Kapoks Forums: Knit - Viewing Profile

Emerald, on 17 November 2011 - 08:00 AM, said:

I was interested but didn't expect to have so little free time. Otherwise, at least this is something we can agree on.

Emerald, on 17 November 2011 - 08:00 AM, said:

Well, you did a very good job of making it sound like you would trust my judgement even if you didn't necessarily agree with it. It's not like you were very forthcoming with any conversation either. In truth, I was waiting, hoping, for you to bring it up with me directly. Alas, we haven't really spoken for weeks...

And I am incensed that you used me like you did. I thought you had more respect for me than that (as per the "trusting my judgement" line above) so I'm hardly going to congratulate you for treating me like a mug infront of everyone. Don't know if you can tell, but I've taken it rather personally.

Emerald, on 16 November 2011 - 08:40 PM, said:

My ruling was based on the ruleset that would've been written had it not been overlooked. Maybe nothing unexpected ever happens to you. Well done. But I appreciate that unforseen circumstances are a legitimate possibility - I would've written the rules to reflect this and treated everyone similarly, within the bounds of sound reasoning of course.



You gave us the false impression that I had any say in this so that it doesn't come across as "The Dan Show?" That's funny, I was working under the false impression that you had any decision-making authority in this competition whatsoever...

Seriously though, if the decision was already made, in your mind, from the start, then what was there to discuss in the first place? What an absolute joke. Hey, The Dan Show must go on...

My position is now totally untenable, considering that you have just publicly undermined my "authority." Therefore I am withdrawing my input altogether. Furthermore, my head is in a place where I no longer feel comfortable participating in this competition.



Thank you everyone. Farewell

Brief match previews added

Why did I ignore Kempo's vote?

It looks like we're harvesting votes in order to skew the poll results. Let me just go and fetch votes from about a dozen of my RA2 buddies who also play SC2?

Forgive me if it isn't what it looks like, but nonetheless I explicitly asked for votes from the current base of players for a reason. The current issue (broken rules without documented consequences) is unique to this season and thus I am only interested in the views of the people that this affects directly.

If Kempo wishes to play with us next season then that's fantastic! He is more than welcome to have his say on these matters when we're in a position to start planning season three and review the current season when it's finished.


The "crazy" third poll option

Yeah, I agree, it's absolutely NUTS! But I wanted to measure the level of interest in an idea that meets somewhere in or around the middle, seeing as it's my mistake that got us into this mess I don't think it's entirely fair that either Gaz or DHK should pay over the odds for it.

Clearly there was little interest in it, but someone DID vote for it so maybe it wasn't so outrageous after all?


What's the point of the poll if the majority vote isn't considered?

The poll was a chance for the players to decide for us but only a landslide victory would've triggered an automatic decision. While I was hoping more people had voted for option two, I fully expected a clear and decisive winner in option one. Deon can actually quote me on that.
However, the margin is too slender, 4-5 out of 9 is hardly convincing. It might as well be a draw.

If I wanted a draw, I wouldn't have even put it to a poll. A draw doesn't help us. A draw means pretty much half of the group will be unsatisfied. A draw makes my life difficult because the decision then has to come from elsewhere.


Am I showing favourable treatment to someone I know from everday life?

Hell no! I reject these accusations and am infact deeply offended by them. Replace "DHK" with "Deon" in this scenario and I will still defend what I think is the right course of action.


What good are the rules if they can be so easily disrespected? A rule was broken and there is no punishment?

Well, there's the thing, the rules are incomplete. I have pointed this out multiple times now, I have apologised more than once, and I apologise once again!

If it said in the rules that responsibility for failure to complete a fixture results in a loss by default, then I'm almost certain the match would've been played! Either that or the sanction would've been accepted. But I wouldn't have written that ruling in that generalised format because I don't wholly agree with it. It's more complicated than the black-and-white that some are painting it in.

The rules for a competition of this nature need to accommodate for the unpredicatbility of our everyday lives. As much as we should respect the rules in the first place, the rules must also respect us as people. A complete rulebook should reflect this, hence the "wildcard" idea that is now being proposed.

Punishments must follow bad behaviour leading to the breaking of one of our rules, i.e. severe recklessness or manipulating the system to seek an advantage or repeat offending.
Dave's recklessness in last season's incident was intentional and severe. In hindsight, the match should've been defaulted.
If Dave was reckless this time around, it was neither intentional nor was it anything sinister. But there was only one vote for option three and nobody suggested a more appropriate, more fitting alternative.


"This ruling should be added into the rules straight away and used next season"

I suppose my decision to reschedule was trying to be consistent with something along the lines of the "wildcard" concept, which probably isn't very clear from my previous post. I'm sorry about that.

It is understood, as per this concept, that certain circumstances can be excused, right? Unforseen circumstances would be excused sparingly, mostly only the once? So why is it so difficult to excuse this particular instance? Or, and I don't like to ask, is it actually personal? OR is the issue with the communication "breakdown" earlier that week?


So do we automatically get to reschedule EVERY match that is abandoned?

No! It all depends on the players' efforts within the respective timeframes. The right to reschedule has been offered for an honest effort and a perfectly legitimate situation, which can happen to any of us.

There's a difference between doing it to abuse to the system, and doing it because you have to.


What is the point of this league? Is it competitive? Or just "a bunch of friendlies?"

It's a bit of both, why do the two qualities have to be mutually exclusive? If you're in it just for the competition and don't like the friendly atmosphere we wish to bring then go Quick Match instead or find a different league to play in!

We're all friends here, so this is by definition a friendly league between us. I'd like to think we have something here where we don't all slaughter our mates for the slightest misdemeanors; let's just say "hey, that wasn't right, we really don't like it, either don't do it again or accept the consequences," and patch up our rules in accordance.

BUT this is still a competitive event that we are trying to execute with some professionalism and to determine the best player amongst us.



I hope that all makes sense. I'm trying really hard to explain myself, to be understanding of all viewpoints, and be as fair as possible. If you still believe I'm wrong then fair enough. I have accepted that I'm the one who is massively at fault here and welcome any further criticisms or even suggestions that I take punishment to my own season's performance.

I just want this saga to be over, put behind us, and we can look forward to an improved league experience as we continue to build.

Thank you

Emerald, on 14 November 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

Yeah, from non-league!