, with an eye on the rules, the sequence of events is not difficult to follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSt4lker

Bayushi declared he would be saving vs emigor AFTER Kelala declared a save attempt by BP vs him.

The posts follow one after the other. Bayushi was locked, and couldn't declare that save (as we have already discussed at length).

The fact his false declaration may have caused some confusion is regrettable, but if you read the posts consecutively, with an eye on the rules, the sequence of events is not difficult to follow.

---

Agreeing with this.

Unless you assume that bayushi's save was valid because you had none left. Which Bayfighter might have done.

You could use your logic to argue that if someone has no target available for over 5 days, that person could be disqualified instantly as soon as one becomes available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayzie

You could use your logic to argue that if someone has no target available for over 5 days, that person could be disqualified instantly as soon as one becomes available.

---

No, the said player won't be disqualified as TO has already indicated that the Rule 1 does not apply if there is no one available to challenge within the 5 days.

Regardless of how tiny the "window" was, Bayfighter did have an opponent to challenge during the 5 days, but he did not.

Lastly, speaking as a-matter-of-fact, when a player commits to a tourney, it has implied and assumed that he has read the rules thoroughly and will comply with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayzie

You could use your logic to argue that if someone has no target available for over 5 days, that person could be disqualified instantly as soon as one becomes available.

---

That wouldn't be my logic...

Your analogy fails on two counts:
1) In your analogy there was no one to be challenged for the 5 days. If that was the case the TO's earlier ruling would stand, and an extension would be granted. But in this instance there was a valid target during the 5 days

2) in your analogy the ruling is extremely harsh because the person has no chance to save themselves. An opponent appears, instant death.

However, Bayfigher had an 8 hour window in which Emigor was available. That 8 hours coincided with Bayfighers usual play times, as per his usual posting times. In addition, this being a team tournament, I would assume a team would have a contingency plan if one of their members needed to do something urgently but was unavailable...

So, your analogy takes a different scenario, with established guidelines as per the TO's prior ruling, and attempts to apply it to this scenario, which is already well covered by the rules.

Btw, is it true :confused: Is Bayfigher joining TJ when this is over????
:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSt4lker

Bayushi declared he would be saving vs emigor AFTER Kelala declared a save attempt by BP vs him.

The posts follow one after the other. Bayushi was locked, and couldn't declare that save (as we have already discussed at length).

The fact his false declaration may have caused some confusion is regrettable, but if you read the posts consecutively, with an eye on the rules, the sequence of events is not difficult to follow.

---

So, then we can spam save attempts as much as we want to make sure that others are excluded so that their real world lives may affect the game, especially via stalling from other players? That seems somewhat against the spirit of the rules. Because, if the TO were to make a ruling that was against your side, then you can claim bias or call schenanigans or some BS because "he didn't follow the letter of the law" when he himself admitted it was probably not written the way he wanted.

Example I would question then:

At the beginning of the tournament there were 5 teams of 5. Suppose that on day 5, no matches had been played and there were all 12 possible matches made, leaving 1 player behind. With no valid target due to him being "odd man out", he goes to sleep/work for a period of 8 hours, which end day 5 without him being able to check forum time while indisposed. If a match were to end before day 5 forum time ends, and he isn't able to make the challenge, or is 1 minute late according to forum time, is he DQ'ed? Because according to your rules he would be, and I believe that exceptions were at one point made for this sort of accommodation.

Stop rule-sharking the tournament and just play. Oh wait, you can't you're on the sidelines. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSt4lker

Btw, is it true :confused: Is Bayfigher joining TJ when this is over????
:p

---

What has that got to do with this tourney? Should I also mention that Rayzie offered me spot in TJ after this is over? Sheesh. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSt4lker

That wouldn't be my logic...

Your analogy fails on two counts:
1) In your analogy there was no one to be challenged for the 5 days. If that was the case the TO's earlier ruling would stand, and an extension would be granted. But in this instance there was a valid target during the 5 days

2) in your analogy the ruling is extremely harsh because the person has no chance to save themselves. An opponent appears, instant death.

However, Bayfigher had an 8 hour window in which Emigor was available. That 8 hours coincided with Bayfighers usual play times, as per his usual posting times. In addition, this being a team tournament, I would assume a team would have a contingency plan if one of their members needed to do something urgently but was unavailable...

