RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Seye Qhesu · **02-14-2015, 01:13 PM**

(02-14-2015, 08:27 AM)Bopdoot Wrote: It was my first time, and I had a lot of fun!Â

I think Oli is right, though.Â Maybe there should be a predetermined number of people allowed per night to ensure that the brackets break down appropriately?Â Also maybe we could employ an "automatically forfeit" for situations where it seems like someone has AFKd so that the competition does not have to stop and wait for the next post.Â I think this happened to a few people last night.

Other than that I really liked the /random roll system.Â And I couldn't be happier to have Amelia bust her gums open on Auriaune's fist XD.Â I definitely want to come next week

Shhhhh! *duct tapes Amelia's mouth shut* Auri was never there! Auri isn't a fighter! Nope! Just a healer! *fast nods*

Inessa Hara · **02-14-2015, 02:04 PM**

The event was great and very fun last night.

Though I do have a huge beef with the judges trying to eject one of us to stabilize the rosters. They should not have the right to reject people if they want to participate. (Unless there is a more underlying reason for ejection, like God-modding or drama, but that was not part of the issue or the cause of it.)

Edit: However, offering incentive to drop out on the flip-side of things wouldn't be too bad of an idea. Just offer proper compensation for the person that drops out should a few people need to be dropped to stabilize the rosters.

Example: Judge: "Hey, there is too many people. A few of you need to be dropped."
Participant: "Hey! You cant do that, we want to fight!"
Judge: "I will give 10k to every person who volunteers to drop out."
Participant: "Well, when you put it like that. . ."

Well, not exactly the best example, and the player would need to agree to drop out on his own (which means he would need to either settle for less or try and shoot for more if he is lucky) But it's better than ejecting someone just because there are too many people.

Jana · **02-14-2015, 02:41 PM**

I believe what the Grindstone would often do in the same situation is just make some people fight one round less to try and keep everyone in the tournament. Might not seem fair, but I think it's more fair than saying "you can't fight" period.

Bopdoot · **02-14-2015, 03:37 PM**

I suggested that perhaps all the folk that had lost their fights could be given a chance to roll and the highest roller would be allowed a second chance.Â It seemed more fair to me, and everyone technically has the right to participate.Â At least in a situation where last night we started out with 10 (I think?) and then down to 5 after the first round ^-^.

Edvyn · **02-15-2015, 05:01 PM**

(02-14-2015, 02:04 PM)Inessa Hara Wrote: They should not have the right to reject people if they want to participate.

i dont think thats in the UDHR

Inessa Hara · **02-15-2015, 05:13 PM**

(02-15-2015, 05:01 PM)Edvyn Wrote:
(02-14-2015, 02:04 PM)Inessa Hara Wrote: They should not have the right to reject people if they want to participate.
i dont think thats in the UDHR

UDHR? (doesnt know what that means)

Warren Castille · **02-15-2015, 05:24 PM**

Jana is correct; When faced with an odd-number scenario we have to make the hard decision sometimes to skip someone ahead a round. There's no real basis for the decision process - I skip ahead anyone I forgot to pair up with someone try to select randomly if things don't break down.

I keep a mental tab of anyone I've given a bye to, and try to not select them more than once for any given period of time.

Flashhelix · **02-15-2015, 05:53 PM**

(02-14-2015, 02:04 PM)Inessa Hara Wrote: They should not have the right to reject people if they want to participate.Â

Yes they should, it's their event.

ChewableMorphine · **02-15-2015, 06:10 PM**

I love how I have people to host this for me and it's my own event.

Regardless, my rules only fly when I'm host, I gave Edda the rundown to do with what she pleases. If it works, it's in use. So that means she has the full ability to deal with outliers as she pleases. Chances are, I'd do the same thing, if there's nobody to squish in last minute in order to even out the bouts, you get the boot for being last in. Try again next week.

Inessa Hara · **02-15-2015, 07:11 PM**

How do you tell who will be there first and who will be there last though? Like, anyone could go and say they have been there for a while and your likely not to keep tabs on who comes and goes so that rule itself would be flawed.

Inessa Hara · **02-15-2015, 07:21 PM**

(02-15-2015, 05:53 PM)Flashhelix Wrote:
(02-14-2015, 02:04 PM)Inessa Hara Wrote: They should not have the right to reject people if they want to participate.Â

Yes they should, it's their event.

It let's down the people who made time to participate. If you refuse someone just because the roster is uneven then not only is that unfair to them but it's a very jerk-ish thing to do in general.

Ive listed possible alternatives for Flynt to adopt. Its his choice if he wants to, but im going to not come anymore if people are going to be kicked out just because of an uneven roster.

ChewableMorphine · **02-15-2015, 08:17 PM**

(02-15-2015, 07:11 PM)Inessa Hara Wrote: How do you tell who will be there first and who will be there last though? Like, anyone could go and say they have been there for a while and your likely not to keep tabs on who comes and goes so that rule itself would be flawed.

(02-15-2015, 07:21 PM)Inessa Hara Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 05:53 PM)Flashhelix Wrote:
(02-14-2015, 02:04 PM)Inessa Hara Wrote: They should not have the right to reject people if they want to participate.Â

Yes they should, it's their event.

Ive listed possible alternatives

If you're just unhappy you didn't make it in for a menial tourney, it's beyond me, I wasn't there, so I was not in charge, my authority is only exerted when I'm present, otherwise Edda is in charge. Boycotting it won't do you any good, it's not like I'm profiting at all from it (actually, I technically lose gil), so all I can say is do what you want, you're not obligated to attend if you don't like it. I won't change how I've always done things because somebody couldn't get paired up. Like I said, try again next week. Jerkish or not, I don't hear any other complaints; therefore I don't have a catastrophic issue to address (Nor do Edda, Oliwat, or Gwannes, et al.). If I get word of a mass unrest in how things are done, then amends will be in order. Simple.

ChewableMorphine · **02-15-2015, 08:20 PM**

(02-15-2015, 07:11 PM)Inessa Hara Wrote: How do you tell who will be there first and who will be there last though? Like, anyone could go and say they have been there for a while and your likely not to keep tabs on who comes and goes so that rule itself would be flawed.

Seye Qhesu · **02-15-2015, 08:24 PM**

In truth, how it ended with a three way battle was odd. Never done such a thing before so I just allowed the judge to see our rolls and call the victor. It is their event and I still had fun, especially when Auri bent the helm of the Lancer who then flipped on her.

But overall, as a community it is important to support others and their events. Each will have their own rules and some many not agree with them. Your character was fun to have there Inessa but I will be showing up there again next week so Auri or my alt can get their stress relief in at the end of the week. I want to support this and can see it becoming something fun for everyone!

That and watching the lalafell run around with the yellow horse hat made me giggle constantly.

ChewableMorphine · **02-15-2015, 08:30 PM**

(02-15-2015, 08:24 PM)Auriaune Fournier Wrote: In truth, how it ended with a three way battle was odd.Â

Shit happens, Edda did her best to control the situation accordingly, from what I heard: It wasn't graceful. Alas, it worked out and that's what matters. Thank you for your patronage /bow /bow /bow

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (6): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

Friday Night Fisticuffs (Friday Nights at 10pm EST) (2/27/2015 IS GREENLIT)

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes