Location: The Outlook, Reading, UK
Number of Players: 43
Number of Rounds 3 + final
Results after 3 Rounds
1 Anthony Coleman 1 7 4 150
2 Antonio Cobo Cuenca 2 7 1 168
3 Martin Cubberly 2 8 0 168
4 Graham Smith 2 8 0 150
5 Arthur de Lustrac 1 7 0 156
6 Mike Nudd 1 6.5 156
7 Steve Read 1 5 150
8 hugh angseesing 1 5 132
8 Sam Marsh 1 5 132
10 Rob Thompson 1 5 126
10 Aaron Gunstone 1 5 126
12 Rafa Matysiak 1 4 138
13 Maciej Bernart 1 4 126
14 Barney Baker 1 4 102
15 Richard Brooks 1 3.5 126
16 Gines Quiñonero 1 3.5 114
17 Brian White 1 2.5 96
18 Eric Chiang 0 3 132
19 Mike Wilson 0 2.5 120
20 Jon Shonk 0 2.5 108
21 Paul Reid-Bowen 0 2 120
22 Ian turner 0 2 108
23 Matt Green 0 2 90
24 Ed Trollope 0 1.5 120
25 Andy Quinn 0 1.5 108
26 Michael Heyder 0 1.5 90
27 Daniel Kasatchkow 0 1 96
28 Niki Sehmi 0 1 84
28 Jon Cooper 0 1 84
28 Phil Thompson 0 1 84
31 Andy Bennett 0 0.5 96
32 Sven Helmer 0 0.5 90
33 Noel Butler 0 0.5 84
33 Frank Connell 0 0.5 84
35 Kostas Mavraganis 0 0.5 78
35 John Best 0 0.5 78
37 Mat Cook 0 0 78
38 Andrew Brown 0 0 72
39 Edd Phipps 0 0 66
40 Chris Huszcza 0 0 60
40 Joel Tate 0 0 60
42 kieran carder 0 0 54
43 Artur Siupik 0 0 48
Finalists were:
Martin Cubberley (playing old old school dom ravnos tool box)
Antonio Cobo Cuenca (playing Edward Vignes)
Graham Smith (playing imbued)
Ant Coleman (playing Bridges, Crowley and Nash)
Arthur De Lustrac (playing for/cel/pot/pre multihit)
Final Result:
Ant Coleman 4
Antonio Cobo Cuenca 1
Martin Cubberley
Graham Smith
Arthur De Lustrac
Thankyou for everyone who turned up making this our largest gathering
yet and especially to the Olde boys who made the day that more
entertaining especially Barney with his quest.
I'm going to have to leave the commentary as I need to get to
Farnborough.
Deck: Bridges, Coleman & Nash
Author: Anthony ' Satan's Spawn' Coleman
3 Name: Emerson Bridges
Clan: Ventrue
Capacity: 8
Discipline: pot DOM FOR PRE
Camarilla Prince of Washington, DC.
2 Name: Sir Walter Nash
Clan: Ventrue
Capacity: 7
Discipline: DOM FOR PRE
Camarilla Prince of Chicago.
1 Name: Timothy Crowley
Clan: Ventrue
Capacity: 7
Discipline: ani dom FOR PRE
Camarilla Prince of Dallas.
2 Name: Ranjan Rishi, Camarilla Scholar
Clan: Ventrue
Capacity: 5
Discipline: for DOM PRE
Camarilla: Ranjan gets +1 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who
controls a ready Brujah.
1 Name: Jazz Wentworth
Clan: Ventrue
Capacity: 5
Discipline: dom for PRE
Camarilla: If the Edge is not controlled, Jazz may give you control of
it as a +1 stealth action.
1 Name: Roland Loussarian
Clan: Ventrue
Capacity: 3
Discipline: for pre
Camarilla.
1 Name: Violette Prentiss
Clan: Ventrue
Capacity: 4
Discipline: dom PRE
Camarilla.
