|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:52 pm
I understand what you're saying, but I can't think or approach judging that way because, to me, it defies some fairly basic logic. Even if "the points are talking", if two people give more points to one fighter than to the other, then that person should win because they got more points from more judges.
One person unbalancing that is just outside of the sort of logic I typically apply to administrative work such as running a tournament. It makes no sense to me, I don't think it's a valid system and I wouldn't want to rely on it because I find the ability of one judge to essentially have his points speak louder than the other two judges to be a flaw in the system.
I understand the concept, I don't understand the logic of it, and probably never will.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:53 pm
It's two principles of thought on scoring, with us divided and on different sides.
24.5 over 24 = win
24.5 over 24 = tie, pending confirmation
Basically, the way Vintrict has the points set up, a tie has a breadth of point difference as determined by the other judges. The only reason it became as huge a deal in my fight was because the point difference had to become more pronounced in order for me to lose. And, that's exactly what I think happened, because those scores make absolutely no sense otherwise.
I mean, for every point I win by, Vintrict ( or say, mystery judge ) needs to go out of their way lowering my score in order for my opponent to win. So, when you compare the scores it doesn't really matter who was winning by majority or by points, either way in order to cause an upset one person needs to really do something eyecatching ( in this case, or my opinion, out of place ) in order to cause an upset.
tl;dr
The only way for me to lose was to cheat, so Vintrict did.
All that being said, if I'd won over Iden under these circumstances... I'd still say that middle judge ( Vintrict in this case ) was on crack. But since technically I won anyway, I'm not really saying the scoring was off.
Outside of Vin's hax.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:56 pm
Unrelated, Omi Barsait STANDARD wringer is done, so is Robyn. Need to be getting on to taking a look at Damon but I keep getting distracted. Need to make dinner as well as form an entire gunfighting system for LEGACY ( or at least propose something solid ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:57 pm
@Deitric: I'll probably use a system similar to boxing, UFC, K1, high school wrestling, etc for the next GTB. For now, I just went with something simple with an intention behind it. It still works. Just this system gives people more room to complain. Sometimes, hiding information is better than revealing it because people will always complain. Old Man KB But since technically I won anyway, I'm not really saying the scoring was off. Good for you, then. So that settles the arguments. No more talking of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:04 pm
You know, the point thing would work better if there was like some actual standards for what is being graded.
Like for my fight, in grammar one judge gives me a 5 and another a 3.5. I'm totally confused because that means one of them is looking at totally different rules or considering totally different rules than the other. This is especially true when judge that gave 5 gave the other guy 2.5 and judge that gave me 3.5 gave other guy a 3. Very inconsistent I think.
So maybe a solution to such a thing would be..
So you have 5 categories worth 5 points.
In each category, there should be 5 specific things that somebody should do to get a point for meeting the expectation of each sub-category. That way if somebody doesn't get a point somewhere, the judge would have a lot easier time explaining why.
Just something I think would make the whole judging process a lot more objective and for the most part should keep scores relatively uniform amongst all of those who are judging. Then adding up the points might be more feasible because it would be more difficult for a judge to just say "Hm, I don't like this person, where can I screw them with out crossing the line of it being blatant?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:07 pm
Lollipop Fiend You know, the point thing would work better if there was like some actual standards for what is being graded. Like for my fight, in grammar one judge gives me a 5 and another a 3.5. I'm totally confused because that means one of them is looking at totally different rules or considering totally different rules than the other. This is especially true when judge that gave 5 gave the other guy 2.5 and judge that gave me 3.5 gave other guy a 3. Very inconsistent I think. So maybe a solution to such a thing would be.. So you have 5 categories worth 5 points. In each category, there should be 5 specific things that somebody should do to get a point for meeting the expectation of each sub-category. That way if somebody doesn't get a point somewhere, the judge would have a lot easier time explaining why. Just something I think would make the whole judging process a lot more objective and for the most part should keep scores relatively uniform amongst all of those who are judging. Then adding up the points might be more feasible because it would be more difficult for a judge to just say "Hm, I don't like this person, where can I screw them with out crossing the line of it being blatant?" We actually have that in our mod forum. It'll be used for the second round and onward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:09 pm
Or like, to get five points in roleplay.
1 - use your name
2 - go RAWR RAWR RAWR
3 - once more, with feeling
4 - fight someone going RAWR RAWR RAWR
5 - write out LOTR, replace main characters with GTB persons
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:12 pm
That's good to hear. Would it be at all impossible to update the judging sections in the Rules thread with the sub-categories, or will that remain pretty much mod only information?
Also, can the rules just be updated in general for things that have been discussed in the OOC but might not have been added yet? Like the whole 24 hour thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:12 pm
I'll say this, I'm pretty much in agreement with Vizzle on the subject.
I'm also really goddamn tired of all the arguing about it. ._. Call me when this thread becomes less complain-y.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:13 pm
Lollipop Fiend That's good to hear. Would it be at all impossible to update the judging sections in the Rules thread with the sub-categories, or will that remain pretty much mod only information? Also, can the rules just be updated in general for things that have been discussed in the OOC but might not have been added yet? Like the whole 24 hour thing? It'll stay in the mod forum. It'll just be a standard between us judges to help keep things a little more consistent. And there never was a 24 hour rule thing, which is something I've been trying to clear up. The only hour rule thing was for the waiting list to get on and that's it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:14 pm
Vintrict, commission me to rewrite your GTB rules codex for you.
I'll accept 3,000,000g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:15 pm
Ok, thanks for clearing it up. Earlier in the thread when it was brought it someone said they asked a judge and they said it was an actual rule. Good to hear what's up from the guy in charge. =D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:22 pm
disrona ( ******** spelling that drink ) and cola, one part deesorona, three parts cola.
100% p***y.
I hate mixed drinks that aren't at least 50/50 alcohol to mix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:40 pm
Disaronno?
Amaretto is meant to be drank on the rocks with nothing else mixed in.
FAGS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:43 pm
Must be the native in us, Vizzle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
