Kansas, Iowa, Missouri Brawl Circuit Thread! UPDATED 3/12/10

[MJG]

Even though this doesn't apply to me, I enjoy and support Nicole's opinion, to an extent.


However...


I have a few concerns. First, what happens if one person places twice for circuit points? Granted it's a long shot, it's still in the realm of possibility. This just seems too abusable in my opinion. I mean, let's say the top 2 teams at SLAST decide to mix up the teams by one person and still manage to consistently place top 2 at the following events. That would be two separate teams with roughly the same points in the end. The top 4 teams in the circuit would be the same four people. That would be disgusting.

Also, giving out team points individually is unfair in my opinion. This is because, let's use myself, Fino and MJG as examples again. I team with Fino for 3 tournaments (including the championship) and take 5th at all 3. Then I team at the other 3 with MJG and place 7th all 3 times. This implies that Fino and myself will have more combined points BUT Fino did not EARN the points that I won with MJG nor did I EARN the points Fino gained without me.

^This pretty much explains why we have the doubles circuit points system set up the way that we do.

It wouldn't be fair if one player in the circuit dominated doubles by teaming with 6 other people for each circuit event.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Yeah, there's no good way to give teams points to an individual without messing something up or being waaaay unfair and worse off than how it already is.

If you can't team with the same person, that sucks, but there isn't really anything that can be done.

 

[Rob_Gambino]

If someone is that good and can place that well having 6 different partners, then they deserve multiple spots. Same concept as you guys saying well if someone is going to win our circuit by just coming to an event or two, then they deserve that money. This makes playing doubles/finding teammates even harder than it already is.

 

[fource]

Perhaps we should present both points of view with arguments set out in a professional manner. Then post both sides into each individual State's discussion threads and then put a poll up on this thread. I don't think this is a subject that will change points of views due to it's subjectivity (Nicole is guaranteed to have multiple partners while Fino and I most likely won't for example). This is just one way to find a possible 'solution.'

 

[Dnyce]

I will discuss this with the other representatives when I can. Please be patient as Rauleen doesn't have a working computer and iowa is inconvenient to contact. We will try to come up with a fair solution to, hopefully, please both sides.

 

[Cook]

Eliminate doubles and do free-for-all tournaments instead!

 

[Yink]

I will discuss this with the other representatives when I can. Please be patient as Rauleen doesn't have a working computer and iowa is inconvenient to contact. We will try to come up with a fair solution to, hopefully, please both sides.

You know, you can text me whenever, and I'm on AIM all the time because it's on my phone.

So that's a john.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Nicole is guaranteed to have multiple partners

Nicole is guaranteed to have multiple partners

Nicole is guaranteed to have multiple partners

AAAAAAHHHHHhahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaaaaa

 

[Stealth Raptor]

LOL **** metal showing the subliminal message

 

[Steeler]

MMM gettin on that between the lines **** right there

 

[MJG]

Oh god lol.


MMM goin in HARD

 

[Cook]

AAAAAAHHHHHhahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaaaaa

Dayuuuuummm, dat's hawt.



Anyway, I think you all might be ********. I hadn't really thought about it before because I just assumed you guys knew what you were talking about, but now that I have thought about it I don't see what the problem is with handing out points to individuals rather than teams. In fact, giving points to teams rather than players is more likely to **** things up than just giving points to players.

Ok, from what I can tell you guys are worried that if players get points rather than teams, then that will mean a player could place in multiple spots at the end. This is not true. In fact, this can only happen if the teams are given points. Let's say I team with two different people throughout the circuit. There are six events, so I win three with one partner and three with the other partner. Both teams are now tied for first, so I would win money for both placings. This is what you are trying to prevent, right?

So, let's say we assign points to players. Using the earlier scenario, let's say each player gets 60 points for 1st. At the end of the circuit I have 360 points, and each of my partners has 180 points plus whatever other points they got at the other events. Basically, you just determine an amount of points for each placing and then both players on the team with that placing get that many points.

