Tournament Layout Discussion

Quote :

I'm positive we can all figure out who wrote it too, just in case anyone questions who made the decision.

I'm glad I hath made an impression.

Honestly...I don't know if I like the way you seeded the matches. The way it's set up now (and without trying to name any specific matches), you have some heavy hitters going against each other in the first round, whereas some less experienced fighters are facing off. That means that some participants with less experience than most are going to advance farther in the tournament than some people who have been around the block a few times, no matter how the matches turn out. Just my 2¢.

Edit: I wanted to clarify that I am not complaining about my matchup, just that there seem to be some issues with the system.

white lancer wrote:

Honestly...I don't know if I like the way you seeded the matches. The way it's set up now (and without trying to name any specific matches), you have some heavy hitters going against each other in the first round, whereas some less experienced fighters are facing off. That means that some participants with less experience than most are going to advance farther in the tournament than some people who have been around the block a few times, no matter how the matches turn out. Just my 2¢.

Edit: I wanted to clarify that I am not complaining about my matchup, just that there seem to be some issues with the system.

I didn't seed anyone. I set them up so that people with characters having similar experience and ability going against each other. This way, those with less experience get the experience they need against someone they have a decent chance against and have a chance to move forward. Putting lesser fighters against "heavy hitters" would take away that chance, most likely anyhow. As thou can see, I am keeping even the heavy hitters honest. Still, I will have second round skippers, so it will make things easier for those who earned it.

Richter Belmont wrote:

white lancer wrote:

Honestly...I don't know if I like the way you seeded the matches. The way it's set up now (and without trying to name any specific matches), you have some heavy hitters going against each other in the first round, whereas some less experienced fighters are facing off. That means that some participants with less experience than most are going to advance farther in the tournament than some people who have been around the block a few times, no matter how the matches turn out. Just my 2¢.

Edit: I wanted to clarify that I am not complaining about my matchup, just that there seem to be some issues with the system.

I didn't seed anyone. I set them up so that people with characters having similar experience and ability going against each other. This way, those with less experience get the experience they need against someone they have a decent chance against and have a chance to move forward. Putting lesser fighters against "heavy hitters" would take away that chance, most likely anyhow. As thou can see, I am keeping even the heavy hitters honest. Still, I will have second round skippers, so it will make things easier for those who earned it.

Yeah, but the problem with that is that tournaments are generally not for "practice." They are for winning. Yes, people do enter tournaments to gain some experience with the format, but they would not realistically expect to do well or even make it out of the first round in their first tournament. By setting it up the way you did, you're basically rewarding those with less experience and punishing those with more experience. If that's the way you want to run it, fine; it's just that, in a usual tournament, you would have the lowest seed facing the highest seed in the first round rather than the second lowest seed, because you want to have the best combination of fighters possible make it past each round.

Let us just say, the highest seed sometimes gets beat by the lowest seed. I do agree with thy own opinion, but I wanted to even things just this one time.

That's what you call an upset. And if the lowest seed manages to beat the highest seed, they totally earned their spot in the second round. I just don't think they've really earned it if they're going against someone who is similarly inexperienced. But, like I said, it's your tournament. Run it however you please.

I don't see the problem here. He is matching people together practically randomly as far as I can see. Pinning experienced fighters against people on the same plane of skill is bound to happen at any point, as well as any fairly new person squaring off against another newbie. It was all bound to happen at some time, so why not start it off that way? It wouldn't really be fair to start tough guys with newbies either. So somebody is going to get the short end of the stick either way. Let's just take it as is - this tournament is already taking too long to get started. Let's get rocking!

Forgotten Jedi wrote:

He is matching people together practically randomly as far as I can see.

It's not random. He (and you) have both said that they were paired together based on their relative skill level. I would have done it differently, but it's not my tournament.

Forgotten Jedi wrote:

It was all bound to happen at some time, so why not start it off that way?

Because the way it's set up now, there will be people in the second round who aren't as good as some of those who lost in the first round. The point of a tournament is to find out who is the "best," not to be "fair" to those who aren't as experienced. You don't pair Nadal and Federer in the first round of a tennis tournament, now do you? That's what seeding is all about; allowing the fighters who are really the best to get through the first rounds. Theoretically in the second round we should have the seven best fighters in the tournament left, but the way it's set up now that won't happen. That's why I think seeding has merit. But it's a moot point because it's Richter's tourney and he can run it however he pleases.

Forgotten Jedi wrote:

It wouldn't really be fair to start tough guys with newbies either. So somebody is going to get the short end of the stick either way.

I'd much rather the ones that get shafted not be the ones that deserve to do better. But whatever.

white lancer wrote:

Forgotten Jedi wrote:

He is matching people together practically randomly as far as I can see.

It's not random. He (and you) have both said that they were paired together based on their relative skill level. I would have done it differently, but it's not my tournament.

Forgotten Jedi wrote:

It was all bound to happen at some time, so why not start it off that way?

Because the way it's set up now, there will be people in the second round who aren't as good as some of those who lost in the first round. The point of a tournament is to find out who is the "best," not to be "fair" to those who aren't as experienced. You don't pair Nadal and Federer in the first round of a tennis tournament, now do you? That's what seeding is all about; allowing the fighters who are really the best to get through the first rounds. Theoretically in the second round we should have the seven best fighters in the tournament left, but the way it's set up now that won't happen. That's why I think seeding has merit. But it's a moot point because it's Richter's tourney and he can run it however he pleases.

Forgotten Jedi wrote:

It wouldn't really be fair to start tough guys with newbies either. So somebody is going to get the short end of the stick either way.

I'd much rather the ones that get shafted not be the ones that deserve to do better. But whatever.

Then you're being biased. The ones "who deserve to win" will win either way. Nobody else is complaining, I can't see why you are.

Is it biased to want the people who advance from each round to get there because of merit rather than luck of the draw (or even having the deck stacked for you)? I don't think so. Do you not think that the final seven people in the tournament should be the best fighters? If you were to name the ones you thought were the seven best fighters in this tournament, I can pretty much guarantee you that they will not be the final seven. As for why I'm complaining...I guess it's just an ideological thing. I don't think it's right that good fighters are penalized in favor of less-experienced ones. I dunno...the way this is set up kinda reminds me of the welfare state. :-/

And I'm not being biased towards myself. As I have said before, I signed up for this tournament to make it an even number...and somehow I ended up being paired up with the other person who signed up to make it even. :O I'm not sure how we ended up with two people who signed up like that, but whatever.

Quote :

But it's a moot point because it's Richter's tourney and he can run it however he pleases.

He only brought up the idea. Doesn't make it his, and he said it wasn't his either.

