23 replies to this topic

[Unladen Swallow]

Nortom - I think everyone has realised that by now. Thank you for your contribution nonetheless.

Edited by Unladen Swallow, 05 May 2017 - 01:33 PM.

[Lonello]

I answered there was no room for interpretation - the rules did not need to be interpreted - they were clear.

If you are willing to ignore/over-ride/retrospectively change rules - then this would in most cases make rules less useful, but that is not to say that using the rules merely as guidelines would never be the best course of action.

And to correct you, sevenseas was asked if he would be willing to play the game (as TC did consider all options available before making a decision).

 

OK then I had faulty information. Fake news. But the point remains if TC I (past) and TC III (future) see room for interpretation, then TC II (present) can keep arguing there's retrospectively changing rules needed all they want.

 

All the merrier that even TC II apparantly did investigate thouroughly the option to have the game played. I think TC II as less as I want to retrospectively change rules. So maybe there's room for interpretation in that room for interpretation.

 

Anyway, even with the option I endorsed an unwilling sevenseas would have caused Nortrom to win fair&square too so the win was, is and always will be his. And I guess this is no longer about the Alias Register so I better shut up while I'm ahead    Lo OUT !

[Unladen Swallow]

And to correct you, sevenseas was asked if he would be willing to play the game

 

This is false. Alex had a conversation about the final match with me, but apart from that I heard nothing from TC officially.

 

Even if I were asked, I would decline. I do not see why a DQ'ed player should be re-enlisted as a tie breaker. TheO's TC alienated me, and there never was a warm welcome back or even an acknowledgement (the rule 'Banned players may not participate' was silently removed). I have to remain incognito. The situation was hot for 1/2 days but then it cooled down, and admin went on their regular 2 month sabbatical. 

 

It's all because of the rules fetishism (Lo's words, not mine). Common sense should always prevail, even if it means changing a rule mid-tourney

Edited by Unladen Swallow, 05 May 2017 - 05:32 PM.

[TheOptician]

i can't remember the source, but we thought you had said you would play.

I'm sorry you feel isolated by TC. We had to consider that the situation was hot and any action perceived as contradicting admin might invoke further trouble for the committee. We did voice public opinion against the decision and the feedback we got from admin privately was there was zero chance of any reversal of decision. We were also aware that TC may have been seen to favour their own member had we over-ridden a rule.