[PSL9] Week One

[Kizhaz]

28 minutes ago, Zymogen said:

:thonking:

 

If you’d taken the time to actually read the argument, you’d notice that Apes had been doing nothing but trying to promote the battle happening. 

I read the argument, and what I saw was a few people pretending I was avoiding a match in some asinine attempt to get me to make a sub so that your team didn't have to

[Zymogen]

1 hour ago, pachima said:

if you´d taken the time to actually think about the argument, you´d notice that your reply made no sense whatsoever.

Feel free to explain 

 

1 hour ago, Kizhaz said:

I read the argument, and what I saw was a few people pretending I was avoiding a match in some asinine attempt to get me to make a sub so that your team didn't have to

Exactly, we were actively pushing for you to make a sub or for CrissCy to make more time so that our fixture could happen, not delaying and playing for a no contest :]

[Gunthug]

1 minute ago, Zymogen said:

Feel free to explain 

 

Exactly, we were actively pushing for you to make a sub or for CrissCy to make more time so that our fixture could happen, not delaying and playing for a no contest :]

I wouldn't pin that on kizhaz, IMO it was foolish for jj to announce the no contest so early in the week. Had he not, kiz would have been risking an activity loss by not making a sub which outweighs the slight chance of a no contest. The point is moot now for this week since the match happened but in the future, if you want to blame someone for fishing for a NC blame the host who dangles it out there midweek 

[Zymogen]

3 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

I wouldn't pin that on kizhaz, IMO it was foolish for jj to announce the no contest so early in the week. Had he not, kiz would have been risking an activity loss by not making a sub which outweighs the slight chance of a no contest. The point is moot now for this week since the match happened but in the future, if you want to blame someone for fishing for a NC blame the host who dangles it out there midweek 

I understand and completely agree, but you’re missing that my argument in this instance is solely in response to Pachima’s inane comment claiming that we were match evading which, evidently, is far from the case. 

 

E: Just re-read pachima’s post. Misunderstood the “take the whole week to make the match favorable” part. My bad

Edited February 2, 2018 by Zymogen

[DoubleJ]

Lol, the shit was hitting the fan well before I said "no contest".

 

But it's ok, I'll take the fall. 

[gbwead]

49 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

I wouldn't pin that on kizhaz, IMO it was foolish for jj to announce the no contest so early in the week. Had he not, kiz would have been risking an activity loss by not making a sub which outweighs the slight chance of a no contest. The point is moot now for this week since the match happened but in the future, if you want to blame someone for fishing for a NC blame the host who dangles it out there midweek 

The host is absolutely not to blame for being more transparent about his activity decision. The little drama that we had is nothing compared to the havoc that would have happened if JJ had decided to surprise everyone with his activity call at the last minute. In the future, the host should continue addressing issues like these as soon as possible, so that managers know exactly what is at stake.

[DoubleJ]

18 minutes ago, gbwead said:

The host is absolutely not to blame for being more transparent about his activity decision. The little drama that we had is nothing compared to the havoc that would have happened if JJ had decided to surprise everyone with his activity call at the last minute. In the future, the host should continue addressing issues like these as soon as possible, so that managers know exactly what is at stake.

My French Knight =)

[Parke]

Why the fuck are you guys even still crying. Kiz obviously made it clear he didnt want to sub her, which he didnt have to in the end. They played and she lost fair and square. That's much better than an activity loss jesus all people do on here is cry and cry literally

Edited February 2, 2018 by Parke

[Kamimiii]

ANYWAY IT WON'T MATTER, THIS IS A FUCKING ROY ROGERS 8-0 ALERT PEOPLE

[Spaintakula]

21 hours ago, gbwead said:

LMAO, you can't be serious...

LMAO, you can't be this cynical

[Gunthug]

1 hour ago, gbwead said:

The host is absolutely not to blame for being more transparent about his activity decision. The little drama that we had is nothing compared to the havoc that would have happened if JJ had decided to surprise everyone with his activity call at the last minute. In the future, the host should continue addressing issues like these as soon as possible, so that managers know exactly what is at stake.