1 Name: Gideon Fontaine
Clan: Ventrue
Capacity: 3
Discipline: PRE
Camarilla.
library: 71
master:
1 anarch troublemaker
2 misdirection
1 fear of mekhet
2 pentex subversion
1 hostile takeover
1 ventrue headquarters
3 blood doll
1 the coven
actions:
7 govern the unaligned
2 entrancement
2 mind numb
political actions:
2 parity shift
1 ventrue justicar
2 kine resources contested
2 conservative agitation
2 ancillae empowerment
2 anarchist uprising
action modifier:
3 seduction
6 conditioning
3 bonding
5 bewitching oration
3 voter captivation
4 freak drive
1 Kiss of Ra
combat:
8 majesty
reaction:
4 deflection
On Oct 11, 2:06 pm, hugh.angsees...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> i made a slight mistake to the non-finalists positions please see
> below for corrected results:> 42 Matt Green 0 0 54
>
> - Show quoted text -
Cripes, poor Matt has moved from 23rd to 42nd, you will be popular ; )
[ quoted text not captured ]
No that's correct, I had a pretty torrid day of it. I am 98% deck
design with 2% actual ability to play them well.
I got a prize for the most original deck (essentially by default as
the levels of degenerate sleaze were higher than normal). Given that I
was using 16 Spirit Marionette's I was at least moderately surprised
to say the least. ;o)
Matt
[ quoted text not captured ]
The prize of 'Bollock Punt from Ten Paces' surely has to go to the
dude with the Tupdog and Mark of the damned deck.
I'm farking glad I didn't have to play gainst that pile'o'shite...
talk about randomly ruining a game..
Plan was, get 10-15 Tupdogs in ashheap - and call Mark of the Damned
with some large setite backousting everyone in turn for a 2VP game
win. Only one small problem with that plan - its total bollocks.
Ant
In message <1192121504.5...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
Anthony Coleman <Bunti...@gmail.com> writes:
>Plan was, get 10-15 Tupdogs in ashheap - and call Mark of the Damned
>with some large setite backousting everyone in turn for a 2VP game
>win. Only one small problem with that plan - its total bollocks.
Makes aiming the bollock punt easier, then.
Seriously, though, you have to wonder what was going on at Wizards of
the Coast the day Mark of the Damned was written.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On 11 Oct, 21:40, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <1192121504.524926.312...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,>
> Anthony Coleman <Buntina...@gmail.com> writes:
> >Plan was, get 10-15 Tupdogs in ashheap - and call Mark of the Damned
> >with some large setite backousting everyone in turn for a 2VP game
> >win. Only one small problem with that plan - its total bollocks.
>
> Makes aiming the bollock punt easier, then.
>
> Seriously, though, you have to wonder what was going on at Wizards of
> the Coast the day Mark of the Damned was written.
I find it somewhat of a coincidence that Green used to work for them
and is reknown for 'creative' deckbuilding and the use of oddball
cards to ummm interesting ends.
I think he worked after black Wednesday when Mark of the Damned was
written but had a hand in classics such as Cardinal Sin: Failure of
Mission and earth-shattering powerhouses like Code of Milan Suspended
*shudder*
I have it in good authority that they all got the meths out of a
Friday afternoon...
hugh.an...@gmail.com wrote:
> 16 Gines Quinonero 1 3.5 114
Is this Damnans? (I get online vs real names confused fairly easily)
If so, can you make a player a head judge in the middle of a tournament
that's not multi-judge?
Or was this a multi-judge event?
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
On Oct 12, 3:24 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 16 Gines Quinonero 1 3.5 114
>
> Is this Damnans? (I get online vs real names confused fairly easily)
>
> If so, can you make a player a head judge in the middle of a tournament
> that's not multi-judge?
>
> Or was this a multi-judge event?
>
> --
> salem
Erm Damnans wasn't head & yes that is him.
Rob Treasure was there with Damnans and myself to provide current card
text & rulings for his 'gap'.