Now, if you do things this way then it can create a problem at the end because it's not really a TEAM that wins 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. in teams, but does that really matter? Personally, I would suggest that two people should be selected for each placing. That is, the two players with the most points both win 1st in teams, then the next two players win 2nd, etc. I think this is better than giving out 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. to individuals because it IS doubles, so in my opinion twice as many people should be eligible to win money at the end of the circuit as compared to singles. Also, if two people do play together and earn enough points, then they actually can place as a team.

So, maybe I'm just missing what you guys are saying, but this seems like the best way to me... maybe other people see a problem?

 

[Dnyce]

Or we could run two singles events as Cook suggests.

 

[Tmacc]

Dayuuuuummm, dat's hawt.



Anyway, I think you all might be ********. I hadn't really thought about it before because I just assumed you guys knew what you were talking about, but now that I have thought about it I don't see what the problem is with handing out points to individuals rather than teams. In fact, giving points to teams rather than players is more likely to **** things up than just giving points to players.

Ok, from what I can tell you guys are worried that if players get points rather than teams, then that will mean a player could place in multiple spots at the end. This is not true. In fact, this can only happen if the teams are given points. Let's say I team with two different people throughout the circuit. There are six events, so I win three with one partner and three with the other partner. Both teams are now tied for first, so I would win money for both placings. This is what you are trying to prevent, right?

So, let's say we assign points to players. Using the earlier scenario, let's say each player gets 60 points for 1st. At the end of the circuit I have 360 points, and each of my partners has 180 points plus whatever other points they got at the other events. Basically, you just determine an amount of points for each placing and then both players on the team with that placing get that many points.

Now, if you do things this way then it can create a problem at the end because it's not really a TEAM that wins 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. in teams, but does that really matter? Personally, I would suggest that two people should be selected for each placing. That is, the two players with the most points both win 1st in teams, then the next two players win 2nd, etc. I think this is better than giving out 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. to individuals because it IS doubles, so in my opinion twice as many people should be eligible to win money at the end of the circuit as compared to singles. Also, if two people do play together and earn enough points, then they actually can place as a team.

So, maybe I'm just missing what you guys are saying, but this seems like the best way to me... maybe other people see a problem?

Quoted for truth. This is what I was thinking should happen when I asked about it earlier. It makes it much easier on everyone, and in my opinion, is the most fair option.

 

[MJG]

Harhar

Then everybody already knows the winners of this ghetto circuit.


Bee bop sha doop deeeee whoooooop

We da bess. LISTEN!

 

[MetalMusicMan]

What Cook is saying is pointless because then you might as well just run two singles events... oh my god I'm agreeing with Fino.

You can't give individual points for a team competition and still have it work out. The results end up skewed or arbitrary... "oh, you got the most points so YOU get first for 'your team' but your partner gets 4th, even though all of his 'other teams' sucked, except the one he was on with you"...

That's just dumb. Why would we even bother doing a doubles circuit if we did it that way? We wouldn't, because it would be a waste.

This is basically like saying we should give people singles points because they couldn't make it to a particular event. We're just giving them points because their PARTNER couldn't make it to an event. Either way it's pointless.



If you can't team with the same person, then that sucks... that's all there really is to it. It's either that or we don't run a doubles circuit. We can still play doubles at each event though, of course.

 

[Cook]

Wtf, how is it the same as having two singles circuits? To win the doubles circuit you have to be GOOD AT DOUBLES, to win the singles circuit you have to be GOOD AT SINGLES. If you do it the way I said then the top doubles players are rewarded, which is how it should be, rather than giving some people the shaft because their partners can't make it to every tournament and instead handing over the money to players who aren't as good at doubles.

There is nothing skewed or arbitrary about it because THE BEST PEOPLE WIN. Nothing gets messed up; if a team is good and teams for every event, then guess what? They have just as much of a chance at placing as everyone else! In fact, giving points to teams rather than individuals is the way to come out with skewed results because the top placing teams may not have actually done all that well at the individual events.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

If you can't make the tournament, then you can't make it... I don't understand what else there is to say... if a team goes to every tournament and plays together, they should get rewarded more than a team that only makes it to one or two tournaments, you know, because they ACTUALLY SHOWED UP.