Quote :

If you were to name the ones you thought were the seven best fighters in this tournament, I can pretty much guarantee you that they will not be the final seven.

Why is this so important? Why does it matter? If you want to prove yourself the best, win. Only those who go to the final round get anything, so it doesn't matter.

Quote :

I don't think it's right that good fighters are penalized in favor of less-experienced ones.

Who is being penalized? No one that I can see. It wasn't like Richard put the good fighters at a disadvantage.

Quote :

I dunno...the way this is set up kinda reminds me of the welfare state. :-/

You are a little weird for complaining like this. It isn't helping anyone.

Vegito Rikhard wrote:

Quote :

But it's a moot point because it's Richter's tourney and he can run it however he pleases.

He only brought up the idea. Doesn't make it his, and he said it wasn't his either.

That's right, Vegito. Go ahead and defend Richter like you always do. Let me remind you that Richter also said:

Richter Belmont wrote:

I do agree with thy own opinion, but I wanted to even things just this one time.

He agrees that I have a point. Why can't you? I don't know why you people want to continue this debate when Richter and I were clearly finished with it.

Vegito wrote:

Quote :

If you were to name the ones you thought were the seven best fighters in this tournament, I can pretty much guarantee you that they will not be the final seven.

Why is this so important? Why does it matter? If you want to prove yourself the best, win. Only those who go to the final round get anything, so it doesn't matter.

So you don't think that the people who make it to the second round should be the best fighters. I guess we have an ideological difference, here, because I would rather see 7 solid fighters in the second round than 4-6 solid ones and a few that are worse than some of those who were eliminated. Only the people in the finals get anything, but tell me now, wouldn't you rather get out of the first round even if you are eliminated in the second round than be eliminated in the first round? You still wouldn't get anything, but at least you will have advanced.

Vegi Head wrote:

Quote :

I don't think it's right that good fighters are penalized in favor of less-experienced ones.

Who is being penalized? No one that I can see. It wasn't like Richard put the good fighters at a disadvantage.

Everything is balanced out, Vegito. By giving the less-experienced fighters an advantage, he necessarily had to give some better fighters a disadvantage. This means that the experienced fighters who lose in the first round (and there will be some) are going to finish behind people that they could destroy in a fight, just because of the draw. Doesn't seem terribly right to me.

Vegi wrote:

Quote :

I dunno...the way this is set up kinda reminds me of the welfare state. :-/

You are a little weird for complaining like this. It isn't helping anyone.

My point was that I wasn't complaining to gain any sort of personal benefit. It's a matter of principle more than anything else.

As I said before, Richter can run the tournament any way he likes. I just take issue with this aspect of it and was offering some constructive criticism.

Quote :

That's right, Vegito. Go ahead and defend Richter like you always do. Let me remind you that Richter also said:

Defending him? What? It was almost the opposite. Plus, there is nothing to defend him about.

Quote :

He agrees that I have a point. Why can't you? I don't know why you people want to continue this debate when Richter and I were clearly finished with it.

He agrees with your point, but it doesn't mean it is right. Plus, that "why can't you?" comment is a little condescending in the wrong way. The debate didn't look finished anyway.

Quote :

So you don't think that the people who make it to the second round should be the best fighters.

Who knows who the best fighters are? Besides Zanic and Dawn that is.

Quote :

I guess we have an ideological difference, here, because I would rather see 7 solid fighters in the second round than 4-6 solid ones and a few that are worse than some of those who were eliminated.

And I would like to see Ohio State in a BCS bowl, and they may not get it even though they deserve it more than some other teams, but we don't always get what we want.

Quote :

Only the people in the finals get anything, but tell me now, wouldn't you rather get out of the first round even if you are eliminated in the second round than be eliminated in the first round? You still wouldn't get anything, but at least you will have advanced.

You just kinda helped Richard's case here with that. He probably wants to give the lesser fighters a chance of advancing and gaining experience, though they will probably lose anyway.

Quote :

Everything is balanced out, Vegito. By giving the less-experienced fighters an advantage, he necessarily had to give some better fighters an advantage. This means that the experienced fighters who lose in the first round (and there will be some) are going to finish behind people that they could destroy in a fight, just because of the draw. Doesn't seem terribly right to me.

Anyone can win a rp fight. If you lose, you lose. You can't really blame anyone but yourself. It doesn't matter this person may destroy that person. It doesn't even work that way in sports. You think you know a team, and then they lose to a team you think they shouldn't lose to. Really, the draw is as fair as anything else.

Quote :

My point was that I wasn't complaining to gain any sort of personal benefit. It's a matter of principle more than anything else.

That I did know.

Quote :

As I said before, Richter can run the tournament any way he likes. I just take issue with this aspect of it and was offering some constructive criticism.

If Richard was running things the way he would like, he might have done something different. He said he wanted to be as fair as possible by not being a control freak and doing something the forum wouldn't like. Constructive criticism is good, but you should have at least kept it private between him and you in this case.

Vegito Rikhard wrote:

Quote :

That's right, Vegito. Go ahead and defend Richter like you always do. Let me remind you that Richter also said:

Plus, there is nothing to defend him about.

Truest thing you've said so far. I was not attacking RIchter, just questioning the arrangement of the matches.

Vegito Rikhard wrote:

Quote :

He agrees that I have a point. Why can't you? I don't know why you people want to continue this debate when Richter and I were clearly finished with it.

He agrees with your point, but it doesn't mean it is right. Plus, that "why can't you?" comment is a little condescending in the wrong way.

Condescending? How so?

Vegito wrote:

Quote :

So you don't think that the people who make it to the second round should be the best fighters.

Who knows who the best fighters are? Besides Zanic and Dawn that is.

I was trying not to mention names, and yes it would be difficult to assign true seeding here because it's difficult to gauge how good someone really is, but you can't tell me that we wouldn't be able to assign fairly accurate seeding if we wanted to.

Vegito wrote:

Quote :

I guess we have an ideological difference, here, because I would rather see 7 solid fighters in the second round than 4-6 solid ones and a few that are worse than some of those who were eliminated.

And I would like to see Ohio State in a BCS bowl, and they may not get it even though they deserve it more than some other teams, but we don't always get what we want.

I fail to see how your wanting a favored team to do well is connected to my wanting the best fighters (not necessarily including myself) to do well. You have a personal stake in your team; I have no such personal stake in what I want. You can't help accomplish what you want. Rearranging the matches would have been quite easy, though it's a little late now. Plus, most sports do things in a round-robin style so that everyone gets to face everyone (in their conference), so they really get every chance to advance out of the regular season.

Vegito wrote:

Quote :

Only the people in the finals get anything, but tell me now, wouldn't you rather get out of the first round even if you are eliminated in the second round than be eliminated in the first round? You still wouldn't get anything, but at least you will have advanced.