So, your analogy takes a different scenario, with established guidelines as per the TO's prior ruling, and attempts to apply it to this scenario, which is already well covered by the rules.

---

I would just add one more thing to Stalker's stance. It does not matter it was a 8 hr window or a 1 hr window. a window is a window.

Stalker, it's actually the exact same logic. He has to wait, then an opportunity appears, which he doesn't promptly take, and he is then held accountable for missing it, even though its a very narrow window. I made it an extreme example so you could follow it, but apparently it's lost on you.

I can't imagine Bayfighter wanting to come over but if a few people were disgusted by your lack of sportsmanship and left BP, that wouldn't shock me at all.

Maybe you should try taking off your lawyer hat and replacing it with whatever hat someone wears when they actually trust their guild to be competitive within the spirit of the event. If I were one of the remaining BP I'd be offended that you kept trying to give me free wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayzie

Stalker, it's actually the exact same logic. He has to wait, then an opportunity appears, which he doesn't promptly take, and he is then held accountable for missing it, even though its a very narrow window. I made it an extreme example so you could follow it, but apparently it's lost on you.

I can't imagine Bayfighter wanting to come over but if a few people were disgusted by your lack of sportsmanship and left BP, that wouldn't shock me at all.

Maybe you should try taking off your lawyer hat and replacing it with whatever hat someone wears when they actually trust their guild to be competitive within the spirit of the event. If I were one of the remaining BP I'd be offended that you kept trying to give me free wins.

---

I'm sorry that you feel the need to be insulting and make this personal, especially as your guild is not directly invovled. I have attempted to maintain a friendly, and even joking atmosphere, obviously the quip about bayfigher joining TJ was a joke.

You have implied that my actions disgust you, you have accused me of a lack of sportsmanship, and you have accused me of not trusting my guild. All on a matter that doesn't even directly involve you or your guild. I would politely ask you to stop insulting my character.

I'm sorry that Bayushi made a mistake posting his save, and that the rules subsequently had to be clarified. That I had to "put on my lawyer hat" to do so was simply because the situation was complex, and it was plain that the rules were not being understood. The easiest way to make them understood was to lay them out in a timeline, and make specific reference to the rules.

Character assassination is ugly. I hope the ugliness stops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayzie

Stalker, it's actually the exact same logic. He has to wait, then an opportunity appears, which he doesn't promptly take, and he is then held accountable for missing it, even though its a very narrow window. I made it an extreme example so you could follow it, but apparently it's lost on you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayzie

You could use your logic to argue that if someone has no target available for over 5 days, that person could be disqualified instantly as soon as one becomes available.

---

It's implied that the player who had no opponent for 5 days and suddenly as soon as one player becomes available; he must challenge this 'suddenly available' player, regardless if the MU was good for the him or otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BetrayalFender

So, then we can spam save attempts as much as we want to make sure that others are excluded so that their real world lives may affect the game, especially via stalling from other players? That seems somewhat against the spirit of the rules. Because, if the TO were to make a ruling that was against your side, then you can claim bias or call schenanigans or some BS because "he didn't follow the letter of the law" when he himself admitted it was probably not written the way he wanted.

Example I would question then:

At the beginning of the tournament there were 5 teams of 5. Suppose that on day 5, no matches had been played and there were all 12 possible matches made, leaving 1 player behind. With no valid target due to him being "odd man out", he goes to sleep/work for a period of 8 hours, which end day 5 without him being able to check forum time while indisposed. If a match were to end before day 5 forum time ends, and he isn't able to make the challenge, or is 1 minute late according to forum time, is he DQ'ed? Because according to your rules he would be, and I believe that exceptions were at one point made for this sort of accommodation.

Stop rule-sharking the tournament and just play. Oh wait, you can't you're on the sidelines. :(

---

Sorry, I am not familiar with you. Sure, spectators can shout and cheer at the referee and players.

Speaking generally regarding tournaments:

I will just mention that it's a very bad idea to change rules in the middle of tournament. If there are any disputes with the rules, resolve them BEFORE the tournament. Once the tournament has started, everyone should follow them. The idea is fairly simple; any change in rules in the middle of a tournament is a bad idea (Clarifications are ok), simply because any change in rules is bound to offend one party or another. No one will be completely happy. Can't please everyone, and thus sticking to original rules is definitely better and highly recommended and should be enforced.