If you have a problem with rewarding teams for ACTUALLY BEING TEAMS and ACTUALLY SHOWING UP then why don't we just skip the doubles part of the circuit and run non-circuited doubles events at each tournament? That would be the obvious solution, not some weird single-player-rewarding "doubles" circuit.

 

[Cook]

The players who have to find a different partner ARE showing up, though. It's just with a new partner. If they can place well with that partner also, then they are obviously good at doubles and so they should place in the circuit, not mediocre teams who win by default.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

You seem to assume that any team that shows up to every event is "mediocre"...and that somehow the best players won't show up to every event, or won't have enough points from winning or placing well at the ones that they do show up to.

This is silly.

 

[Cook]

The players who have to find a different partner ARE showing up, though. It's just with a new partner. If they can place well with that partner also, then they are obviously good at doubles and so they should place in the circuit, not mediocre teams who win by default.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Again, you are assuming that only the mediocre teams will show up... or that only the good teams will somehow not be able to... plus, since when is showing up not a requirement for getting credit for something?

 

[Nicole]

What Cook is saying is pointless because then you might as well just run two singles events... oh my god I'm agreeing with Fino.

You can't give individual points for a team competition and still have it work out. The results end up skewed or arbitrary... "oh, you got the most points so YOU get first for 'your team' but your partner gets 4th, even though all of his 'other teams' sucked, except the one he was on with you"...

That's just dumb. Why would we even bother doing a doubles circuit if we did it that way? We wouldn't, because it would be a waste.

This is basically like saying we should give people singles points because they couldn't make it to a particular event. We're just giving them points because their PARTNER couldn't make it to an event. Either way it's pointless.



If you can't team with the same person, then that sucks... that's all there really is to it. It's either that or we don't run a doubles circuit. We can still play doubles at each event though, of course.

How do the results end up skewed? The people who get the most points get first in doubles. The two top people, regardless of whether they team or not, would be awarded the prize of first place in doubles. Certainly good teams with no rotation in partners would be more likely to place well, wouldn't you say? If Domo and MJG team and get first at every circuit, then they'd both win first, regardless of whether we did the point distribution my way or your way. However, if Watkins and I team for the first two events, and we get first, and then Watkins leaves, and I then team with Legan and we win first twice...then in theory, we might have to mail money to Watkins, because Corey + me would have the same amount of points as Watkins + me. That's ****ing ********. Doing the circuit by teams instead of individually is what would skew the results.

And reward people for showing up? If you show up, you have a chance to get points, and it shoudn't matter whether your TEAM shows up. In fact, it would be stupid to punish people for having their partner NOT show up. It's not teammate A's fault that teammate B couldn't show up, but they are punished for it all the same. I think that we should reward people for showing up...and we should reward them INDIVIDUALLY for showing up INDIVIDUALLY. The person that doesn't show up would be punished by not having a chance to win points. But the person that does show up shouldn't share the same unpleasant consequences.

Individual points mean that the best two people at doubles win first. I don't see why this is a problem. Really, it would be interesting to see who those two people are. Of course, what sort of chance a player has to shine does depend on how good their partner is. If M2k had to team with a Lv. 9 Snake, he wouldn't do particularly well, just as someone whose partner doesn't show up may do worse with a different partner, or may have to team with someone who isn't that great. So the system would still reward teams for sticking together, but it would also give players a chance to team with better partners, switch partners, and place in the doubles circuit even if they couldn't keep the same partner. I think alot of people have fun teaming with different friends and I certainly don't think it's worth punishing them. I also think that many people have fun teaming with the same person for every event, and I don't think they should be punished either. Just because people have different feelings about teaming doesn't mean that we should reward one view and **** on the other opinion.

Anyways, I think we should do what Four Rice said and have a debate and a poll on this, because it's rather important. I don't think I'm very good at saying what I want to say online, so hopefully some other people can help me out.