You just kinda helped Richard's case here with that. He probably wants to give the lesser fighters a chance of advancing and gaining experience, though they will probably lose anyway.

That goes back to my argument about helping those who maybe don't deserve to be in the second round at the expense of some who do. If you believe that's right, fine. I'm just a little too conservative to accept that argument.

Vegito wrote:

Quote :

Everything is balanced out, Vegito. By giving the less-experienced fighters an advantage, he necessarily had to give some better fighters a disadvantage. This means that the experienced fighters who lose in the first round (and there will be some) are going to finish behind people that they could destroy in a fight, just because of the draw. Doesn't seem terribly right to me.

Anyone can win a rp fight. If you lose, you lose. You can't really blame anyone but yourself. It doesn't matter this person may destroy that person. It doesn't even work that way in sports. You think you know a team, and then they lose to a team you think they shouldn't lose to. Really, the draw is as fair as anything else.

You can't blame anyone but yourself for losing a specific battle, but there are other factors involved when you lose in the first round of a tournament. You lose the first match fair and square, but if there are people in the next round that you can beat pretty easily, how is it right that you finish behind them? That will happen no matter what because of this matchups; we have some people who could quite possibly have been the final two fighting in the first round. One of them must necessarily lose. At the same time we have some people going against each other who might not be able to beat anyone else in the tournament, but they stand an even shot of beating each other. One of them must necessarily win. That means that a truly awesome fighter will place lower (and thus not be able to continue in the tournament) than one who is maybe par at best. Not only does that not seem right, it kinda undermines the legitimacy of the tournament.

Vegito wrote:

Quote :

My point was that I wasn't complaining to gain any sort of personal benefit. It's a matter of principle more than anything else.

That I did know.

Then why did you bring it up? Not trying to attack you or anything, just curious. :-/

Vegito wrote:

Quote :

As I said before, Richter can run the tournament any way he likes. I just take issue with this aspect of it and was offering some constructive criticism.

If Richard was running things the way he would like, he might have done something different. He said he wanted to be as fair as possible by not being a control freak and doing something the forum wouldn't like. Constructive criticism is good, but you should have at least kept it private between him and you in this case.

What, so I'm not allowed to express my opinions in public? I was giving my input, just like you are now giving your input on what I'm saying. I fail to see what makes this particular case different. And it should be noted that Richter is running this part of the tournament the way he likes...or at least, that's implied when he says, "I wanted to even things just this one time." There's nothing wrong with doing things the way he would like; after all, this tournament is his brainchild. It also doesn't mean I have to like everything he does with it, or that I can't try to convince him otherwise. I tried that, and we agreed to disagree. He doesn't seem to have a problem with that.

Quote :

Truest thing you've said so far. I was not attacking RIchter, just questioning the arrangement of the matches.

Right.

Quote :

Condescending? How so?

You've got to be kidding me.

Quote :

I was trying not to mention names, and yes it would be difficult to assign true seeding here because it's difficult to gauge how good someone really is, but you can't tell me that we wouldn't be able to assign fairly accurate seeding if we wanted to.

Nah, I just don't see how we could really accurately seed someone.

Quote :

I fail to see how your wanting a favored team to do well is connected to my wanting the best fighters (not necessarily including myself) to do well. You have a personal stake in your team; I have no such personal stake in what I want. You can't help accomplish what you want. Rearranging the matches would have been quite easy, though it's a little late now. Plus, most sports do things in a round-robin style so that everyone gets to face everyone (in their conference), so they really get every chance to advance out of the regular season.

I don't see how you don't see my point. Personal stake or not, the better fighter or better team just doesn't make it sometimes because they played someone better earlier that knocked them out. That is just the way things are. A person should earn their way by winning, whoever they play against. Rearranging the matches would hardly serve any purpose.

Quote :

That goes back to my argument about helping those who maybe don't deserve to be in the second round at the expense of some who do. If you believe that's right, fine. I'm just a little too conservative to accept that argument.

Oh come on. You can't say someone deserves to be in the second round when they haven't done anything to deserve it, no matter how good they are. I could say that Florida goes to the BCS title game based on their reputation or past glories, but they haven't done anything presently to deserve it this year (again, just a point). "Conservative" doesn't seem like the right word.

Quote :

You can't blame anyone but yourself for losing a specific battle,

Bingo!

Quote :

but there are other factors involved when you lose in the first round of a tournament.

Still not as important as the factor you control.

Quote :

You lose the first match fair and square, but if there are people in the next round that you can beat pretty easily, how is it right that you finish behind them?

We see this many times in sports. Its unfortunate, but because you lost, it is right that you finish behind them.

Quote :

That will happen no matter what because of this matchups; we have some people who could quite possibly have been the final two fighting in the first round. One of them must necessarily lose. At the same time we have some people going against each other who might not be able to beat anyone else in the tournament, but they stand an even shot of beating each other. One of them must necessarily win. That means that a truly awesome fighter will place lower (and thus not be able to continue in the tournament) than one who is maybe par at best.

If a fighter was truly awesome, he wouldn't lose. Sorry, but I don't see how this hurts anyone in the long run, despite your effort to explain the logic of it, which seems illogical.

Quote :

Not only does that not seem right, it kinda undermines the legitimacy of the tournament.

Who is to say this really undermines legitimacy? It is really a matter of opinion, that is all.

Quote :

Then why did you bring it up? Not trying to attack you or anything, just curious. :-/

Just to say I know, because it is obvious.

Quote :

What, so I'm not allowed to express my opinions in public?

Some opinion are better kept private.

Quote :

I was giving my input, just like you are now giving your input on what I'm saying. I fail to see what makes this particular case different.

You made it public, so it got followed.

Quote :

And it should be noted that Richter is running this part of the tournament the way he likes...or at least, that's implied when he says, "I wanted to even things just this one time."

He probably was in tournaments in other forums, and wanted to see how this played out. I don't know for sure.

Quote :

There's nothing wrong with doing things the way he would like; after all, this tournament is his brainchild. It also doesn't mean I have to like everything he does with it, or that I can't try to convince him otherwise. I tried that, and we agreed to disagree. He doesn't seem to have a problem with that.

His brainchild? He probably sees your views on this as not important on the large picture, since what he is trying to do in this tournament isn't hurting anybody. No one else has said anything yet about the matchups.

Anyways, I think this debate is little too hot, even though it shouldn't be. Well, opinions are just opinions. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Remember that.

Quote :

Quote :

Condescending? How so?

You've got to be kidding me.

You're fabricating a point, trying to play the victim to score points here.

