2mufc0
Everything is fair game in capitalism!
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 17,935
- Supports
- Dragon of Dojima
Well in the event of a tie we go by average pick time, that was the whole point of recording times.
- If I thought idmanager had a better team, I wouldn't have voted to avoid useless virtual hard feelings (betrayal blah blah given the formal request)
A vote I could never have won in this case
Spill the beans.- I wasn't the AM of @Lord SInister in the drafting process: he chose the players he did want. I haven't submitted a pick in this process
- True that I followed the draft but it was because I was interested in the potential strategic aspect and meltdowns
- I was asked to take the lead regarding the discussions in the match thread: I've said yes because I thought he was just busy for work considerations
- The day after I understood it was an issue of limit of posts for a newbie
- The game starts and I can see a long post written by lordsinister
- If I thought idmanager had a better team, I wouldn't have voted to avoid useless virtual hard feelings (betrayal blah blah given the formal request)
- And if I had been fully involved, I would have written my usual waffle:
----------> emphasized some battles (messi vs dietz...)
----------> the battle midfield (2vs3) because I don't see Effenberg as the ideal destroyer with a high sense of sacrifice to protect the central defence and enable Matthaus to play his game
----------> team idmanager was slightly overly offensive and his defence "second-class"
----------> there was a missing link between the exposed idmanager central midfield and the 2 CF
----------> I would have posted some videos and made some streamable links
I think I was fair but in order to dispel ambiguity and avoid any controversy, @Tuppet should be free to:
- organize penalties, or
- declare both teams winners and adjust rules, or
- find another idea like: select 10 guys who never voted in a draft, a shadow vote. Say he PM some pure neutrals (for example those who never post in the football forum but elsewhere) so that a "shadow vote" could be quickly organized
The last option is probably the better option: tuppet choose 10 randoms guys (suffice to look at some threads in the United section), make 2 convo (5 people per convo) and we have an addition set of voters who just need to read this thread, the opportunity to enlarge of the pool of players interested in following the draft in the future btw.
Let's have a lynch vote to decide the winner.
I'll save you the trouble and let @Lord SInister take this one. I'll win my next first round. Fourth time's the charm hopefully
Cheers!
It's a tricky situation as if Ecstatic vote is voided then idmanager wins.Well in the event of a tie we go by average pick time, that was the whole point of recording times.
Tuppet make a shadow vote very easy to organise (2 convo * 5 people = 10 voters) so that I'm not the deciding factor once again
Spill the beans.
1) How did you come to "understand"?
2) Did you write to him? Did he answer? Did he just ignore you altogether?
3) The last bit sounds somewhat unfair. Basically you are admitting after being offered the AM job you couldn't vote against him. That to me falls exactly into the rationale behind AMs -regardless of their degrees of involvement- being partial and therefore their votes being void.
Please God no, what a shite way to settle things. I remember once drawing a final and the suggested tiebreaker being that the only manager NOT to have voted had the casting vote. The other team had 3 key players he had originally picked that had become reinforcements. I never had a chance.
Same shit here, pick a bunch of randomers and the glitz factor would most likely prevail rendering the gamethread completely pointless.
Why don't you guys simply tell us if you ever had any PMs regarding your team at any stage like Tuppet above is asking? A simple yes or no please.I don't get this ecstatic issue. He was never an AM to begin with, even the job previously announced to him was not of an assistant manager to start with. It was merely of an messenger who would paste my PMs.
Secondary the offer expired when I got promoted and link below is of me clearing about the cancelling the offer.
But let tuppet and draft Lords take the decision.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/dominoes-draft.433182/page-60#post-21701023
Why don't you guys simply tell us if you ever had any PMs regarding your team at any stage like Tuppet above is asking? A simple yes or no please.
Cool, I am gonna count @Ecstatic vote in that case and you win. Congratulations.
