[Tournament] General PSL Season 2 Thread - Thug Life won!

[imguridiancity]

Does kili have the biggest upset now?

Nope, makarovmaster's win over BurntZebra in week 2 was also a 23k difference, and since it happened first it maintains the lead. Assuming we're following last season's rules at least. I'm not giving away the underdog prize this time so I don't really make the rules.

[Kiliminati]

Nope, makarovmaster's win over BurntZebra in week 2 was also a 23k difference, and since it happened first it maintains the lead. Assuming we're following last season's rules at least. I'm not giving away the underdog prize this time so I don't really make the rules.

Mfw a Team Mountain player is saying this, hue.

Considering our match had the most money bet on it in the entire existence of the PSL I'm sure it will be at least considered.

[jayfeatskydd]

These upsets

[MIST]

Mfw a Team Mountain player is saying this, hue.

Considering our match had the most money bet on it in the entire existence of the PSL I'm sure it will be at least considered.

just wondering, how does the money bet make a difference on whether or not its more of an upset.

[flavajabari]

just wondering, how does the money bet make a difference on whether or not its more of an upset.

 

it doesn't.

[imguridiancity]

Mfw a Team Mountain player is saying this, hue.

Considering our match had the most money bet on it in the entire existence of the PSL I'm sure it will be at least considered.

Yfw the player who created the underdog award last season and made the rules for it is saying it.

 

Last season for tiebreakers it was "whoever played their match first." That being said, Yangsam donated the ratata this season, so it's up to him. Or ThinkNice, who knows. Makes more sense to stick with the existing rule though.

[Kiliminati]

just wondering, how does the money bet make a difference on whether or not its more of an upset.

Hmm, not sure if delirious or just ignorant. Nowhere did I say "oh this match should definitely overtake makarov's and zebra's match just because more money was bet on it". I was simply insinuating that if the decision came down to a tiebreaker of sorts, variables such as money bet could become relevant in the final decision. Most people (and I'll include myself in this assumption) understand what an upset is, and if the donor for this season (the prior rules for PSL Season 1 regarding upsets are irrelevant) decides to follow the same criteria as set in the past then that's perfectly fine as it's their decision to make. So yes, money bet means next to nothing in terms of which upset is larger, but assuming no larger upset than both of our matches takes place up to the conclusion of the PSL, if the donor decides to not follow the "whoever had the match first wins" criteria, then other variables regarding both matches could very likely be considered.

[imguridiancity]

If several people were willing to bet tons of money for the underdog to win, it's honestly not as much of an upset. Last year nobody would bet anything for cody to beat amanu, and there were people offering massive bets for amanu to beat cody. To me, that makes it more of an upset. But that's a dumb way to break a tie anyway, since it's not remotely consistent.

[MIST]

Hmm, not sure if delirious or just ignorant. Nowhere did I say "oh this match should definitely overtake makarov's and zebra's match just because more money was bet on it". I was simply insinuating that if the decision came down to a tiebreaker of sorts, variables such as money bet could become relevant in the final decision. Most people (and I'll include myself in this assumption) understand what an upset is, and if the donor for this season (the prior rules for PSL Season 1 regarding upsets are irrelevant) decides to follow the same criteria as set in the past then that's perfectly fine as it's their decision to make. So yes, money bet means next to nothing in terms of which upset is larger, but assuming no larger upset than both of our matches takes place up to the conclusion of the PSL, if the donor decides to not follow the "whoever had the match first wins" criteria, then other variables regarding both matches could very likely be considered.

not sure if delirious or just ignorant, but nowhere did i say that your statement was irrelevant/meaningless and couldn't be used as a tie breaker. If you look back I was simply asking a question. 

[Kiliminati]

Yfw the player who created the underdog award last season and made the rules for it is saying it.
 
Last season for tiebreakers it was "whoever played their match first." That being said, Yangsam donated the ratata this season, so it's up to him. Or ThinkNice, who knows. Makes more sense to stick with the existing rule though.

Oh don't worry, I read that you were the original person to "create" the underdog rule last season the first time. But unfortunately the rules you enforced last season are only relevant for that particular PSL, as in the end each donor can create any rules they want; it's their award. So I'm somewhat confused as to why you think that it would make sense for your criteria to be followed every season by each new donor as the only person with a say in their decision is whoever donated the prize, which would be their self. That and the difference in purchase prices between each 2 competitors, but that goes without saying, as it's the entire premise between deciding who the potential underdog award recipient(s) could be.

[Gunthug]

The campaigning is real

[imguridiancity]

Oh don't worry, I read that you were the original person to "create" the underdog rule last season the first time. But unfortunately the rules you enforced last season are only relevant for that particular PSL, as in the end each donor can create any rules they want; it's their award. So I'm somewhat confused as to why you think that it would make sense for your criteria to be followed every season by each new donor as the only person with a say in their decision is whoever donated the prize, which would be their self. That and the difference in purchase prices between each 2 competitors, but that goes without saying, as it's the entire premise between deciding who the potential underdog award recipient(s) could be.

Aww, lil buddy, I don't think you quite understand how quotation marks work. I did create the Underdog award, and laid out the tiebreaking procedure in case two people had the same differential. So the quotation marks there don't quite make sense, but it was a good effort. In the absence of a rule change, it's generally assumed that the old rules hold true. It's also poor form to change the rules midseason, since it can lead to favoritism. But again, not my award not my problem. He could even say "actually, only multiples of 7000 count" but that would be about as dumb as deciding a tiebreaker on subjective criteria.