Quote :

Quote :

I was trying not to mention names, and yes it would be difficult to assign true seeding here because it's difficult to gauge how good someone really is, but you can't tell me that we wouldn't be able to assign fairly accurate seeding if we wanted to.

Nah, I just don't see how we could really accurately seed someone.

You can't completely accurately seed someone, as I said, but you could certainly make a decent enough estimation to make it fair for those who deserve to be in the second round.

Quote :

Quote :

I fail to see how your wanting a favored team to do well is connected to my wanting the best fighters (not necessarily including myself) to do well. You have a personal stake in your team; I have no such personal stake in what I want. You can't help accomplish what you want. Rearranging the matches would have been quite easy, though it's a little late now. Plus, most sports do things in a round-robin style so that everyone gets to face everyone (in their conference), so they really get every chance to advance out of the regular season.

I don't see how you don't see my point. Personal stake or not, the better fighter or better team just doesn't make it sometimes because they played someone better earlier that knocked them out. That is just the way things are. A person should earn their way by winning, whoever they play against. Rearranging the matches would hardly serve any purpose.

Let me rephrase that: the argument you made doesn't really apply to the point you were trying to make. You were trying to say that I can't always get what I want, and you used your sports team as an example. That's completely different than wanting a tournament to be set up a certain way. Plus, the sports team analogy doesn't work with this current situation because sports teams generally play their regular season in a round-robin style tournament in which they play EVERY team in their conference, meaning that you can truly determine which team did the best based on the win/loss record. They don't get knocked out after a single loss. If you're going to make the argument based on playoffs, let me remind you that teams are seeded in playoffs and tournaments, so the sports analogy would tend to support my argument.

Quote :

Quote :

That goes back to my argument about helping those who maybe don't deserve to be in the second round at the expense of some who do. If you believe that's right, fine. I'm just a little too conservative to accept that argument.

Oh come on. You can't say someone deserves to be in the second round when they haven't done anything to deserve it, no matter how good they are. I could say that Florida goes to the BCS title game based on their reputation or past glories, but they haven't done anything presently to deserve it this year (again, just a point). "Conservative" doesn't seem like the right word.

Again, you're using an analogy that doesn't quite fit. "Past glories" don't count for much on a sports team when players are rotated in and out and get older. Here, with an individual fighter that for all intents and purposes does not age, you can pretty much accurately gauge how good of a fighter an RPer is based on what they've been able to do in the past; if you've seen them fight before (and I haven't seen everyone in this group fight before), you can get a pretty good picture of how well they might do in a tournament. I think if someone who loses in the first round can destroy someone who makes it into the second round because the other person faced an easier opponent, the first person is more deserving and was just knocked out because of a bad draw. "Conservative" is the right word in this situation because I believe in the value of merit in determining who you face, rather than making everyone "feel" good about themselves.

Quote :

Quote :

but there are other factors involved when you lose in the first round of a tournament.

Still not as important as the factor you control.

Not as important, but still important and controllable. If you can control situations like this to make a tournament balanced, why wouldn't you?

Quote :

Quote :

You lose the first match fair and square, but if there are people in the next round that you can beat pretty easily, how is it right that you finish behind them?

We see this many times in sports. Its unfortunate, but because you lost, it is right that you finish behind them.

Again, in sports teams are seeded, so that point does not apply.

Quote :

Quote :

That will happen no matter what because of this matchups; we have some people who could quite possibly have been the final two fighting in the first round. One of them must necessarily lose. At the same time we have some people going against each other who might not be able to beat anyone else in the tournament, but they stand an even shot of beating each other. One of them must necessarily win. That means that a truly awesome fighter will place lower (and thus not be able to continue in the tournament) than one who is maybe par at best.

If a fighter was truly awesome, he wouldn't lose. Sorry, but I don't see how this hurts anyone in the long run, despite your effort to explain the logic of it, which seems illogical.

He wouldn't lose? That's a laughable statement. When you have two awesome fighters up against each other, one of them is going to lose. Doesn't change the fact that he or she is still an awesome fighter. Just because Federer has lost to Nadal the past two times they faced off doesn't mean that Federer is not an amazing tennis player.

Quote :

Quote :

Not only does that not seem right, it kinda undermines the legitimacy of the tournament.

Who is to say this really undermines legitimacy? It is really a matter of opinion, that is all.

If the point of a tournament is to figure out the best fighters, and people finish lower than people who are worse than they are, I'd say that tournament has failed in it's primary task.

Quote :

Quote :

Then why did you bring it up? Not trying to attack you or anything, just curious. :-/

Just to say I know, because it is obvious.

Why did you say I was "weird" for making that statement, if my intent was obvious?

Quote :

Quote :

What, so I'm not allowed to express my opinions in public?

Some opinion are better kept private.

Who are you to determine this? What makes this opinion better left private? Am I attacking Richter, saying he's an idiot or something?

Quote :

Quote :

I was giving my input, just like you are now giving your input on what I'm saying. I fail to see what makes this particular case different.

You made it public, so it got followed.

I'm not sure how that addresses the quote you posted, but yes, I made it public. I made it public so that it could be a topic for discussion.

Quote :

Quote :

And it should be noted that Richter is running this part of the tournament the way he likes...or at least, that's implied when he says, "I wanted to even things just this one time."

He probably was in tournaments in other forums, and wanted to see how this played out. I don't know for sure.

So you agree with me, then. He is running the tournament the way he wants it to be run. Like I said, there's no real problem with that, and, also as I said, I was offering constructive criticism.

Quote :

Quote :

There's nothing wrong with doing things the way he would like; after all, this tournament is his brainchild. It also doesn't mean I have to like everything he does with it, or that I can't try to convince him otherwise. I tried that, and we agreed to disagree. He doesn't seem to have a problem with that.

His brainchild? He probably sees your views on this as not important on the large picture, since what he is trying to do in this tournament isn't hurting anybody. No one else has said anything yet about the matchups.

??? Do you not realize what brainchild means? It was Richter's idea to run the tournament, so he gets to run it how he likes.

Quote :

Anyways, I think this debate is little too hot, even though it shouldn't be. Well, opinions are just opinions. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Remember that.

Right is right and wrong is wrong? I'm sure by that you mean I should shut up and listen to you because you're obviously right. Well, I'm not buying it. You haven't made any point yet that's made me reconsider my position, and I doubt you will because the seeding method has been time-tested and proven to be a legitimate and fair way of doing things. The rest of it is apparently ideological, because as I said, I don't like the idea of making it easier on people just because they're less experienced. If they enter a tournament, they'd better be ready to play with the big boys, and they should be prepared to face them in the first round. The first time any athlete enters any major tournament, they don't expect to get past the first round. Yet they learn, and they grow from the experience anyways. Why should it be different here?