We're not technically allowed to run it as multi-judge (if we continue
logging it through as nationals rather than just constructed) although
I see no reason why in all practicality we can't as there isn't any
difference.
hugh.an...@gmail.com wrote in news:1192191303.181601.300210
@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, one difference is that it would be illegal under 2.9 for Damnans to
be the judge of the final table.
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
2.9. Multi-Judge System
When using the Multi-Judge System, ***the head judge makes all rulings,
except when a decision is needed in a game in which the head judge is
participating.***
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
On Oct 8, 7:56 am, hugh.angsees...@gmail.com wrote:
> Location: The Outlook, Reading, UK
> Number of Players: 43
> Number of Rounds 3 + final
>
> Results after 3 Rounds
>
> 1 Anthony Coleman 1 7 4 150
> 2 Antonio Cobo Cuenca 2 7 1 168
> 3 Martin Cubberly 2 8 0 168
> 4 Graham Smith 2 8 0 150
> 5 Arthur de Lustrac 1 7 0 156
>> Finalists were:
> Martin Cubberley (playing old old school dom ravnos tool box)
> Antonio Cobo Cuenca (playing Edward Vignes)
> Graham Smith (playing imbued)
> Ant Coleman (playing Bridges, Crowley and Nash)
> Arthur De Lustrac (playing for/cel/pot/pre multihit)
>
> Final Result:
>
> Ant Coleman 4
> Antonio Cobo Cuenca 1
> Martin Cubberley
> Graham Smith
> Arthur De Lustrac
>
So suppose that the standings prior to the finals also were added into
the final standings calculation:
Anthony Coleman 2 11 210
Antonio Cobo Cuenca 2 8 216
Martin Cubberly 2 8 0 192
Graham Smith 2 8 0 174
Arthur de Lustrac 1 7 180
In this instance, you get the same result. I'm sure in others you'd
have the occasional chance for someone to remain in first place
throughout.
How about "Swiss style" table assignation? ;)
Jeff
On Oct 12, 7:57 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> hugh.angsees...@gmail.com wrote in news:1192191303.181601.300210[ quoted text not captured ]
Why would it be illegal?
According to the 'Tournament Organizer Responsibilities' section, the
tournament organizer may choose to delegate some or all of these
responsibilities (including Staffing the event with appropriate
personnel):
* Selecting the site for the event
* Providing all materials to operate the event (product at Sealed
Deck events, and so on)
* Retaining all tournament results for one full year after the
event's completion
* Reporting to the V:EKN of all event results, including winner,
in a timely manner
* Staffing the event with appropriate personnel (including finding
an appropriate head judge for the event)
* Advertising the tournament sufficiently in advance of the event
date
So the tournament organizer (Hugh) could have legally chosen any
player not in the final to judge the final (as he did).
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnanshttp://www.vtes.nethttp://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)
Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in
news:1192215906.0...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Becasue "The head judge makes all rulings, except when a decision is
needed in a game in which the head judge is participating."
Who was the Head Judge? Rob Treasure (or, possibly Hugh, but not you).
Was he participating in the finals? No.
> According to the 'Tournament Organizer Responsibilities' section, the
> tournament organizer may choose to delegate some or all of these
> responsibilities (including Staffing the event with appropriate
> personnel):
>
> * Selecting the site for the event
> * Providing all materials to operate the event (product at Sealed
> Deck events, and so on)
> * Retaining all tournament results for one full year after the
> event's completion
> * Reporting to the V:EKN of all event results, including winner,
> in a timely manner
> * Staffing the event with appropriate personnel (including finding
> an appropriate head judge for the event)
WHo did he choose as Head Judge?
> * Advertising the tournament sufficiently in advance of the event
> date
>
> So the tournament organizer (Hugh) could have legally chosen any
> player not in the final to judge the final (as he did).
>
The rules of the Multi-Judge system place additional constraints on what
can be done with respect to selecting judges for various rounds. Being
the tournament organizer allows you to delegate tasks, but not in such a
way as to violate other sections of the rules when those rules are
explicit.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
atomweaver escribió:
> Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in
[...]