 

[Cook]

^What she said.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

lol, okay first of all, what I said isn't "my way" of doing teams. It's how teams work in a circuit and the only way they can work. I'm not advocating my own idea, I'm just stating how it works, because it's a TEAM competition.

Where have you ever seen a circuit event in your life that had people mixing and matching "teams" of players and still being in a team competition? Nowhere, because that wouldn't be a team event.

A "team" is a collection of specific players, not a revolving door.

If you don't understand the issues with individually giving points to people who are supposed to be competing in a TEAM event, then I don't know what else to say except that you two are being as ridiculous as usual when it comes to making arbitrary crap up and calling it "competition".

You're trying to "give everyone a fair chance to get points because not everyone can team with the same person the whole time"... yeah, some people can't find a team mate for a whole circuit event, it happens... it's a totally irrelevant fact because it will always happen. "Giving everyone a fair chance", as you put it, does nothing but completely diminish the entire point of a teams competition and invalidate the results.



Also, your situation of "You + Watkins" and "You + Legan" having the same amount of points wouldn't exist, because you enter the circuit as a team, so you wouldn't be able to enter TWICE by joining it with another team... If you enter the circuit with Watkins, you can't also enter the circuit with Legan... OBVIOUSLY that would be stupid.



I really have no further interest in "arguing" with you and Cook back and forth about something that should need no argument... so do whatever you want, it will be absolutely ******** if you do it "your way" but I don't care to talk about it any more, lol.




The only way that you could accomplish getting more players able to team with each other but still getting a reward is by using rosters, but that would take a lot of organization and extra effort from people to manage them.

I.E. we could possibly have teams with rosters of players to chose from, kind of like how they do it in FPS's or WoW. So for instance there could be a team with Nicole/Watkins/Buttface Mcgee and the three of them are only allowed to play with each other, and they can't enter more than one "team" into a tournament. Then whatever place that "roster" finishes in, they get awarded points and split the money between each player. Teams that didn't ever use more than 2 players would just be a "2 player roster".

Another example is Joker, i.e. there could be a "Joker's Roster" with Me, Razer, and Joker on it. Only 2 people on Joker's roster could enter per tournament, so if all 3 of us went to the same tournament, we couldn't all play. However if 2 of us went to one tournament, and another 2 went to another tournament, "Joker's Roster" could participate in each event. Of course we would also have to define how many people were the max for a roster, etc.

That would work, but again, it's probably just going to cause waaaaaaaaaaaay more work than it's worth, which is why you don't normally see rosters unless it's a larger scaled or sponsored event.

 

[MJG]

Wtf, how is it the same as having two singles circuits? To win the doubles circuit you have to be GOOD AT DOUBLES, to win the singles circuit you have to be GOOD AT SINGLES. If you do it the way I said then the top doubles players are rewarded, which is how it should be, rather than giving some people the shaft because their partners can't make it to every tournament and instead handing over the money to players who aren't as good at doubles.

mmmm....first thing that I bolded seemed almost biased...but to be honest, doubles is a "teams" FYI...it is a team event. You either win entire tourney or lose because of the "Team" structure that you and your "partner" dish out.

There is nothing skewed or arbitrary about it because THE BEST PEOPLE WIN. Nothing gets messed up; if a team is good and teams for every event, then guess what? They have just as much of a chance at placing as everyone else! In fact, giving points to teams rather than individuals is the way to come out with skewed results because the top placing teams may not have actually done all that well at the individual events.


Nope actually, atomsk was the best at our tourney and he still only took 3rd in doubles. And your last statement was pretty dumb cook...just look at it..."individual events"...
I pulled up to my house around 7 or 8 and I yelled to the cab yo holms smell ya later

Responses in bold

I pulled up to my house around 7 or 8 and I yelled to the cab yo holms smell ya later

 

[fource]

I...I was only gone for 5 hours...and so much bullshi* accumulated...