(For example, last year's WC Swiss round, minor edits to points/rules created some mayhem.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raphael Majere

It's implied that the player who had no opponent for 5 days and suddenly as soon as one player becomes available; he must challenge this 'suddenly available' player, regardless if the MU was good for the him or otherwise.

---

Hey, no, yeah thanks for ignoring the question entirely. but seriously. What happens in that situation? If I have to wait 4.9 days for an opponent to magically appear from a match, but fall asleep for the final 0.1 part of the 5 days, while a match finishes in that period of time, I'm disqualified? Because, again, THat's what's what's basically being implied. Which is a bunch of crap.

STALKER:
The lack of sportsmanship comes from your feeble attempt at rule-sharking, which is embarrassing. Regardless of you being in the right or Wrong of the moment, the fact that you won't accept that real life happens. Just because it coincides with his normal game-time doesn't mean he's available the second someone comes off their match.

The rule was made to stop people sitting around doing nothing because the last guild wars took so long with everyone waiting. The 'implication' being that if you have 5 days to pick a battle and you don't take them, you're inactive and will be disqualified.

My guild is involved in this tournament, and as we are a competitive guild heavily involved in the tournament scene both through hosting and participating, we have a vested interest in ensuring that tournaments are conducted in a fair manner.

As for my 'character assassination', I think a more appropriate term would be 'character suicide'. I thought Warriors of the Blue Phoenix was meant to be a reformed guild, but apparently there's still a few of you that are Dark Assassins deep down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BetrayalFender

Hey, no, yeah thanks for ignoring the question entirely. but seriously. What happens in that situation? If I have to wait 4.9 days for an opponent to magically appear from a match, but fall asleep for the final 0.1 part of the 5 days, while a match finishes in that period of time, I'm disqualified? Because, again, THat's what's what's basically being implied. Which is a bunch of crap.

The lack of sportsmanship comes from your feeble attempt at rule-sharking, which is embarrassing. Regardless of you being in the right or Wrong of the moment, the fact that you won't accept that real life happens. Just because it coincides with his normal game-time doesn't mean he's available the second someone comes off their match.

Just change your name to theRul3sh4rk and admit what you are.

---

Hi betrayal

If you take the time to read through the entire thread (ya, I know it's long, but if you want to comment it's only "polite") you will see your hypothetical situation actually happened, was dealt with fairly, and was referenced by me. Thanks for supporting guild wars, nice to know you care :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayzie

The rule was made to stop people sitting around doing nothing because the last guild wars took so long with everyone waiting. The 'implication' being that if you have 5 days to pick a battle and you don't take them, you're inactive and will be disqualified.

My guild is involved in this tournament, and as we are a competitive guild heavily involved in the tournament scene both through hosting and participating, we have a vested interest in ensuring that tournaments are conducted in a fair manner.

As for my 'character assassination', I think a more appropriate term would be 'character suicide'. I thought Warriors of the Blue Phoenix was meant to be a reformed guild, but apparently there's still a few of you that are Dark Assassins deep down.

---

Thanks Rayzie, I appreciate the apology for the character assas.... Oh wait... More insults...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayzie

As for my 'character assassination', I think a more appropriate term would be 'character suicide'. I thought Warriors of the Blue Phoenix was meant to be a reformed guild, but apparently there's still a few of you that are Dark Assassins deep down.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayzie

I can't imagine Bayfighter wanting to come over but if a few people were disgusted by your lack of sportsmanship and left BP, that wouldn't shock me at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BetrayalFender

Just change your name to theRul3sh4rk and admit what you are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSt4lker

Thanks Rayzie, I appreciate the apology for the character assas.... Oh wait... More insults...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSt4lker

Btw, is it true :confused: Is Bayfigher joining TJ when this is over????
:p

---

I would like to suggest all parties to stay objective, and on the case and refrain from personal attacks.

For what it's worth stalker, if you ever find yourself in bayfighters position I will have your back 100%. Love ya bro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayzie

For what it's worth stalker, if you ever find yourself in bayfighters position I will have your back 100%. Love ya bro.

---

Thanks, I really do appreciate that.

Although I still think I would be dead :)

At raph: although rule changes during tournaments should generally be discouraged, extensions are given all the time because disqualification is always the least desirable outcome.