> The rules of the Multi-Judge system place additional constraints on what
> can be done with respect to selecting judges for various rounds. Being
> the tournament organizer allows you to delegate tasks, but not in such a
> way as to violate other sections of the rules when those rules are
> explicit.
Being the tournament organizer allows you to delegate tasks and to
recover them, since you are ultimately responsible for all tournament
operations.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <Xns99C7909411...@207.115.33.102>, atomweaver
<atomw...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Well, one difference is that it would be illegal under 2.9 for Damnans to
>be the judge of the final table.
Not necessarily. (Note: I wasn't at this event.)
For example:
- if someone had been appointed Head Judge but found they had to leave
early, it would certainly be sensible to have someone else
assume head judge responsibilities (particularly if other judges
were on the final table!)
- if someone is less familiar with a small portion of the game, but
finds that the final table is going to be full of it, it would
be sensible to let someone else judge and, though they could
just repeatedly defer, it's simpler all round to let someone
else do it (e.g. 2 Imbued on a finals table when I've barely had
chance to look at NoR, just after it's come out)
- if I find that my skills are somewhat lacking or rusty, I might want
to let someone else take over
- if there has been a particularly difficult or acrimonious ruling(s)
(or other incidents) made that day, I might want to recuse
myself to avoid the appearance (however mistaken) of bias
against a player
In any situation like that, it would likely be perfectly reasonable for
an organizer to switch judges around.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in
news:fevusg$un5$1...@registered.motzarella.org:
> atomweaver escribió:>> Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in> [...]>> The rules of the Multi-Judge system place additional constraints on
>> what can be done with respect to selecting judges for various rounds.
>> Being the tournament organizer allows you to delegate tasks, but not
>> in such a way as to violate other sections of the rules when those
>> rules are explicit.>
> Being the tournament organizer allows you to delegate tasks and to
> recover them, since you are ultimately responsible for all tournament
> operations.
>
Actually, the "and recover" part above is your own insertion. THe VEKN
rules do not say "and recover"...
From http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
2.2. Tournament Organizer Responsibilities
The tournament organizer for an event is ultimately responsible for all
tournament operations and event reporting for the event. The tournament
organizer's responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Selecting the site for the event
Providing all materials to operate the event (product at Sealed Deck
events, and so on)
Retaining all tournament results for one full year after the event's
completion
Reporting to the V:EKN of all event results, including winner, in a
timely manner
Staffing the event with appropriate personnel (including finding an
appropriate head judge for the event)
Advertising the tournament sufficiently in advance of the event date
The tournament organizer may choose to delegate some or all of these
responsibilities.
-----
I ask for confirmation from LSJ, please. Does being tournament
organizer allows you to override explicit rules, such as assigning who is
Head Judge, and who is 2nd-6th Judge under Multi-Judge Rules, or not?
It sounds to me like Damnans is wanting the "not limited to" clause on
the T-O overview to provide the Tournament Organizer the blanket
authority to override explicit rules for convenience, only. I don't
think that this is within the bounds of the T-O's authority.
DaveZ
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in
news:clwojcmY...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk:
> In message <Xns99C7909411...@207.115.33.102>, atomweaver
> <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes:>>Well, one difference is that it would be illegal under 2.9 for Damnans
to
>>be the judge of the final table.>
> Not necessarily. (Note: I wasn't at this event.)
>
> For example:
>
> - if someone had been appointed Head Judge but found they had to leave
> early, it would certainly be sensible to have someone else
> assume head judge responsibilities (particularly if other
judges
> were on the final table!)