Look, I plan on keeping the same partner for all 6 events. And quite frankly, I plan on placing at all 6 events. If an off number of people place above my partner and I, what happens? That would bump one of us down to 2nd from 1st or to 3rd from 2nd or to nothing from 3rd. What happens then? I'll be ****ed if I place anywhere but with my partner because we'll have made it there TOGETHER.


A team is only as good as it's weakest link. So if your team points are jeopardized because of your choice in teammates then that's your own dam* fault. Besides, it's rare, to say the least, that makeshift teams place high, let alone tourney to tourney. So it doesn't matter to me whether or not you guys switch around, it does matter when you guys try to award INDIVIDUALS for a TEAM effort.

 

[Nicole]

lol, okay first of all, what I said isn't "my way" of doing teams. It's how teams work in a circuit and the only way they can work. I'm not advocating my own idea, I'm just stating how it works, because it's a TEAM competition.

Where have you ever seen a circuit event in your life that had people mixing and matching "teams" of players and still being in a team competition? Nowhere, because that wouldn't be a team event.
Well yeah, because most team events are more structured, and, you know...planned. And coached. And there are tryouts for teams, and one person picks exactly who they want on their team. None of these options are available to us, so this comparison isn't the same. Mixing and matching teams and being in a team competition isn't the same for smash tournaments as it is for IRL team competitions.


A "team" is a collection of specific players, not a revolving door.
Why? I could define a brawl "team" as something different - 2 players collaborating for one tournament. I don't care what the definition of "team" in any context besides brawl tournaments is, because we're not talking about that.

If you don't understand the issues with individually giving points to people who are supposed to be competing in a TEAM event, then I don't know what else to say except that you two are being as ridiculous as usual when it comes to making arbitrary crap up and calling it "competition".
You're trying to "give everyone a fair chance to get points because not everyone can team with the same person the whole time"... yeah, some people can't find a team mate for a whole circuit event, it happens... it's a totally irrelevant fact because it will always happen. "Giving everyone a fair chance", as you put it, does nothing but completely diminish the entire point of a teams competition and invalidate the results.
Also, your situation of "You + Watkins" and "You + Legan" having the same amount of points wouldn't exist, because you enter the circuit as a team, so you wouldn't be able to enter TWICE by joining it with another team... If you enter the circuit with Watkins, you can't also enter the circuit with Legan... OBVIOUSLY that would be stupid.

So you're saying that if I team with Watkins for one or two events, I can't ever team with anyone else and get circuit points. Isn't that obviously stupid? Even if my partner and I got first in doubles, we wouldn't get any circuit points, and the second place team (who didn't win) they'd get whatever points we would have gotten. I bet someone will be really willing to team with me for doubles, then, if they can't get any circuit points for teaming with me regardless of whether we win or not.

All competitions are meant to be as fair as possible to every player/team. Brawl is no different. That's what the counterpick system, the stagelist, and certain rules are put in place for. Competition is, by definition, the test to see who is the best at something on the most level playing field there can be. So yeah, I do think it matters that this teams competition is fair, and that everyone has a fair chance to do equally well. If we didn't do this competition fairly, THAT would diminish the entire point of a teams competition...because it wouldn't be a fair contest.

I really have no further interest in "arguing" with you and Cook back and forth about something that should need no argument... so do whatever you want, it will be absolutely ******** if you do it "your way" but I don't care to talk about it any more, lol.

I don't have any power over anything, lol. I wish I could just do it my way, haha, but that's not really up to me to decide. That's why I am bothering to debate this, so that people can get both viewpoints and decide for themselves which one is better. I do care to talk about it because distribution of doubles points is important to me, and may be important to others as well. I'm sure someone will take up your cause.


**roster stuff**
This actually sounds kind of cool, but really would be alot of effort. Still, something to think about.

green responses.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

You aren't defining "how a team in Brawl works". It's what a TEAM is. As in, what the WORD MEANS. It's how a CIRCUIT works. As in, what the WORD MEANS and HOW IT ACTUALLY WORKS.

You can't define a "brawl team" as something different because it's still a TEAM. This is just like you guys to just redefine the rules of reality and then say "why can't I do that?! I can do whatever I want!"

