Why should I trust you over 10 people who have attended your tournaments?
10 people eh? How about the other 30-40 that have been attending PBT? You don't have to trust me if you don't want to. But if you want to play with numbers... 30-40>10.
The source was on a table in dallas. Online you posted "Sbr-certified rules" That's all. I shouldn't have to clarify what those are before I go. The rules you listed definitely went outside the guideline of the sbr ruleset.
Check this out...
While it is always up to the Tournament Organizers (TO) to determine the rules that best fit their tournaments, we
recommend these rules be used as a base guideline to new and experienced TO's alike.
Any rule-list that
closely follows this guideline may include a note in its opening post (suggested beneath the tournaments title in smaller font) that reads "SBR Certified".
Basically, the SBR ruleset has a bit of flexibility. This means, I can change a few things here and there and still be considered "closely" following the recommendations. I wouldn't use the word recommendations and closely unless I acknowledged this lenient grey area/possibility.
Word are important. As an english major, I know how important a single word or tense can be when writing a poem, story, rules, or even legal documents. It's the reason why laywers/english majors are paid big bucks to pour over every single word of legal docs. The difference between referring to a corporation/business as it or they makes ALL the difference in the world to a layer fighting to defend a business with the same laws that apply to people.
The bottom line is the SBR rules are written very poorly. There are holes all over the place.
You said you helped write them. So I blame you.
Really? They were NOT posted online. Was I supposed to just drive back to houston and then to austin because I saw the rules on the table? I don't understand why you would post a different ruleset online before the tournament. Those were NOT sbr-certified rules.
I don't care what you do. It's your responsibility. It's your choice. It's your problem.
I didn't post a different ruleset online.
According to the exact wording in the SBR document, my rules are in fact SBR certified. They may not be to your liking, but once again.... it's your responsibility. It's your choice (to come). And it's your problem.
Do you have reading comprehension? Seriously? I could make a ruleset with all items on and call it sbr-certified with that logic. You also adjusted it to have a 2/3 losers finals, and when the ruleset refers to championship matches being at LEAST 3/5 it means in TWO SETS should the person in the losers bracket win.
All sets with the possible exception of winner's finals, loser's finals, and the championship are best of 3 matches (best of 5 and above is
recommended for any "finals" matches)
What out for the word "recommended." It can turn any "you must do this" into "it's optional."
And I don't care what you think the rules "mean." If it's not explicitly stated, then you're only inviting confusion, misinterpretation, and variance to the rules.
Ok, then you didn't follow the rules either? It's very obvious you just rushed things along so we couldn't ban skyworld against you. Other teams told me you did the same thing to them. Regardless of the minute details in the ruleset about stage banning you should still try and be respectful as a TO. It was upsetting to most that you need to try and use things like that to your advantage just to nail one match in a set. Unheard of.
Marcus, aka. Yokoson, already handed this one. Don't be bitter cause you didn't/couldn't follow the rules you helped create.
Speak for yourself. If "other teams" told you something, then I want quotes and names. Otherwise, don't bother. I respect people who follow the rules. Technically, whether knowingly or unknowingly, you were trying to cheat.
Using the rules to gain an advantage. Sounds like fair play to me.
That still doesn't explain losers finals only being 2 out of 3. I've also never even heard of a double elimination tournament in which the winner of the losers bracket only has to beat the person in the grand finals in one set. You can be stuck on being right, but that doesn't make you a good TO.
What explains the losers finals is all in the word "recommended" and "closely." Battles in court are won and lost around the meanings of simple words like this. These two words have doomed your side of the argument.
If 10 out of 45 people are upset, that means there's still 35 people I'd rather smash with. I don't cut deals for complainers and babies.
You can be stuck on having had a poor experience (right at the end of it all too), but that doens't make me a bad TO. Weeding out junk like this is going to clean up PBT one way or the other.
Now you've heard of one.
First of all, you DID lie to me. I'm going to take the words of other players who have PLAYED OUT the grand finals and losers was played 3 out of 5. It's your word against over 10 people.
The numbers game again? As I've said before, when we've had time and when both of the players agree, we're more than willing to let the finalists determine the winner how they want. Whether this means putting items. Playing random characters. Or playing a possible two best out of 5 sets. But, those allowances are always a case by case issue. Also, these allowances were only made when the issue was brought to my attention.
Ultimately, the rules are the same even if you have 10 other people that remember otherwise. Obviously, they were only paying attention to the matches, instead of how the ruling was made.