>
Sure. You have to have a Head Judge. iF he leaves, it makes sense that
you need a new one, and the T-O is the right person to delegate that task
(to himself, even, after the Head Judge has left)
> - if someone is less familiar with a small portion of the game, but
> finds that the final table is going to be full of it, it would
> be sensible to let someone else judge and, though they could
> just repeatedly defer, it's simpler all round to let someone
> else do it (e.g. 2 Imbued on a finals table when I've barely
had
> chance to look at NoR, just after it's come out)
>
> - if I find that my skills are somewhat lacking or rusty, I might want
> to let someone else take over
>
These are good reasons to refuse the job of Head Judge in the first
place, but once a Judge accepts the spot, I don't see it as an option to
beg off the job. Sure, you can consult with other Judges in the Multi-
Judge format, or take into account other people's interpretations...
thats just being a thorough judge, but this is not what is being
discussed here.
> - if there has been a particularly difficult or acrimonious ruling(s)
> (or other incidents) made that day, I might want to recuse
> myself to avoid the appearance (however mistaken) of bias
> against a player
>
OK. I'd dispute that, but I can see how a T-O might want to reserve the
ability to exepmt a Judge under multi-judge rules, _if_ there was prior
acrimony.
> In any situation like that, it would likely be perfectly reasonable for
> an organizer to switch judges around.
>
While all of your examples are reasonable, but none of them apply to this
specific circumstance, as far as I can see.
DZ
AW
atomweaver wrote:
> I ask for confirmation from LSJ, please. Does being tournament
> organizer allows you to override explicit rules, such as assigning who is
> Head Judge, and who is 2nd-6th Judge under Multi-Judge Rules, or not?
The rules do not allow for more than one head judge at given tournament, nor do
they allow for a head judge stepping down (voluntarily or otherwise) once
appointed for a given tournament.
Extenuating circumstances resulting in the inability of the head judge to
continue performing xer duties should be handled with common sense, of course.
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:54:01 +0200, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote:
> atomweaver escribió:>> Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in> [...]>> The rules of the Multi-Judge system place additional constraints on
>> what can be done with respect to selecting judges for various rounds.
>> Being the tournament organizer allows you to delegate tasks, but not in
>> such a way as to violate other sections of the rules when those rules
>> are explicit.>
> Being the tournament organizer allows you to delegate tasks and to
> recover them, since you are ultimately responsible for all tournament
> operations.
If the tournament organizer - through whatever use of the rules - can
override the head judge's decisions than in reality he or she is the
head judge.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Einstein,
all I did was make the most senior judge present responsible for
overseeing the finals.
To me this seems most logical thing to do as he is the one with the
wealth and experience to pick up on items that other players would not
(especially as our 'nominated' head judge Rob Treasure hasn't seen a
large number of new cards & was not aware of the various rulings
around them.
I am really not aware of any practical difference, certainly in a play
environment like the UK, between having Gines act as Head Judge after
3 rounds or from the beginning.
As it is all this makes me want to do is step up my campaign to allow
National events to be multijudged.
I am aware this my not be suitable for all localities, but when you
have two large tournaments a year one of which is your ECQ and the
other your Nationals it would be good if one of them at least could be
multi-judged to allow a bit of a respite.
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
news:skPQi.9809$lD6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Thank you, Scott.
Soooo yeah, a T-O assigning a different Head Judge for finals, only =
technically illegal.
DaveZ
In message <Xns99CA996877...@207.115.33.102>, atomweaver
<atomw...@hotmail.com> writes:
>These are good reasons to refuse the job of Head Judge in the first
>place, but once a Judge accepts the spot, I don't see it as an option to
>beg off the job.
So you think you're capable of doing something, find that you're out of
date, and are forced to carry on even though you don't want to and other
people would be better than you?
Weird.
>> - if there has been a particularly difficult or acrimonious ruling(s)
>> (or other incidents) made that day, I might want to recuse
>> myself to avoid the appearance (however mistaken) of bias
>> against a player
>>>
>OK. I'd dispute that, but I can see how a T-O might want to reserve the
>ability to exepmt a Judge under multi-judge rules, _if_ there was prior
>acrimony.
You might want to re-read what I wrote. I said "I might want to recuse
myself". That doesn't indicate the T-O forcing anything. That's the
judge recusing him or herself.