 

I get how badly you want that shiny rat, but you're being daft.

[MIST]

my spidey senses are giving off a lot of good smack talk vibes right now

[DoubleJ]

=)

[Kiliminati]

If several people were willing to bet tons of money for the underdog to win, it's honestly not as much of an upset. Last year nobody would bet anything for cody to beat amanu, and there were people offering massive bets for amanu to beat cody. To me, that makes it more of an upset. But that's a dumb way to break a tie anyway, since it's not remotely consistent.

Wait, are you implying that potential tie-breaking conditions such as total money bet should remain consistent with each match regarding an underdog? If conditions were to in fact be consistent with one another, then what would be the point of deciding on viable tie-breaking scenarios? There wouldn't be any scenario that set one underdog apart from another, thus defeating the purpose of a tie-breaker completely. Dat logic.

not sure if delirious or just ignorant, but nowhere did i say that your statement was irrelevant/meaningless and couldn't be used as a tie breaker. If you look back I was simply asking a question.

I failed to locate a question mark in your earlier response, which would make it more of a statement than a question wouldn't you agree? Also you implied that my post was irrelevant as nowhere did you show any sort of concession in your reply. I think I'll go with delirious, kek.

[ThinkNice]

B1tch stfu Im keeping that rat, rightfully scammed

 

I make the rules here phags, and I'm keeping the old rules since yangsam never gave me a request for a new one

 

Gg I win, #teammountain

[MIST]

Wait, are you implying that potential tie-breaking conditions such as total money bet should remain consistent with each match regarding an underdog? If conditions were to in fact be consistent with one another, then what would be the point of deciding on viable tie-breaking scenarios? There wouldn't be any scenario that set one underdog apart from another, thus defeating the purpose of a tie-breaker completely. Dat logic.

I failed to locate a question mark in your earlier response, which would make it more of a statement than a question wouldn't you agree? Also you implied that my post was irrelevant as nowhere did you show any sort of concession in your reply. I think I'll go with delirious, kek.

listen bud. Im not trying to argue. I was just a little unclear on something and you decided to go off on this rant. Honestly, nobody really cares that much and you are just kind of looking desperate for this prize and a bit of a uguu.

 

 

Must give props tho. The dude knows how to construct an argument

 

EDIT: Damn you pokemmo and your censorship

[imguridiancity]

Wait, are you implying that potential tie-breaking conditions such as total money bet should remain consistent with each match regarding an underdog? If conditions were to in fact be consistent with one another, then what would be the point of deciding on viable tie-breaking scenarios? There wouldn't be any scenario that set one underdog apart from another, thus defeating the purpose of a tie-breaker completely. Dat logic.

jesus christ, do you not understand the concept of consistency? It refers to a set of rules that when followed will produce the same result every time. God damn, I can't believe I actually had to explain that. When you go by "well if the bets were kinda high and this match seemed more exciting, and maybe the game was kinda close?" you have a very inconsistent rule, because depending on who's judging it and their mood at that particular time, you can end up with different results. A consistent rule would be one where it's clear who the winner is and doesn't require a discussion or a judge to decide who actually won.

 

edit: thinknice ftw

[Kiliminati]

Aww, lil buddy, I don't think you quite understand how quotation marks work. I did create the Underdog award, and laid out the tiebreaking procedure in case two people had the same differential. So the quotation marks there don't quite make sense, but it was a good effort. In the absence of a rule change, it's generally assumed that the old rules hold true. It's also poor form to change the rules midseason, since it can lead to favoritism. But again, not my award not my problem. He could even say "actually, only multiples of 7000 count" but that would be about as dumb as deciding a tiebreaker on subjective criteria.
 
I get how badly you want that shiny rat, but you're being daft.

I appreciate your concern with how I utilize quotation marks, but I decided to place them there because (surprise surprise) the underdog award isn't anything unique that you came up with, you simply adopted the ideology in regards to it. I'm glad you finally realized however that it isn't your award this time around, which again makes question why you mentioned the prior season's rule to begin with.

And no, I could care less about the rat, I would be happy with Makarov receiving it for a job well done :) my reward came from earning my friends a shitton of money from that match. Also I'm not being daft; rather, you're just being obtuse.

[spoiler]my god mauru this IS fun, still not on your level tho :/[/spoiler]

[Kiliminati]

jesus christ, do you not understand the concept of consistency? It refers to a set of rules that when followed will produce the same result every time. God damn, I can't believe I actually had to explain that. When you go by "well if the bets were kinda high and this match seemed more exciting, and maybe the game was kinda close?" you have a very inconsistent rule, because depending on who's judging it and their mood at that particular time, you can end up with different results. A consistent rule would be one where it's clear who the winner is and doesn't require a discussion or a judge to decide who actually won.

edit: thinknice ftw

Sigh, this is why they say you can't argue with an idiot because he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. Oh well, at this point it's just lecturing to deaf ears and not even really shit talking.

Also grats to Makarov then for being the current rat bearer ^_^

[flavajabari]

B1tch stfu Im keeping that rat, rightfully scammed

 

I make the rules here phags, and I'm keeping the old rules since yangsam never gave me a request for a new one

 

Gg I win, #teammountain

 

go to sleep

[DrCraig]

Yea, you eat pizza with a fork loser

[Kiliminati]

go to sleep

Why should he sleep when he can attempt to be funny for his friends kek

[BurntZebra]

/w makarovmaster so we're going to split the profit, right

[MIST]

Its safe to say that I am extremely disappointed in how quickly that died out