I can call my cat a dog! I was given a cat, but I wanted a dog. So I'll just call this cat a dog and then pretend that it's really a dog! I will then be astonished when people have a problem with this. It's a dog to me, why do people keep insisting it's a cat when I have clearly stated that this isn't really a cat, but a dog!

So you're saying that if I team with Watkins for one or two events, I can't ever team with anyone else and get circuit points. Isn't that obviously stupid?

...that's how a circuit event works. If you don't like that, TOUGH ****. That's how a circuit event works, there's nothing wrong or "unfair" about that. The only other option is for us to use rosters or NOT HAVE A CIRCUIT EVENT FOR DOUBLES and just do doubles on a tournament-by-tournament basis.

HOW DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS!?!? Jesus ****ing christ.

Whatever you are talking about isn't a team or a circuit. It's some silly thing that only makes sense to you because you thought "oh man, my partner can't make it to some of these events, that sucks for me! I want to devise a stupid set of 'rules' that makes things better for me, even though it makes no sense at all!"

I can't believe I even wasted more time explaining this... my time would be better spent smashing my face into a brick wall. It's amazing to me how you two can just come up with a half-baked idea and then spend so much time defending it without ever realizing the immediately obvious and glaring inconsistencies and problems with what you are proposing.

I seriously don't know what else to say. If you don't understand it based on what I already posted, then you aren't actually thinking.

 

[Cook]

The ONLY problem that you have come up with is that "it's not how a team circuit works!" You say that this system has so many glaring drawbacks, and yet all I'm hearing from you is that it just wouldn't be a teams circuit. I don't see the problem here. It rewards the players who are the best at doubles. Who cares if it isn't the way other doubles circuits have done things? It's progress, that's all.

 

[Nicole]

I...I was only gone for 5 hours...and so much bullshi* accumulated...

Look, I plan on keeping the same partner for all 6 events. And quite frankly, I plan on placing at all 6 events. If an off number of people place above my partner and I, what happens? That would bump one of us down to 2nd from 1st or to 3rd from 2nd or to nothing from 3rd. What happens then? I'll be ****ed if I place anywhere but with my partner because we'll have made it there TOGETHER.
Well, it's great that you have a planned partner who will be able to attend every event. Not everyone has that luxury. I'll be ****ed if I place at all, because I won't have a set teammate for this event. How is that any better or worse than your situation? You can't just say that something is better because it's better for you.

A team is only as good as it's weakest link. So if your team points are jeopardized because of your choice in teammates then that's your own dam* fault. Besides, it's rare, to say the least, that makeshift teams place high, let alone tourney to tourney. So it doesn't matter to me whether or not you guys switch around, it does matter when you guys try to award INDIVIDUALS for a TEAM effort.
If it's rare that a makeshift teams place high then what are you worried about? Add to the fact that it isn't rare at all. And as for makeshift teams, almost all the pro smashers team with other random pro smashers. They don't keep set partners, besides a handful of them of course. If Dojo and Gnes go to a doubles event, and Razer doesn't go, then Gnes is going to team with Dojo even though his usual partner is Razer. Makeshift teams occur all the time. And as I've tried to explain, if we awarded points based on team, then two teams could have the same amount of points...such as 4rce + domo, and 4rce + affinity. You might end up with the same person getting 2nd and 3rd, or something like that.

greeeeeeeen

@ will
when everyone else is able to argue politely, why is it only you who falls to insults? if your time would be better "smashing your face against a brick wall" than trying to have a competent, calm debate, then perhaps you should go do so.

everyone should be free to express their thoughts and make their case without being told that they make no sense and are, apparently, too stupid to understand what you are saying. well, i DO understand what you're saying, even though you're doing so in the most asinine way possible. I don't think you read what -I- wrote very carefully. Clearly, what I have said MAKES SENSE, however, what I have said may not be fair, which is what you are so offended about even though you don't use the right words to say so. That is what we are trying to decide - what is the fairest way to everyone involved to distribute doubles points? You would reward not only the best doubles players, but you would also use the doubles circuit to reward loyalty to one's partner, ability to attend every circuit event, and ability to find a partner that a player wants to team with for every event before the events begin. I would only reward the best doubles players, whether that be a set team or two players that have never teamed with each other in their life. is my view so radical that you can't talk about it calmly? calling me, or anyone else you may be debating with 'stupid' or 'a waste of time,' will not win them over to your view.

much love to you, but you really should learn to make your points without so much unpleasantness.