-
- If I thought idmanager had a better team, I wouldn't have voted to avoid useless virtual hard feelings (betrayal blah blah given the formal request)
- And if I had been fully involved, I would have written my usual waffle:
- If I thought idmanager had a better team, I wouldn't have voted to avoid useless virtual hard feelings (betrayal blah blah given the formal request)
Well if they never PM about the game, then Ecstatic wasn't really much of an AM to LC. He might have been biased but there is no rule against that. He is free to vote or not vote for whatever reason as long as they are not collaborating.@Tuppet , I don't get how a vote can be counted when I could have had the better team and still would not have won the vote. It was either 0-1 or 0-0 for me if left to Ecstatic even if I had Krol/Figueroa/Moore/Cafu in defense.
Anyways, good team nevertheless. Good luck going ahead, @Lord SInister
Well if they never PM about the game, then Ecstatic wasn't really much of an AM to LC. He might have been biased but there is no rule against that. He is free to vote or not vote for whatever reason as long as they are not collaborating.
- If I thought idmanager had a better team, I wouldn't have voted to avoid useless virtual hard feelings (betrayal blah blah given the formal request)
He might have been biased but there is no rule against that
you did a great job too.@Tuppet , I don't get how a vote can be counted when I could have had the better team and still would not have won the vote. It was either 0-1 or 0-0 for me if left to Ecstatic even if I had Krol/Figueroa/Moore/Cafu in defense.
Anyways, good game nevertheless. Good luck going ahead, @Lord SInister
It's somewhat biased/unfair but didn't have an impact from the moment he did think LoSin had the better team.As I quoted Ecstatic above, he would not have voted for me even if the teams for exchanged due to the prior AM request.
I have a better team : Score 0-0
He has a better team - Score 0-1
That makes no sense when counting votes.
Too much text.To avoid any dispute, I've already expressed the fairer solution for both parties:
- Tuppet starts 2 new conversations, he invites 5 people per conversation, the message being "based on the match thread you will read, who has the better team?"
- Selected people: those who know how drafts works but didn't vote (there is the choice: balu, marty1968, redtiger, brwned in love,...) OR/AND randomly picked redcafe member
- Very quick to put in place
- The only requirement is to know how to count
Now, do what you want
[/MyContribution]
It's somewhat biased/unfair but didn't have an impact from the moment he did think LoSin had the better team.
Would have been harsh if the score were tied and he had deliberately NOT voted despite thinking you had the better team.
And if THAT'S a draw?Too much text.
You need to put an XI of regulars, another with randomers. Blue shirts, yellow shirts, wikipedia pitch format... Go.
To be honest I agree with you — that was a rather strange argument that Ecstatic mentioned and it clearly marks him as biased. Not to say that he is somehow morally compromised, I, and everyone here, believe in his integrity, but that argument threw me off a bit. Anyway, let bygones be bygones.Honestly don't see an end to the argument mate. I will never find it fair, others might.
It's funny because I read it as saying IF he'd been Lord's AM, he wouldn't have voted.... not always easy to get across exactly what you mean in print on a screen?To be honest I agree with you — that was a rather strange argument that Ecstatic mentioned and it clearly marks him as biased. Not to say that he is somehow morally compromised, I, and everyone here, believe in his integrity, but that argument threw me off a bit. Anyway, let bygones be bygones.
Oh, you were being serious? I thought you were joking!Shouldn't be, @Tuppet chooses one of the XIs (experienced or random) and they are all forced to vote even if they don't have the faintest idea of what is going on. XI votes = no draw.
I was joking. My jokes still are foolproof tie-break solutions, that's all.Oh, you were being serious? I thought you were joking!
I'm useless at picking up on meaning from print. Need "Janet and John" style language and words of two syllables max.
To be honest I agree with you — that was a rather strange argument that Ecstatic mentioned and it clearly marks him as biased. Not to say that he is somehow morally compromised, I, and everyone here, believe in his integrity, but that argument threw me off a bit. Anyway, let bygones be bygones.
Tuppet already gave the win to Sinister, so you shouldn't feel sorry for himIrrespective of his posting, at beginning of match, I would have assumed he was an AM based on posts in draft thread. Harsh, but I think his vote should be excluded. Feel sorry for Sinister here, though. Incredibly bad luck.
Tuppet already gave the win to Sinister, so you shouldn't feel sorry for him
Ah, didn't see that.
In that case I shift my feeling sorry for idmanager.