Fini wrote:2 spots open....
The cody's team is not more on the list.
Who ever said 16 teams is max?
Ladle 39
Moderator: Light
Re: Ladle 39
Who ever said 16 teams is max?
Re: Ladle 39
epic lulz.
On a side note, I was hoping we'd break the 16-team boundry this ladle, when 15 teams were signed up, and two SP teams expected (totalling 17). It would have been the first time since bowl, but ah well...
On a side note, I was hoping we'd break the 16-team boundry this ladle, when 15 teams were signed up, and two SP teams expected (totalling 17). It would have been the first time since bowl, but ah well...
The Halley's comet of Armagetron.
ps I'm not tokoyami
ps I'm not tokoyami
Re: Ladle 39
Ladle 23 had 18 teams, I think 17 showed up.syllabear wrote:epic lulz.
On a side note, I was hoping we'd break the 16-team boundry this ladle, when 15 teams were signed up, and two SP teams expected (totalling 17). It would have been the first time since bowl, but ah well...
Re: Ladle 39
Yeah, obviously we aren't trying to cap the ladle, in fact if anyone knows any teams that haven't signed up for the ladle yet that you think should then go on and tell them to go and sign up.
Re: Ladle 39
As of now...neither teen nor 1200 have removed Sagelord from their ladle roster. If this does not change, I assume Sagelord does not get shafted, because he can't remove himself from the team. So what would happen? Would DA get DQ'd?
Again the 'regulations' seem only to be a guide, as none of the rules have been enforced.
Maybe we should vote (i know stupid but maybe necessary), just to make sure people agree with the punishments, and have no mercy on the victims. (whether it be purposeful or unintentional).
*Note Satire proceeding this comment*
I have an idea, lets create a 52 page document that you must agree to, to play in the ladle. This would be mandatory by making a site where players must register to play in the tournament, thus agreeing to the 'legal document'. Maybe we should also appoint a judiciary sector, to make sure things are 'constitutional' if you will. But if we have a Judiciary sector, we would also need to have a senate, just to balance powers. This sector could think up things called amendments, that change the original document, but the amendments would have to be voted for by the populous, of course.
With that out of the way... Lets move on to electing the officials. This part gets tricky. Scratch off the list already making a poll on the site, as it can easily be manipulated. I think we should make a massive pm of your vote to an 'official'. But this also has flaws. Which player, truly should be able to vote, as again smurfs come into play. We should create another site at this point which determines who gets to vote. Through many scripts run through every fort, and sumo server, this site will compile all the data from each name and give them a ranking on priority. Then again, a player who is a troll shouldn't get a lot of priority, as they will want to mess up the votes. So another code can be devised to make the number of times you tked someone directly proportional to your ranking. Example, your rating would be 60, but you have 60 tk's: your new rank would be 1; another, your ranking is also 60, but you only have 5 tks: your new rank is 12. Obviously this is where the Judiciary unit comes into play; some players deserve to vote, but will not be able to because of 'discrepancies in the code'. What should we do about age limit? It should be translated in every language listed on "gridstats.com", to make it fair to all people, that is so they understand it fully.
Note: I could write more on this subject, but I have three tests tomorrow, so I will not.
Also I didn't really have time to proofread this, so it is sort of unfinished and not aptly done.
Edit: my point is... this sucks.
Again the 'regulations' seem only to be a guide, as none of the rules have been enforced.
Maybe we should vote (i know stupid but maybe necessary), just to make sure people agree with the punishments, and have no mercy on the victims. (whether it be purposeful or unintentional).
*Note Satire proceeding this comment*
I have an idea, lets create a 52 page document that you must agree to, to play in the ladle. This would be mandatory by making a site where players must register to play in the tournament, thus agreeing to the 'legal document'. Maybe we should also appoint a judiciary sector, to make sure things are 'constitutional' if you will. But if we have a Judiciary sector, we would also need to have a senate, just to balance powers. This sector could think up things called amendments, that change the original document, but the amendments would have to be voted for by the populous, of course.