I also care about other people and fair tournaments unlike you apparently. Of course I'm going to be upset when I drove all the way from austin just to find out the rules were different. I guarantee that if you posted the actual ruleset you used online you would have less people attending. You are just being stuck up about it. The way you ran this tournament was not fair to the players at all and it's extremely obvious you don't give a **** about us.
Less people like you attending? How is that a bad thing?
Even if the finals were a best out of 5 with two sets, Razer won 3 matches in a row. So don't pretend like that outcome would have been any different.
It was fair, and you helped make it this way.
Especially considering the fact that you could of just TOLD me there was time restrictions and it would of been fine. Instead you were determined to justify your rules and argue with the people attending your tournament. You should try listening for once.
My rules? Or your rules? or our rules?
You should try writing a better sbr doc.
Don't expect anyone in Austin or probably Houston to be attending your events again. Not that you care.
I never expected them to come. It was a surprise that you even showed up in the first place. A welcomed surprise for the attendees, but not for the complaining.
Oh and by the way:
Banned
75m
Big Blue
Bridge of Eldin
Flat Zone 2
Hanenbow
Hyrule Temple
Mario Bros.
Mushroomy Kingdom I
Mushroomy Kingdom II
New Pork City
Rumble Falls
Shadow Moses
Spear Pillar
The Summit <------
Wario Ware
This tournament was not SBR certified so I would appreciate it if you would take that out of the titles if you are going to use this ruleset for future tournaments.
"recommended" "closely"
And I'll be sure to make the SBR certified even larger. Thanks.
In spite of what you're saying the rules are NOT clearly posted anywhere. You placed them on a table away from any source of regular gameplay or normal activity and expected them to be recognized and upheld by players from out of town when they are not posted anywhere on this forum either. This is poor work on YOUR PART and not anyone else's. Several of the regulars at your tournaments were under the same impression about several of the rules and you're still trying to argue and say it's OUR fault?
I'd elaborate more on other issues (winner's being 3 games instead of 5, the stage banning process, etc) but I actually don't see the point any more. The fact of the matter is that people drove several hours to attend this tournament and you treated them like **** and I don't see how I can further support this tournament series because of that.
I placed the rules away from gameplay/normal activity? You mean, the table that everyone stands right next to when reporting matches? You mean the table that's right next to registration? It's your responsibility to ask where/what the rules are if you're blind/don't know them.
Out of towners. Down the streeters. I treat all smashers equally. If you have a question, I'll answer it. If there's a dispute, I go by the rules. If a change needs to be made, it's made by the next tournament.
Don't get upset because you and people like you have been misleading others. The rules are simple. They're SBR certified. And aside from a few level additions and the stalling addendum, they haven't changed. The same pieces of paper that I printed out for PBT#1 are in my bag. They're the same rules I pull out every time. It's people like you that think they know what they're talking about and now many are confused. This is YOUR fault.
If you're not going to come, then I might as well implement my new metaknight rule.
How many PBT's in a row now have there been serious rule disputes? No one travels to North Texas tournaments from far away anyway, and you've just given us the worst word of mouth we could have possibly gotten. If there isn't a clearly posted, thorough set of rules ONLINE, IN ADVANCE, you're going to be losing a lot of participants. Have fun doing round robin because only 6 people showed up.
How many in a row? Is that relevant? How about how many disputes total have we had. That's a better question. Or better yet, how many disputes were started by or involve Infinity? That's 100% of the disputes. If not 100%, something very close to that percentage.
And for the record. I welcome Infinity to come back. He knows he has fun at PBT. He knows I go out of my way to make accommodations and rule changes for him and the issues he raises.
People traveling from afar to PBT is not my goal. PBT is a local tournament. If you want to drive for hours to get here, then it's your responsibility to know what you're getting into. If you have any questions, then you should ask me the TO. Otherwise, you're just taking your chances.
If you wanted rules posted ONLINE and IN ADVANCE, then why didn't YOU/ANYONE say something about that after PBT 1 -7? I ask for feedback and I get very few constructive comments. I give out my email for questions and comments, and I haven't received a single one.
There are no standards for posting rules online. If you're the kind of person who MUST see rules posted in advance, then you should have emailed me and I would have posted the rules promptly. If you're the kind of person who freaks out over any small difference in the rules, then you should have asked to see them at the tournament.
If all I'm losing are the participants who can't read well, and complain about small issues then PBT will be all the better for it.