>> In any situation like that, it would likely be perfectly reasonable for
>> an organizer to switch judges around.>
>While all of your examples are reasonable, but none of them apply to this
>specific circumstance, as far as I can see.
Hence my disagreeing with your earlier sweeping statement, by saying
"Not necessarily." Your blanket ban was far too broad when, in real
life, shit happens.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <Xns99CAC512AAE0Eat...@207.115.17.102>,
atomweaver <atomw...@spamtrap.com> writes:
> Soooo yeah, a T-O assigning a different Head Judge for finals, only =
>technically illegal.
Unless there are extenuating circumstances.
I haven't seen anyone outright ask *why* Hugh chose to do what he did,
which makes this all a bit circular.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:EZ$uczDno
$EHF...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk:
> In message <Xns99CAC512AAE0Eat...@207.115.17.102>,
> atomweaver <atomw...@spamtrap.com> writes:>> Soooo yeah, a T-O assigning a different Head Judge for finals, only =
>>technically illegal.>
> Unless there are extenuating circumstances.
>
> I haven't seen anyone outright ask *why* Hugh chose to do what he did,
> which makes this all a bit circular.
>
I heard a beer run mentioned at one point... ;-)
*shrug* Who knows, maybe if they weren't playing free and loose with the
multi-judge rules, we would have avoided one shit-storm of posts and a
crappy judging situation... or maybe it would have resulted in an identical
thread, but initiated from the perspective of another finalist's POV. No
way to know, but I do think that it doesn't hurt anybody if we all "tighten
up" a bit on how we treat what VEKN rules we do have...
DZ
AW
hugh.an...@gmail.com wrote in news:1192484119.107033.213820
@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> As it is all this makes me want to do is step up my campaign to allow
> National events to be multijudged.
>
You didn't mention it explicitly, but unless your event doubled as an ECQ
this year, as far as my read on Multi-Judge, it doesn't need to be exluded.
The only things that are excluded are qualifiers and championships (and by
"championships", I take it to mean specifically the NAC, the SAC, the EC
and the AC, and not "Nationals"... maybe LSJ can confirm that last.)
from http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
2.9. Multi-Judge System
The Multi-Judge System may be used at any non-qualifier, non-championship
tournament with at least eight participants (i.e., having at least two
tables).
So there ya go, campaign successful.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
> > As it is all this makes me want to do is step up my campaign to allow
> > National events to be multijudged.
>
> You didn't mention it explicitly, but unless your event doubled as an ECQ
> this year, as far as my read on Multi-Judge, it doesn't need to be exluded.
> The only things that are excluded are qualifiers and championships (and by
> "championships", I take it to mean specifically the NAC, the SAC, the EC
> and the AC, and not "Nationals"... maybe LSJ can confirm that last.)
>> fromhttp://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules>
> 2.9. Multi-Judge System
>
> The Multi-Judge System may be used at any non-qualifier, non-championship
> tournament with at least eight participants (i.e., having at least two
> tables).
>
> So there ya go, campaign successful.
>
> DaveZ
> Atom Weaver
According to Oscar Garza Nationals count as championships (hence the
phrase National Championship!)
*shrug*
If you look at:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Championship
you will note the events listed as championships are both National
Championships. It doesn't just refer to the NAC, EC, AC, SAC and any
other continental championships that may come about.
No our event didn't double as an ECQ.
so campaign not yet successful & until it is we (that is the
organisers of the UK Nationals) have two options, one find a head
judge who isn't playing (hence Rob Treasure this year) or drop the
event to a 'constructed', which has a few connotations, notably
finalists wouldn't have the invitational to Spanish/French Nationals
which we currently do.
I don't think we played 'fast and loose' with the multi-judge rules
as we didn't use them technically(as we can't offically which is
rubbish) and tbh if we run successful events (bar an interesting
discussion of the legal deal in the finals) that are essentially in
keeping with the ethos of the 'everyone mucks in and gets it to work'
then I don't see what the issue is?