Quote :

You're fabricating a point, trying to play the victim to score points here.

No, I'm just lost here. I don't fabricate things. Please don't insult me.

Quote :

You can't completely accurately seed someone, as I said, but you could certainly make a decent enough estimation to make it fair for those who deserve to be in the second round.

Again? Just because a 1 seed is pitted against an 8 seed, doesn't mean that 1 seed deserves round 2 more than 1 seed .

Quote :

Let me rephrase that: the argument you made doesn't really apply to the point you were trying to make. You were trying to say that I can't always get what I want, and you used your sports team as an example.

I'm fading out, so I can't really explain what I was trying to say.

Quote :

That's completely different than wanting a tournament to be set up a certain way. Plus, the sports team analogy doesn't work with this current situation because sports teams generally play their regular season in a round-robin style tournament in which they play EVERY team in their conference, meaning that you can truly determine which team did the best based on the win/loss record. They don't get knocked out after a single loss. If you're going to make the argument based on playoffs, let me remind you that teams are seeded in playoffs and tournaments, so the sports analogy would tend to support my argument.

I do not believe that sports analogy can work well here (opinion of mine), but it isn't right to say that it is the better way.

Quote :

Again, you're using an analogy that doesn't quite fit. "Past glories" don't count for much on a sports team when players are rotated in and out and get older.

Wasn't talking about players. Talking about people and teams. But, a team's history and recent success play a role.

Quote :

Here, with an individual fighter that for all intents and purposes does not age, you can pretty much accurately gauge how good of a fighter an RPer is based on what they've been able to do in the past; if you've seen them fight before (and I haven't seen everyone in this group fight before), you can get a pretty good picture of how well they might do in a tournament.

Yeah, I can agree with that, although they may have gotten rusty so it evens out.

Quote :

"Conservative" is the right word in this situation because I believe in the value of merit in determining who you face, rather than making everyone "feel" good about themselves.

Why do you think that this tournament is about everyone feeling good about themselves? Its purpose is obviously to gain something.

Quote :

Not as important, but still important and controllable. If you can control situations like this to make a tournament balanced, why wouldn't you?

I think the tournament is balanced. It can be argued with, but so could anything else. I mean, just about everyone in the tournament is a capable rper.

Quote :

Again, in sports teams are seeded, so that point does not apply.

*buzzer* Wrong! Even in seeding system, this rule does apply. Think about. These are like some martial arts tourneys, where seeding isn't done.

Quote :

He wouldn't lose? That's a laughable statement. When you have two awesome fighters up against each other, one of them is going to lose. Doesn't change the fact that he or she is still an awesome fighter. Just because Federer has lost to Nadal the past two times they faced off doesn't mean that Federer is not an amazing tennis player.

There are no awesome fighters to speak of, so it is rather moot, though your tennis point is taken.

Quote :

If the point of a tournament is to figure out the best fighters, and people finish lower than people who are worse than they are, I'd say that tournament has failed in it's primary task.

Who remembers the runner ups, other than the people themselves and those who pay very close attention? Really, the champ is what most people will remember, so it doesn't matter, I think.

Quote :

Why did you say I was "weird" for making that statement, if my intent was obvious?

I'm lost here.

Quote :

What makes this opinion better left private? Am I attacking Richter, saying he's an idiot or something?

Well, let's just say he could take it that way, or someone else could take it that way.

Quote :

I'm not sure how that addresses the quote you posted, but yes, I made it public. I made it public so that it could be a topic for discussion.

And so, here we are.

Quote :

So you agree with me, then. He is running the tournament the way he wants it to be run. Like I said, there's no real problem with that, and, also as I said, I was offering constructive criticism.

I don't know. I'm just guessing his intentions.

Quote :

??? Do you not realize what brainchild means? It was Richter's idea to run the tournament, so he gets to run it how he likes.

This means I got it. But even though Richter made the idea of the tournament, it doesn't necessarily mean it is his to control. He made publicly clear he would go only as far as Desra permitted him to. So in a way, Desra controls it.

Quote :

Right is right and wrong is wrong? I'm sure by that you mean I should shut up and listen to you because you're obviously right.

I was just telling you to keep in mind something for the future, that not to act as if opinion is right or wrong. Where did I say I was right? Don't be taking offense where there is none to be taken. You are acting like I said or insinuated something that I didn't.

Quote :

You haven't made any point yet that's made me reconsider my position, and I doubt you will because the seeding method has been time-tested and proven to be a legitimate and fair way of doing things.

Well, that is questionable, and it is vice versa. You are acting like your view of things is better than mine as if it was a matter of fact. In martial arts tourneys, matches are just set up, like Richter did or randomized. More or less, it has proven no more or less legitimate then seeding. The best fighter wins, and the others are just remembered as the vanquished. 3rd place, 6th place, whatever, it doesn't matter.

Quote :

The rest of it is apparently ideological, because as I said, I don't like the idea of making it easier on people just because they're less experienced. If they enter a tournament, they'd better be ready to play with the big boys, and they should be prepared to face them in the first round.

Well, that is your opinion, and maybe of many others, but it doesn't mean it is that is the only way it should be done. All but two of the fighters are big boys anyway. Only Dawn and Zanic have anything to prove. Think about it. What purpose would it serve to have Dawn fight someone like Belial? She wouldn't gain anything from it, and Belial wouldn't have a good fight to warm up on. Considering the circumstances, I think Richard did the right thing for everyone.

Quote :

The first time any athlete enters any major tournament, they don't expect to get past the first round. Yet they learn, and they grow from the experience anyways. Why should it be different here?

How is any different here this way, in your opinion? And why make a fuss about it so much? It isn't your viewpoint that I really have a problem, but the way you are acting like your viewpoint is better than mine, Richard's, and whoever else who hasn't agreed. Really, it can blow someone off as arrogant. Please do think about. Now, I haven't said anything relatively offense or arrogant. I've been defensive, so as not to insult you, but for some reason, it kinda seems you are thinking I am. You know me, I don't go out of my way to offend someone.

Vegito Rikhard wrote:

Quote :

You're fabricating a point, trying to play the victim to score points here.

No, I'm just lost here. I don't fabricate things. Please don't insult me.

Alright, that was a little out of hand. It was a heated response to your condescending comment about me being condescending, if that makes sense. :O My apologies.

Quote :

Quote :

You can't completely accurately seed someone, as I said, but you could certainly make a decent enough estimation to make it fair for those who deserve to be in the second round.

Again? Just because a 1 seed is pitted against an 8 seed, doesn't mean that 1 seed deserves round 2 more than 1 seed .