Is this the same gb who got furious about jj announcing a trade in advance a couple seasons ago because it could have affected the traded players last match with his old team? Asking for a friend who thinks you're often hypocritical 

[gbwead]

12 minutes ago, Spaintakula said:

LMAO, you can't be this cynical

Cringe for attention? Cringe for fun? Cringe for no reason? I legit can't tell which one you are because I don't see how someone can make willingly this little sense.

 

1 minute ago, Gunthug said:

Is this the same gb who got furious about jj announcing a trade in advance a couple seasons ago because it could have affected the traded players last match with his old team? Asking for a friend who thinks you're often hypocritical 

I mean if you can't tell the difference between the two issues, I honnestly feel bad for you. 

[razimove]

I'm just here for the drama.

[Kamimiii]

1 minute ago, Gunthug said:

Is this the same gb who got furious about jj announcing a trade in advance a couple seasons ago because it could have affected the traded players last match with his old team? Asking for a friend who thinks you're often hypocritical 

There is so much difference between those two situations you can't be seriously thinking announcing a NC and announcing a trade at the start of the week has the same impact on the competition ...

[Gunthug]

4 minutes ago, gbwead said:

Cringe for attention? Cringe for fun? Cringe for no reason? I legit can't tell which one you are because I don't see how someone can make willingly this little sense.

 

I mean if you can't tell the difference between the two issues, I honnestly feel bad for you. 

Situation A: Host announces a trade before the end of the week, which reveals information that could potentially have an effect on matches played during that week

 

Situation B: Host announces his intended decision regarding a possible activity call before the end of the week, which reveals information that could potentially have an effect on matches played during that week

 

3 minutes ago, Kamimiii said:

There is so much difference between those two situations you can't be seriously thinking announcing a NC and announcing a trade at the start of the week has the same impact on the competition ...

it may not have the SAME impact, but it does have an impact nonetheless. I don't think transparency is a real issue here, it's not like the decision was made behind closed doors and withheld from PSL - the decision shouldn't have even been made until it needed to be

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Gunthug
affect v effect

[Kizhaz]

I mean it's not like the call being a no contest was anything trivial, I don't feel it would've made a difference

[Gunthug]

3 minutes ago, Kizhaz said:

I mean it's not like the call being a no contest was anything trivial, I don't feel it would've made a difference

It's all about precedent. Don't want someone fishing for a no contest? Don't announce on Thursday that you'll give one. But then again, I've always had a different philosophy on psl and getting matches played 

[gbwead]

2 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

Situation A: Host announces a trade before the end of the week, which reveals information that could potentially have an effect on matches played during that week

 

Situation B: Host announces his intended decision regarding a possible activity call before the end of the week, which reveals information that could potentially have an effect on matches played during that week

Situation A: I ask as a manager for the host to not announce the trade until the end of the week. The host announces the trade publicly and I then end up in a situation where I need to sub in a player that is about to get traded.

Situation B: The host announces to the managers, not the public, what the activity decision will be in the case nothing changes.

When you have no understanding of what you're are talking about, I strongly suggest you change the go-to word you use to describe people from hypocritical to misunderstood.

 

[Gunthug]

6 minutes ago, gbwead said:

Situation B: The host announces to the managers, not the public, what the activity decision will be in the case nothing changes.

 

21 hours ago, DoubleJ said:

Ultimately, both players have availability to compete their match. They are also fortunate to have only a 2 hour time difference.

 

ChrissCy is too tired to play during the week because of a rough work schedule (3am to 4pm).

 

RLotus has family visiting and would like to avoid playing over the weekend. 

 

Neither of these excuses, in my opinion, should warrant a forced substitution. I've tried to intervene and help get the match scheduled but a language barrier and lack of response has prevented me to do so. The goal will be for both players to simply get their match played. RLotus may be willing to play near the deadline. If the match is not played, between these two or by subbed players, it will be a no-contest.