Still in a rare piece of agreement I have this:
<orgplay> Official Answer: National Championships can multi-judge.
<LSJ> The tournament rules get updated every year.
<orgplay> national championships don't carry the weight of continental
championships, NCs can organize the qualifier structure (whether you
have one or not) as you please.
<LSJ> I'll change the verbiage to make it so only the continentals are
restricted.
Ok so can be multi-judged.
And i defend my right as a TO to change the head judge if necessary, &
i think swpaping to an experienced judge with regards to current text
is reasonable.
hugh.an...@gmail.com wrote in news:1192557192.441658.7750
@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> Still in a rare piece of agreement I have this:
>
> <orgplay> Official Answer: National Championships can multi-judge.
> <LSJ> The tournament rules get updated every year.
> <orgplay> national championships don't carry the weight of continental
> championships, NCs can organize the qualifier structure (whether you
> have one or not) as you please.
> <LSJ> I'll change the verbiage to make it so only the continentals are
> restricted.
>
> Ok so can be multi-judged.
>
> And i defend my right as a TO to change the head judge if necessary,
For some values of "necessary", sure. Your Head Judge has to catch a
plane, etc.
> i think swpaping to an experienced judge with regards to current text
> is reasonable.
>
Or, ya know, just pick the experienced judge to be Head Judge from the
start... That's why I only referred to this "violation" as a mere
technicality... If you were following straight-up multi-judge rules, and
picked Judges 1-6 based on pure experience, Damnans would've been a clear
choice for Head Judge. Then, no shuffling around after the fact is
necessary.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:D5Bv0QDdn$EHFwV3
@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk:
> In message <Xns99CA996877...@207.115.33.102>, atomweaver
> <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes:>>These are good reasons to refuse the job of Head Judge in the first
>>place, but once a Judge accepts the spot, I don't see it as an option
to
>>beg off the job.>
> So you think you're capable of doing something, find that you're out of
> date, and are forced to carry on even though you don't want to and
> other people would be better than you?
>
Is that what happened here with Rob?
> Weird.
>
You take a minor comment about a specific circumstance, and automatically
extrapolate to a broad general comment. Weird, indeed.
>>> In any situation like that, it would likely be perfectly reasonable
for
>>> an organizer to switch judges around.>>
>>While all of your examples are reasonable, but none of them apply to
this
>>specific circumstance, as far as I can see.>
> Hence my disagreeing with your earlier sweeping statement,
I made no "sweeping statement", James. I said, specifically, that this
specific instance of Damnans being made head judge for the finals would
be, specifically, technically illegal under Multi-Judge (in a minor sort
of way that I'm not particularly caring about). Is that specific enough
for you?
I'm in agreement with you on the fact that there are circumstances in
which a T-O can assign a new Head Judge, but that in this instance, there
was no such reason expressed here so far.
> by saying
> "Not necessarily." Your blanket ban was far too broad when, in real
> life, shit happens.
>
It wasn't about "in general", as the original comment _clearly_ stated
"Damnans", not "all multi-judge d tourneys". They weren't even
officially using Multi-Judge rules, by Hugh's comments... they were just
swapping around duties (maybe a little too loosely), and this whole
thread derived from a hypothetical.
Go take your Happy Pill now, buddy. I've got no beef here, yeesh.
From Message-ID: <Xns99C7909411...@207.115.33.102>
hugh.an...@gmail.com wrote in news:1192191303.181601.300210
@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> We're not technically allowed to run it as multi-judge (if we continue> logging it through as nationals rather than just constructed) although
> I see no reason why in all practicality we can't as there isn't any
> difference.
>
Well, one difference is that it would be illegal under 2.9 ****for
Damnans**** to be the judge of the final table.
DaveZ
[ quoted text not captured ]
Agreed but might have been nice to tell me for future reference,
although clearly at the next one I will be far too busy rubbing you
out to judge at all ;o)