...I have no idea what you are trying to say. o_O"

Quote :

Quote :

That's completely different than wanting a tournament to be set up a certain way. Plus, the sports team analogy doesn't work with this current situation because sports teams generally play their regular season in a round-robin style tournament in which they play EVERY team in their conference, meaning that you can truly determine which team did the best based on the win/loss record. They don't get knocked out after a single loss. If you're going to make the argument based on playoffs, let me remind you that teams are seeded in playoffs and tournaments, so the sports analogy would tend to support my argument.

I do not believe that sports analogy can work well here (opinion of mine), but it isn't right to say that it is the better way.

Hey, you brought up the sports analogy first, so I turned it against you. Turnabout is fair play. Besides, I think it is a legitimate argument to be made here. :-/

Quote :

Quote :

Again, you're using an analogy that doesn't quite fit. "Past glories" don't count for much on a sports team when players are rotated in and out and get older.

Wasn't talking about players. Talking about people and teams. But, a team's history and recent success play a role.

You were talking about how teams won't necessarily do well in a tournament even though they've done well in the past. That's right, of course, but my point was that it's different for individuals than it is for teams, especially for imaginary individuals.

Quote :

Quote :

"Conservative" is the right word in this situation because I believe in the value of merit in determining who you face, rather than making everyone "feel" good about themselves.

Why do you think that this tournament is about everyone feeling good about themselves? Its purpose is obviously to gain something.

The impression I got behind yours and Richter's reasoning behind placing people "of similar skill levels" together in the first round was so that they would have a better chance at getting on into the second round, as opposed to losing in the first round. What real reason is there behind that other than making them feel good about themselves? And my problem with that is: what about the other people who could have won their first-round battle, who were maybe in the top half of the fighters in the tournament, but who couldn't move past even the first round because of the seeding issue?

Quote :

Quote :

Not as important, but still important and controllable. If you can control situations like this to make a tournament balanced, why wouldn't you?

I think the tournament is balanced. It can be argued with, but so could anything else. I mean, just about everyone in the tournament is a capable rper.

I can agree with that. I think that most of the people in the tournament are probably pretty even in terms of skill. There are a few here, however, who haven't been around nearly as long and don't have nearly the experience as the rest of us, and I don't think it's right that they will advance at the expense of someone who has been around. Without matchups that basically pair the lowest seed, I think we would find ourselves at a pretty even plane in terms of skill in the second round...which is how I think a tournament should work.

Quote :

Quote :

Again, in sports teams are seeded, so that point does not apply.

*buzzer* Wrong! Even in seeding system, this rule does apply. Think about. These are like some martial arts tourneys, where seeding isn't done.

I am not familiar with martial arts, but in major sporting events the teams are always seeded, mostly for the reasons that I've laid out before.

Quote :

Quote :

He wouldn't lose? That's a laughable statement. When you have two awesome fighters up against each other, one of them is going to lose. Doesn't change the fact that he or she is still an awesome fighter. Just because Federer has lost to Nadal the past two times they faced off doesn't mean that Federer is not an amazing tennis player.

There are no awesome fighters to speak of, so it is rather moot, though your tennis point is taken.

Maybe there aren't any "awesome" fighters (though I've heard Thaed is legendary), but there are certainly some here who are very good.

Quote :

Quote :

If the point of a tournament is to figure out the best fighters, and people finish lower than people who are worse than they are, I'd say that tournament has failed in it's primary task.

Who remembers the runner ups, other than the people themselves and those who pay very close attention? Really, the champ is what most people will remember, so it doesn't matter, I think.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that if you were to lose a match, it wouldn't matter to you whether it was in the first or second round?

Quote :

Quote :

Why did you say I was "weird" for making that statement, if my intent was obvious?

I'm lost here.

It's a moot point anyways.

Quote :

Quote :

What makes this opinion better left private? Am I attacking Richter, saying he's an idiot or something?

Well, let's just say he could take it that way, or someone else could take it that way.

Just because I am disputing his opinion does not mean I am attacking him or calling him an idiot. I am merely saying I think he is wrong on this issue, and we're all wrong sometimes. There's no real shame in that.

Quote :

Quote :

??? Do you not realize what brainchild means? It was Richter's idea to run the tournament, so he gets to run it how he likes.

This means I got it. But even though Richter made the idea of the tournament, it doesn't necessarily mean it is his to control. He made publicly clear he would go only as far as Desra permitted him to. So in a way, Desra controls it.

Perhaps in a way, but I certainly don't see Desra taking a heavy hand in this. In theory, she might control it, but in practice she's not really interfering in any way (which I think is a good thing, by the way).

Quote :

Quote :

Right is right and wrong is wrong? I'm sure by that you mean I should shut up and listen to you because you're obviously right.

I was just telling you to keep in mind something for the future, that not to act as if opinion is right or wrong. Where did I say I was right? Don't be taking offense where there is none to be taken. You are acting like I said or insinuated something that I didn't.

When you say "Right is right and wrong is wrong," that would seem to imply that there is a right answer and a wrong answer, and by continuing to argue your point you obviously believe that's yours. I'm not quite sure how you expected me to get "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" out of that. By the way, I have no problem with you thinking that your side is right; that just seemed a little forceful to me, like you were telling me to shut up because I was wrong and you were right. I'm sorry that I misconstrued your intentions.

Quote :

Quote :

You haven't made any point yet that's made me reconsider my position, and I doubt you will because the seeding method has been time-tested and proven to be a legitimate and fair way of doing things.

Well, that is questionable, and it is vice versa. You are acting like your view of things is better than mine as if it was a matter of fact. In martial arts tourneys, matches are just set up, like Richter did or randomized. More or less, it has proven no more or less legitimate then seeding. The best fighter wins, and the others are just remembered as the vanquished. 3rd place, 6th place, whatever, it doesn't matter.

Of course I believe that my view of things is right, just like you believe that yours is right. You refer to the "vanquished," but you have to remember that these are people, too, and they're going to care how highly they place in the tournament. How else do you explain people who enter tournaments knowing that they have no real chance of winning? Part of it is for the experience, sure, but another part of it is because they want to see how far they have come. If you coddle people by giving them easier opponents, they won't have a real gauge of that. And if you throw two top opponents against each other in the first round, one of them won't get a real gauge, either, because they will have faced only one opponent. Seeding works because it allows for the best players/teams to get to the top and generally ends up with the best combinations of fighters at every level. If a lower seed wins, it's because they earned the upset rather than beat someone who was considered their near equal. If the higher seeds win, you get more and more exciting bouts from fighters who have proved that they deserve to be at that level. Ultimately, that's what the seeding system does: it provides a gauge for participants of their skill level, it allows the fighters who are truly the best to rise to the top at every occasion, and it often results in truly epic showdowns in the final round because the two fighters who are truly the best will have come out on top, first defeating weaker opponents and gradually rising through the skill levels until they are faced with the fiercest challenge of all.