With that out of the way... Lets move on to electing the officials. This part gets tricky. Scratch off the list already making a poll on the site, as it can easily be manipulated. I think we should make a massive pm of your vote to an 'official'. But this also has flaws. Which player, truly should be able to vote, as again smurfs come into play. We should create another site at this point which determines who gets to vote. Through many scripts run through every fort, and sumo server, this site will compile all the data from each name and give them a ranking on priority. Then again, a player who is a troll shouldn't get a lot of priority, as they will want to mess up the votes. So another code can be devised to make the number of times you tked someone directly proportional to your ranking. Example, your rating would be 60, but you have 60 tk's: your new rank would be 1; another, your ranking is also 60, but you only have 5 tks: your new rank is 12. Obviously this is where the Judiciary unit comes into play; some players deserve to vote, but will not be able to because of 'discrepancies in the code'. What should we do about age limit? It should be translated in every language listed on "gridstats.com", to make it fair to all people, that is so they understand it fully.
Note: I could write more on this subject, but I have three tests tomorrow, so I will not.
Also I didn't really have time to proofread this, so it is sort of unfinished and not aptly done.
Edit: my point is... this sucks.
Re: Ladle 39
great, we're gonna get disqualified because rules prohibit anyone but teen to remove sage
rules are fun
rules are fun
Re: Ladle 39
There is really no problem here. Sage has said he is playing for TX, not DA. If he does play for DA, well, that's a problem we will sort out after Ladle. Also, DA has a few days left to take care of this.Mkay1 wrote:my point is... this sucks.
@ SageLord: If you really aren't sure who you will play for, the best thing you can do is to not be listed on the Challenge Board at all, and play as a substitute on Ladle day.
Re: Ladle 39
Not the Sagelord situation, I mean how every single minor discrepancy is an infraction. And that we need so many rules.
Re: Ladle 39
**** the rules.
I have REMOVED SAGE FROM DA CAUSE HE STATED THAT HES PLAYING FOR TX.
It was really that simple. Now I'll sit back and see who's going to act like they're the tron police.
I have REMOVED SAGE FROM DA CAUSE HE STATED THAT HES PLAYING FOR TX.
It was really that simple. Now I'll sit back and see who's going to act like they're the tron police.
Re: Ladle 39
Look, everyone here needs to learn to use better discretion when bringing this stuff up. Syllabear did a good job bringing this oversight to our attention, then to the attention of the team leaders involved. This "problem" was really resolved on here on page 3 when Desolate apologized and reversed the edit he made to DA. None of us are responsible for editing DA's team (this means you Cody). That's the responsibility of teEn and 1200, who rarely come here and who I haven't seen in-game either. And there is still time to contact them about this quite trivial matter - trivial because the issue with SageLord was solved on the previous two pages.
Remember, this is not a problem unless SageLord actually plays for both teams. We can contact the leaders of DA anytime within the next 84 hours to resolve this. Just keep a look out. If any of you had actual concern about this you would PM one of those guys (or IM, or whatever) and ask them to take care of it. But no, it's much easier to complain about nothing instead of doing something. Thanks. I guess I'll do it then.
Remember, this is not a problem unless SageLord actually plays for both teams. We can contact the leaders of DA anytime within the next 84 hours to resolve this. Just keep a look out. If any of you had actual concern about this you would PM one of those guys (or IM, or whatever) and ask them to take care of it. But no, it's much easier to complain about nothing instead of doing something. Thanks. I guess I'll do it then.
Re: Ladle 39
And if we absolutely need rules to deal with this, let "every player is allowed to remove himself from the team he is on" be an obvious exception to the "only team leaders can edit the player list" rule. I mean, what if Troll MacTrollington gets the idea to create a new team and put all the players he doesn't like on it to get them disqualified?
Re: Ladle 39
yeah Z-Man, that's true. Everyone should be able to remove himself, but not add himself.
Mkay: some1 here has got a lot of time...
Mkay: some1 here has got a lot of time...
Re: Ladle 39
About 17 teams signed up:
What happens now? How we play with 17 teams?
1 will won by bye?
The last team have 2 players, gl xD
Its my third ladle, i dont know much about the rules...
What happens now? How we play with 17 teams?
1 will won by bye?
The last team have 2 players, gl xD
Its my third ladle, i dont know much about the rules...
Re: Ladle 39
Having 17 teams means that 15 teams will have a bye in the opening round, and the other 2 play the opening round at 18:00 GMT. In other words the Opening Round is moved back 45 minutes and what is now the opening round becomes the second round.
the only teams that are sure to have a bye in this scenario are the 4 seeds; the rest are randomized.
the only teams that are sure to have a bye in this scenario are the 4 seeds; the rest are randomized.