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

**Raphael Majere** · 07-31-2013, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by Deja Vu

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.

Also, not aimed at anyone:

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.

Originally Posted by Raphael Majere

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.

As long as the 3 parties (2 players and TO) have an agreement, it should stand. A Player makes the "offer" for extension, the Second player "accepts" and the TO formalizes and legitimizes the agreement. All 3 parties have their own action to play and be willing to bear consequences for their said action.

**Deja Vu** · 07-31-2013, 07:33 AM

My ruling is final, and TheSt4lker, Captain of his guild's team, has graciously accepted it.

**Raphael Majere** · 07-31-2013, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by Deja Vu

My ruling is final, and TheSt4lker, Captain of his guild's team, has graciously accepted it.

of course, noted.

also, just pointing out that if you (TO) had simply informed every team leaders that Bay has pmed you and that you've made a ruling, all the posts/arguments from No. 248 to No. 282, a total of 5 pages, was unnecessary.

**Deja Vu** · 07-31-2013, 07:51 AM

I have no intentions to stretch this any further. This ends here.

**Bayfighter** · 07-31-2013, 05:31 PM

@Deja Vu - I appreciate your extension to the 5-day challenge deadline. RL issues do come up, so you have E2E's understanding without any hard feelings. It looks like everyone will be tied up in matches for the next 24-hours , leaving me without anyone to challenge, so I may be resigned to my fate anyways.

Deja Vu also made a ruling via PM that Tmakk's Team-Up (with Luminosg) against Nataku was considered as if he played. Luminos beat Nataku and Tmakk didn't actually have to play, but his 5-day window to challenge someone was extended to 5 days from the posting of the results of Luminos/Nataku's match.

Please confirm through theses forums on your ruling, thanks!

**Bayfighter** · 07-31-2013, 05:37 PM

It's unfortunate that the 5-day challenge rule penalizes successful guilds, though it's intention is to prevent stalling of the tournament. Imagine if a guild had 5 players left and there were only 2 opposing players left to challenge. 3 would die off simply by not meeting the deadline! That being said, this tournament's rules are in place already and I respect the TO's decision.

Also, I think it's certainly better to have a deadline than none at all, the last Guild War had none and it took 6 months to finish! For future tournaments, I'd like to see rules in place that don't penalize a guild for winning and having nobody left to challenge.

I hadn't heard the rumors that I was joining TJ following these Guild Wars! Several E2E guildmates of mine have actually moved on to WotBP, KA, and ETC, but someone heading to TJ would be a first. Perhaps I can lead by example here....

**Raphael Majere** · 07-31-2013, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Bayfighter

I hadn't heard the rumors that I was joining TJ following these Guild Wars! Several E2E guildmates of mine have actually moved on to WotBP, KA, and ETC, but someone heading to TJ would be a first. Perhaps I can lead by example here....

TJ would be OP with you in it!

**Rayzie** · 07-31-2013, 09:36 PM

You shouldn't be penalized for having no possible opponents. That much has been stated multiple times by everyone.

**Ballyworld** · 07-31-2013, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by Rayzie

You shouldn't be penalized for having no possible opponents. That much has been stated multiple times by everyone.

The saddest thing is that Bayfighter hasn't been given the same latitude that was given BP's Tcsnider. I could have been a hardcase about his vacation but wasn't. I could even, after the fact, ask to have him DQ'd in light of BP's recent assessment of the situation, but I won't do that either. I'll honor the terms of our extension and do my best to beat him fair and square.

**Bayfighter** · 07-31-2013, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by Rayzie

You shouldn't be penalized for having no possible opponents. That much has been stated multiple times by everyone.

Right, I agree with this assessment and would hope there would be an extension for Tmakk, given there have been no possible opponents for him to face, he shouldn't be unfairly killed.

But in my particular situation, I understand that there was an 8 hour window for me to challenge Emigor. It took a bit of rules lawyering to establish that window, but it was there nonetheless. It was a murky scenario as to what the Save Attempt rule was at the time and whether or not Emigor declared the save attempt too soon, which was confusing to all involved. I attempted to get clarification from the TO through PM and he responded appropriately and fairly.

I don't blame Deja Vu for not updating post #2 or #3 immediately and don't consider him the reason I may be dead shortly. E2E has been combing through each post in this thread to make sure we're up to date on the latest happenings, but that one fell through the cracks due to waiting on rulings and the small window to challenge Emigor.

For future tournaments, I think the deadline to challenge a player should be equal or greater to the amount of time a match needs to be played once a challenge is issued. That will help limit match stalling to freeze someone with no one to challenge.