|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:39 am
^ But nah
Ya'll wanna argue semantics and s**t, when the formula is already out there for you guys to use.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:46 am
When that Tekken tag tournament idea is done, we'll use it there. I do admit, a scoreless judging would make things much easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:16 pm
It's still super easy when you got three judges going like:
*Round ends, each judge grade their fights individually, without sharing stuff with each other. When the time to decide whos winner comes, the three get together...*
judge 1: I got X winning
judge 2: Same here
Judge 3: I disagree; I have Y winning
---
X wins by Split Decision
But like I said, you guys like getting fancy about everything, so you have to throw in a bunch of numbers and s**t, and then people get disappointing results @ HoH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:23 pm
Except that's how it works at HoH. lol
Numbers merely help define the "why" of whether someone won or not and to help narrow down the results of close fights in overall aspects. If two judges say X wins but one judge says X lost really hard, the number difference is irrelevant; X won.
NOW OTHER TOURNAMENTS ON THE OTHER HAND.. cool
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:25 pm
It's creative writing, so that's why people like scores so they can know what happened to not make them win/ or how they won. I do admit, the more we do this whole judging then, the more the cons and pros of scores/ non-scores become apparent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:32 pm
Im not saying 'don't use scores'.
But the numbers end up being the judges, and not the judges themselves. They're more of a screw up than a defining factor in the final decision, cause sometimes you get carried away tossing numbers around without any real though.
Kinda like Vizz said, how some people are more liberal with it and whatnot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:46 pm
I might try it next year and see how it works out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:35 pm
It can certainly work (score-less review), it's just.. how to put it..
On one hand, I've talked to judges in various years. And I overhear things that tell me numbers are flawed. People let the number tally cause them to second-guess, or to evaluate a fight differently than their gut instinct.
But a lot of times they have no gut instinct. Sometimes.. no, a lot of times, both writers are in ways geniuses and in ways so blatantly flawed and wrong. And the IC results, roughly equivalent. It's not even rare or uncommon.
That's why numbers come into play -- to quantify those scant differences. But I agree, the number should reflect the judge's views, not determine them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:36 pm
I still want my idea to kick off, but shits going nowhere if I don't get support or people dont show interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:43 pm
Couldn't we avoid this 2/3 split bull s**t if we just averaged all the judges scores?
Sure, one judge could, in theory, simply fail someone to all living hell to skew the average, but one would imagine that that would be relatively obvious to the other judge(s)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:50 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:52 pm
That there's a retardedly simple solution to all this arguing about three judges >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:58 pm
Averaging the score doesn't stop someone from over/under shooting (intentionally or otherwise) and skewing the scores unfairly.
I mean, the two judges could be like "Hey, your scoring is throwing it out of whack, change it."
Except the third judge could just go "No!" and then you're at an impasse of having to either convince that judge to fix their s**t, the other two judges have to over/undercut to compensate, or you have to find a third judge.
The easiest and most efficient method IS going with a judge majority because people can score however they want because it's not defining who wins or loses, so how liberal or conservative one is with grading has no effect; if two judges say one person wins, the third judge can under/over as much as they want and it does nothing.
It eliminates the issue entirely, which is why it's done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:01 pm
True as that is, I'd like to hope our judges are competent enough to avoid that problem. Simple yes and nos have to be fought over. So long as they're not assholes, numbers cant argue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:03 pm
You guys are putting a lot of time into discussing this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