Quote :

Quote :

The rest of it is apparently ideological, because as I said, I don't like the idea of making it easier on people just because they're less experienced. If they enter a tournament, they'd better be ready to play with the big boys, and they should be prepared to face them in the first round.

Well, that is your opinion, and maybe of many others, but it doesn't mean it is that is the only way it should be done. All but two of the fighters are big boys anyway. Only Dawn and Zanic have anything to prove. Think about it. What purpose would it serve to have Dawn fight someone like Belial? She wouldn't gain anything from it, and Belial wouldn't have a good fight to warm up on. Considering the circumstances, I think Richard did the right thing for everyone.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on that point, I guess. I don't like the idea of losing some good players in the first round while there are still inexperienced players alive in the tournament, because that inexperienced player is taking up a slot in the second round that, if they had gone against anyone else, would likely belong to someone else. I see it as rewarding inexperience and punishing experience. But, that's just me.

Quote :

Quote :

The first time any athlete enters any major tournament, they don't expect to get past the first round. Yet they learn, and they grow from the experience anyways. Why should it be different here?

How is any different here this way, in your opinion?

Because here, someone who hasn't ever really fought is going to advance farther in the tournament than people who have been in 20+ fights, and not because they fairly defeated that person. That's my main issue. The person who hasn't been around as much gets experience either way, but the way it's set up now they get their experience at the expense of someone else.

Quote :

And why make a fuss about it so much? It isn't your viewpoint that I really have a problem, but the way you are acting like your viewpoint is better than mine, Richard's, and whoever else who hasn't agreed. Really, it can blow someone off as arrogant.

Tell me, can you hold an opinion without thinking that it really is better than anybody else's? If you think someone else's opinion is better (or more correct) than yours, you had better change sides or else you're just being stubborn. Of course I think my opinion is right and yours is wrong. That's why I hold that opinion: because I think it is correct. It's not the other way around: I don't hold an opinion and then try to prove it. In fact, I try to test my opinion by going to people or websites or what have you with different opinions and see if they can discredit my opinion. I do this with both politics and religion, and my convictions on both have come out stronger for it. That may be why I may seem to be arrogant. That's not an excuse, just an explanation. If I'm coming off as arrogant, I am sorry. But I don't think it's arrogant to believe that your opinion is correct. As I said before, I make a fuss about it as a matter of principle, and I make a point of standing up for principle when necessary.

Quote :

Now, I haven't said anything relatively offense or arrogant. I've been defensive, so as not to insult you, but for some reason, it kinda seems you are thinking I am. You know me, I don't go out of my way to offend someone.

That is certainly debatable. Many of the things you have said in this thread come off as condescending to me. I hope (and am pretty sure) that you don't mean to come off as condescending, just as I don't mean to, but it happens. You just need to realize that you're coming off as condescending to me as I am to you, and we both need to stop taking offense at it. If we do, we're just going to make this a personal battle, which isn't a good thing and never accomplishes anything.

This is how we did it in wrestling tournaments in which people were knocked out after two losses. The way that worked is that a kid would lose one round and go into a sub-tournament to sort of fight his way back up to where he needs to be- he can't take first anymore, but he can if he trully fights hard, take 2nd.

The way we seeded was based on years of experiance. If it was a first year wrestler (a n00b), than they'd be pitted up against other first or second year wrestlers while all the veterans were place up against veterans. This way the n00bs weren't outmatched in the very beginning and the veterans were actually challenged.

.:Mike:. wrote:

The way we seeded was based on years of experiance. If it was a first year wrestler (a n00b), than they'd be pitted up against other first or second year wrestlers while all the veterans were place up against veterans. This way the n00bs weren't outmatched in the very beginning and the veterans were actually challenged.

That is quite what I tried to do. I tried to be fair with everything. My apologies Lancer, but the seeding thou wanted just seemed unfair. It works in most sports, or at least isn't disputed, but it doesn't seem fair here. I do not care on the past reputation because it doesn't entitle them anymore to the second round than others.

Lancer and Vegito, please, do not cause a rift between each other. It has been at least somewhat civilized, but keep thou tempers in check.

.:Mike:. wrote:

This is how we did it in wrestling tournaments in which people were knocked out after two losses. The way that worked is that a kid would lose one round and go into a sub-tournament to sort of fight his way back up to where he needs to be- he can't take first anymore, but he can if he trully fights hard, take 2nd.

The way we seeded was based on years of experiance. If it was a first year wrestler (a n00b), than they'd be pitted up against other first or second year wrestlers while all the veterans were place up against veterans. This way the n00bs weren't outmatched in the very beginning and the veterans were actually challenged.

Now, see, I like that system. Double-elimination tournaments are always cool. My main problem was that we'd have veterans being knocked completely out of the tournament in round 1 while newbies would be allowed to advance. As I said, it's Richter's tournament, I was just voicing my opinion.

Quote :

I do not care on the past reputation because it doesn't entitle them anymore to the second round than others.

I agree that they shouldn't win a match based on past reputation, but past reputation is a very good indicator on the skill level of the fighter and would have been a useful tool in a seeding system.

Quote :

Now, see, I like that system. Double-elimination tournaments are always cool. My main problem was that we'd have veterans being knocked completely out of the tournament in round 1 while newbies would be allowed to advance. As I said, it's Richter's tournament, I was just voicing my opinion.

It is JS's tournament, not mine. I'm sure Vegito mentioned that more than once. I'm just the coordinator.

Quote :

I agree that they shouldn't win a match based on past reputation, but past reputation is a very good indicator on the skill level of the fighter and would have been a useful tool in a seeding system.

But not an infallible indicator. I know thou likes seeding, and that is fine. However, besides Zanic and Dawn, matchups were made as best as possible. We do not know the past reputation of Zanic and Dawn, and it isn't safe to say they aren't as good as anyone can be, because I heard they were a part of other RPG sites. Forgotten Jedi is a mystery, but his RP posts are fairly well versed so I must assume he has adequate experience. There is really no way to seed anyone on JS.

Let me explain. There are multiple ideas in which to seed someone on here. If thou could think of the most powerful character, I would say Belial because of his Darklord abilities. If based on the most accomplishments, that would be Vegito, Mark, Belial, and me. If thou would base seeding on recent accomplishments in say, a year, that would be me, you, and Mark. If thou would base it on the best RPer, well, that is difficult. Considering his last two conflicts, I would say Mark. That being so, even if we put all of these factors together, it still wouldn't be legitimate enough in seeding.

Richter Belmont wrote:

Quote :

Now, see, I like that system. Double-elimination tournaments are always cool. My main problem was that we'd have veterans being knocked completely out of the tournament in round 1 while newbies would be allowed to advance. As I said, it's Richter's tournament, I was just voicing my opinion.

It is JS's tournament, not mine. I'm sure Vegito mentioned that more than once. I'm just the coordinator.

Whatever you say. But as the coordinator and the person who suggested the idea, it is your privilege to handle the rules.

Quote :

Quote :

I agree that they shouldn't win a match based on past reputation, but past reputation is a very good indicator on the skill level of the fighter and would have been a useful tool in a seeding system.

But not an infallible indicator. I know thou likes seeding, and that is fine. However, besides Zanic and Dawn, matchups were made as best as possible. We do not know the past reputation of Zanic and Dawn, and it isn't safe to say they aren't as good as anyone can be, because I heard they were a part of other RPG sites. Forgotten Jedi is a mystery, but his RP posts are fairly well versed so I must assume he has adequate experience. There is really no way to seed anyone on JS.

Let me explain. There are multiple ideas in which to seed someone on here. If thou could think of the most powerful character, I would say Belial because of his Darklord abilities. If based on the most accomplishments, that would be Vegito, Mark, Belial, and me. If thou would base seeding on recent accomplishments in say, a year, that would be me, you, and Mark. If thou would base it on the best RPer, well, that is difficult. Considering his last two conflicts, I would say Mark. That being so, even if we put all of these factors together, it still wouldn't be legitimate enough in seeding.

Except we've seen both Zanic and Dawn fight. Vegito had Zanic in a spar with his other Padawan; can't be too hard to gauge his fighting skills; if he hasn't fought since then, it's doubtful his skill level has changed much. Dawn was just in a fight with Desra and Scythe. So they definitely aren't complete mysteries. You yourself said you grouped people together based on their experience, so obviously you have some method of gauging skill level. I can acknowledge that Forgotten Jedi is a bit more difficult, but a seeding system would not have to be perfect. You wouldn't have to have a perfect seeding system to address the problems I brought up. In fact, the problems I have with the current system would be mostly fixed by switching two players with each other. You don't have to do that; as I said, you're running this thing. But to say that it's impossible to even have a relative idea of how good everyone in the tournament is is, well, wrong. I could have worked up a list of seeding probably within 10 minutes, and while I'm sure it wouldn't have been completely accurate, it would have been good enough. Oh, and a seeding system for a fighting tournament would logically be based on fighting skill, not accomplishments (I'm not quite sure how you rank "accomplishments" here; it seems to me that ranking RP skill would be easier than comparing accomplishments).

white lancer wrote:

Whatever you say. But as the coordinator and the person who suggested the idea, it is your privilege to handle the rules.

A privilege given by Desra, so therin under duress to be lenient in the right places.

white lancer wrote:

Except we've seen both Zanic and Dawn fight. Vegito had Zanic in a spar with his other Padawan; can't be too hard to gauge his fighting skills; if he hasn't fought since then, it's doubtful his skill level has changed much. Dawn was just in a fight with Desra and Scythe. So they definitely aren't complete mysteries. You yourself said you grouped people together based on their experience, so obviously you have some method of gauging skill level. I can acknowledge that Forgotten Jedi is a bit more difficult, but a seeding system would not have to be perfect. You wouldn't have to have a perfect seeding system to address the problems I brought up. In fact, the problems I have with the current system would be mostly fixed by switching two players with each other. You don't have to do that; as I said, you're running this thing. But to say that it's impossible to even have a relative idea of how good everyone in the tournament is is, well, wrong. I could have worked up a list of seeding probably within 10 minutes, and while I'm sure it wouldn't have been completely accurate, it would have been good enough. Oh, and a seeding system for a fighting tournament would logically be based on fighting skill, not accomplishments (I'm not quite sure how you rank "accomplishments" here; it seems to me that ranking RP skill would be easier than comparing accomplishments).

True about Zanic and Dawn. Dawn, I'm very sure she isn't compare well with the others. Zanic might be better than I think because Vegito is training him. I did group people together so as each would have a chance of advancing while being tested. From what I know, the majority of the participants seem to have a similar skill level so it would be impossible to base seeding on that. I doubt that thou could write up an even somewhat accurate list of seeding. Fighting tournaments based on martial arts are not really based on fighting skill. Have ye seen Muy Thai? About rating by accomplishment, that is linked with RP skill. Thou really can't have accomplished much without competent RPing ability. There are many accomplishments to look at, such as the success of a character, success in conflicts, how a character interacts, among other things. I believe I have matched up the contestants in a competent manner, considering such.

Richter Belmont wrote:

True about Zanic and Dawn. Dawn, I'm very sure she isn't compare well with the others. Zanic might be better than I think because Vegito is training him. I did group people together so as each would have a chance of advancing while being tested. From what I know, the majority of the participants seem to have a similar skill level so it would be impossible to base seeding on that. I doubt that thou could write up an even somewhat accurate list of seeding. Fighting tournaments based on martial arts are not really based on fighting skill. Have ye seen Muy Thai? About rating by accomplishment, that is linked with RP skill. Thou really can't have accomplished much without competent RPing ability. There are many accomplishments to look at, such as the success of a character, success in conflicts, how a character interacts, among other things. I believe I have matched up the contestants in a competent manner, considering such.

I'm not gonna make this argument a big deal anymore, as it is apparent that you have your views and I have mine, and those are not likely to change. That being said, I want to make two more points.

1. As I said before, a tournament seeding would not have to be perfect, and the fact that most of the participants seem to have a similar skill level makes a "perfect" seeding list even less necessary. Though it wouldn't be too hard to predict those likely to make it to the top.

2. Accomplishment and RP skill are not necessarily linked. For instance: a good RPer could come to a new RP site and not have accomplished anything, and a more experienced RPer could have a new character that hasn't accomplished anything yet. However, you are right that it usually (but not always) requires a certain level of RP skill to accomplish anything.

Now, unless we bring up something that absolutely has to be argued, I'm done with this. It appears the reasons for the argument are long gone anyways...Zanic (my brother) is grounded and not likely to be on, and many of the other participants are gone as well. I myself am sorry that I was not around--I removed all of my bookmarks and reset the autofill on my computer in an attempt to force myself to study, and thus lost the link to this site--but I don't think I will be able to post on here very often anyways. I'm having oral surgery done tomorrow and doubt I will be able to RP in a coherent manner for a couple of days, so you may go ahead and remove me from the tournament...I don't think I would have time to RP and carry on a tournament battle anyways, and from the looks of it Ashaiya has vanished as well. :-/ Best of luck with the rest of your tournament!