 

6 minutes ago, gbwead said:

When you have no understanding of what you're are talking about....
 

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Gunthug
bolded the part GB seemed to not understand

[gbwead]

That's in response to what everyone already knew. Are you seriously this dense?

[Gunthug]

6 minutes ago, gbwead said:

That's in response to what everyone already knew. Are you seriously this dense?

my dude, the main difference between the two situations which you put in massive bold letters was that the no contest thing wasn't publically announced. So now that I show you, hey, 4 days before the match deadline it was announced in public, you're saying it doesn't matter?

[Kamimiii]

26 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

Situation A: Host announces a trade before the end of the week, which reveals information that could potentially have an effect on matches played during that week

 

Situation B: Host announces his intended decision regarding a possible activity call before the end of the week, which reveals information that could potentially have an effect on matches played during that week

Situation A is way more problematic because the game including a traded player could just end up in a throw, this is totally the opposite of the PSL spirit and yet it would be possible to slightly throw a game and let the opponent win to penalize your old team.

Situation B is about announcing that a tie is going to happen so 1) both sides calm the fuck down 2) they try to find a compromise to get the game played or not 3) if the NC is going to affect the week (aka not 5 wins already), one side can decide to make the sub if they need this game to happen (that's your point about the effect on the week I get it but PSL is strategy and kinda looks like a chess game).

 

26 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

it may not have the SAME impact, but it does have an impact nonetheless. I don't think transparency is a real issue here, it's not like the decision was made behind closed doors and withheld from PSL - the decision shouldn't have even been made until it needed to be

I get it but whatever the host does or says it has impact on the PSL, you can't blame a move for having an impact on the thing, as it'll always have an impact. Here you gotta compare the two situations you talked about, which I'm afraid are not from the same world. I agree on the fact that if JJ kept the thing secret, Kiz would have been forced to make a sub considering the balance was leaning on his side, getting the match played in the end. But it also lets the opportunity to the managers to make a move depending on how well the week is going for them, I think the situation was fair, and the manager that wanted to have a better chance to affect positively the outcome of his week would have been forced to make a sub (let's imagine a 4-3, then you can sub in a player to get the match played so you have a chance to tie. Actually from that point of view JJ's decision was perfect, because at the start both sides weren't agreeing on who should sub, and felt like being penalized if they actually subbed : in the case of a lost week with 3-4, the sub was rewarding for the team that did it).

 

About your 3 quotes to Gb, both teams already aknowledged JJ's decision before his message was posted, it was simply in order to get things announced to the public that wasn't aware of the submarine problem that was happening and just so everyone can argue about this thing because it was an issue that could happen again in the future.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Kamimiii

[gbwead]

2 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

my dude, the main difference between the two situations which you put in massive bold letters was that the no contest thing wasn't publically announced. So now that I show you, hey, 4 days before the match deadline it was announced in public, you're saying it doesn't matter?

First of all, there is a difference between announcing something to the public and clarifying what everyone already knows.

 

Then, we have the fact that announcing a trade to the public has consequences when the players have not been traded yet and could still play. Announcing an activity decision to the public has no consequences if the managers and the players involved already know what is going on. 

 

I have no clue how you can believe these two situations are remotely similar.

[Spaintakula]

I'm not the one replying to everyone and everything in hope of...whatever it is you think you're doing

As I said, cynical, you actually think my 2 posts are attention seeking while half of this thread is you just trying to shittalk anyone that doesn't agree with your pov

[gbwead]

2 minutes ago, Spaintakula said:

I'm not the one replying to everyone and everything in hope of...whatever it is you think you're doing

As I said, cynical, you actually think my 2 posts are attention seeking while half of this thread is you just trying to shittalk anyone that doesn't agree with your pov

Well please explain what your point of view is. What you posted was non sense beyond what I thought was possible, so I might have wrongfully assumed you were trolling. I apologize if you were actually serious. However, if you're just playing the victime again over not being funny, please don't bother replying with more trolling.