In this case, I don't even think it would be an extension. Just sensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayzie

At raph: although rule changes during tournaments should generally be discouraged, extensions are given all the time because disqualification is always the least desirable outcome

---

Agreed depending on circumstances and up to the 3 parties involved, the TO, and the 2 players.

However, the bayfighter case is different from an extension because he was not sharp to keep up with the specific intricacy for this particular window, while stalker was sharp enough to spot it.

I love the drama and all but I think this has gotten silly a bit now. Hope it ends here.

As for Bayfighter's condition, in normal circumstances, the ruling would be that he is dead. However, he sent me a PM prior to the deadline and asked me about the current alive players in order to issue one of them a challenge (Post #2 wasn't up to date). Unfortunately, due to previously-mentioned RL events, I couldn't reply to him before the deadline. I felt that eliminating him from the tournament due a TO fuck-up would be extremely harsh. Therefore, I've made an exception and granted him a one-day extension.

I'm pretty sure you will understand my position here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deja Vu

As for Bayfighter's condition, in normal circumstances, the ruling would be that he is dead. However, he sent me a PM prior to the deadline and asked me about the current alive players in order to issue one of them a challenge (Post #2 wasn't up to date). Unfortunately, due to previously-mentioned RL events, I couldn't reply to him before the deadline. I felt that eliminating him from the tournament due a TO fuck-up would be extremely harsh. Therefore, I've made an exception and granted him a one-day extension.

I'm pretty sure you will understand my position here.

---

Acknowledging TO fuck up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deja Vu

I love the drama and all but I think this has gotten silly a bit now. Hope it ends here.

As for Bayfighter's condition, in normal circumstances, the ruling would be that he is dead. However, he sent me a PM prior to the deadline and asked me about the current alive players in order to issue one of them a challenge (Post #2 wasn't up to date). Unfortunately, due to previously-mentioned RL events, I couldn't reply to him before the deadline. I felt that eliminating him from the tournament due a TO fuck-up would be extremely harsh. Therefore, I've made an exception and granted him a one-day extension.

I'm pretty sure you will understand my position here.

---

Hey Deja

Thanks for filling in the missing information we weren't aware off.

I just have one question. Would you answering Bayfigher in a timely manner have made a difference?

What I mean is, if you had pm'd him that he had a valid opponent in emi in the specific window that he did, before the deadline, would that have altered the fact that he didn't challenge emi? I'm just trying to clarify here, because I'm not seeing (and maybe there is something I am missing) what difference giving him that answer before the deadline, versus after the deadline, would have made. Either way he didn't challenge...

Sorry if this is getting annoying, I'm just trying to clarify :)

Sending him that pm would've probably notified Bay that he could challenge Emi. Most of the pm's I receive I check through e-mail notifications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDK16

Sending him that pm would've probably notified Bay that he could challenge Emi. Most of the pm's I receive I check through e-mail notifications.

---

As TO?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDK16

Sending him that pm would've probably notified Bay that he could challenge Emi. Most of the pm's I receive I check through e-mail notifications.

---

Well, we dont know when bayfigher asked déjà :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSt4lker

Hey Deja

Thanks for filling in the missing information we weren't aware off.

I just have one question. Would you answering Bayfigher in a timely manner have made a difference?

What I mean is, if you had pm'd him that he had a valid opponent in emi in the specific window that he did, before the deadline, would that have altered the fact that he didn't challenge emi? I'm just trying to clarify here, because I'm not seeing (and maybe there is something I am missing) what difference giving him that answer before the deadline, versus after the deadline, would have made. Either way he didn't challenge...

Sorry if this is getting annoying, I'm just trying to clarify :)

---

I'm not exactly sure what your point is tbh. I can say this, though: Had I replied to Bayfighter on time, he would have challenged Emigor. Also, had I updated post #2 beforehand, he wouldn't have needed to PM me.

It's also noteworthy that this was not the 1st time I granted an extension to a player in this tourney. Had I gone by the book, Bayfighter would be dead and I would have declined one of your teammates' request for an extension. That's just an FYI for all the players here, it's not aimed specifically at you.

Again, thanks for clarifying, the issue is now clear.

None of us where aware you had granted an extension, as is your right to do if the player pm's you with sufficient notice.