Jump to content


Round 3 pairings and Predictions

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#21 LearningThisGame



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 14 November 2013 - 07:01 AM

I'm really sorry for addressing that I have here.
lock the TOPIC  saying  Τhe BOOK of INCIDENTS and COMPLAINTS
Why? Do not like in appearance; made ​​you so bad? thank you LearningThisGame








Be careful about making hasty assumptions. I am not a member of the Tournament Committee, so I could care less - on a personal level - if some criticism of the Tournament Committee "looks bad." Frankly, I think you are completely mistaken regarding the point of the rules. You are, of course, entitled to your perspective. I thank you for sharing your thoughts, but the matter is now really no longer worthy of debate given the Tournament Committee has rendered its decision.


To be clear for you, the thread you created was originally locked because it was devolving into an exchange of insults. Debate is welcomed; insults are not.




How can I help you?

#22 Dekaeneas-Spy



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 14 November 2013 - 02:23 PM

Dekaeneas-Spy: I suddenly saw the topic be locked when it sent the letter of the karaiskakis opening. Karaiskakis said the things as they were, and begged me not to continue to talk about this topic. Did you write ago the intervention Karaiskaki:



I am closing this topic. There is really no more conversation to be had, here. 


Manning2Cruz, please watch your language. No need to be calling Dekaeneas names.


Dekaeneas, I understand your frustration, but there are times when the spirit of the rule is meant to be followed and not necessarily a strict conservative interpretation of every rule. 


As explained before, the purpose of the "two account" clause was to prevent people from trying to get multiple entries into the tournament. No such thing happened in this case. 


A reasonable justification was also given for why a different name (GameOver) was used. This has resulted in no dispute among the players involved.


The only thing you can really argue is that Manning2Cruz and SATAN-NL conspired to cheat in some way or to misrepresent the outcome of their theoretical game. I don't think this is what you are trying to say. Thus, let us move on and take note of your concern for future tournaments where the rules will continue to be improved and refined. 




As for your point over screenshots, I agree that could have been better handled. But, again, the point of rules is not to fault everyone for every little technicality, bur rather to provide structure and a framework for fair play. If the main objective has been met (getting a reasonable report of the game outcome), then the main purpose has been met. Eventually screenshots were provided anyway, so we are fine.



(forum moderator, not a member of the tournament committee)


Dekaeneas-Spy: Did you write such after the letter KARAISKAKIS:



Apparently there is still room for discussion/debate, so I have unlocked the thread. However, if the thread starts to go back towards name calling and insults, I will lock it again.


Thanks for your understanding.





Dekaeneas-Spy: I had good behavior, regardless if i disagree with all the other players who were discussing the rules.

This issue has been over by 5 days and you too comest now open debate again (telling me that I am wrong as regards the rules).

Αfter 5 days you remembered to my answer? Does he like me remember that I was wrong on the rules? THANKS you, my friend LTG.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users