 

[MJG]

^ I am almost confident now from your last post that the rules "need" to be be bent for your own personal benefit.


I am done with this for now. Will discuss this later and we will come to a decision.

EDIT: Yes. You are right. Not everyone will team with their static partner throughout the entire circuit. My partner and I aren't even guaranteed to play with each other for the entire circuit, but this is how we feel that the double circuit points distrubution can be fair to the majority of the people participating in the circuit.

*Goes back to sleep

 

[Cook]

Also, I personally think you should change the point structure so that people can't easily win the circuit by showing up to half the events.

 

[Trent]

I think instead of 40 circuit points for getting first place, we should receive 40 circuit chili dogs.

 

[Dnyce]

A circuit is built so that players are rewarded points for attending each event. I am not about to revamp the entire circuit system because someone is moving away mid-circuit; however, a final decision has not been made between us.

 

[Nicole]

@mjg and fino

I'm not asking that you guys change this for me...if it's coming off that way my apologies. I think that it is, because I'm not very good at debating/making my actual point clear. Anyways, my real concern is that the best people win the circuit. And I don't think that the best people necessarily = the best set, unchanging team.

If M2k shows up to every event, for example, and he and his partner get first at every doubles event, then M2K is clearly great at doubles and should be rewarded, regardless of who his partner was. If he played with a different partner for every single event, he would, by circuit rules, not get first at the doubles circuit, even though he won every event. He would only get points for ONE event, even though he got first at EVERY event. Anyone who partnered with M2K would also suffer, because they would either A) take the points they gained with M2K, but be unable to get anymore points for the rest of the circuit events, or B) team with the same partner except when they teamed with M2K, thus losing any points they may have been able to win with their original partner had they not teamed with M2K.

I just don't think it's fair to punish a player because they aren't able to team with the same partner, or because they don't want to team with the same partner. I also don't think it's in everyone's best interests to basically force people to team with the same partner for the entire circuit. If they want to team with the same person, then that's fine by all means, but there isn't anything wrong with wanting to try out new partners as well, for the people who want to do so. Additionally, if M2k or whoever shows up to an event of ours, and he asks Fino to team with him, wouldn't Fino be a fool to refuse? However, Fino would get no points for that circuit event, and that may cost him whatever place he would have gotten. I assume that some pro players will show up to a couple of our events, and I think it's silly to make anyone's opportunity to team with one of the best players in the country come with a senseless reprocussion.

 

[Teh Future]

u kno gotta reach mah telefone

 

[fource]

You know, the more I think about it. Regardless of how you guys decide to structure team points, my partner and I should be fine. I do, however, still believe that doubles is a team effort, thus the points should be awarded accordingly, but ultimately, the decision is up to the six people running the circuit.

In my opinion, I don't see why this debate is even happening, I mean, there have been several other circuits. It's amazing that we don't just follow suit with them. Personally, I liked Overswarm's method. Perhaps 1/4 is too small for teams that splits, but something along those lines should work. Maybe bump it to 1/3 or even 1/2.

Those are just my final thoughts though. See you all next weekend. (:
[[Has Iowa confirmed? I haven't heard anything from them.]]

 

[Watkins]

An INTERESTING discussion. Both sides of the argument are already layed out so I have nothing to really contribute besides the fact that nobody good is going to want to team with me for doubles at my last midwest tournament even though doubles is my favorite event, bawwwwww

Unless I MAKE them.

 

[Teh Future]

nicole said shes teaming with you until you leave cool cat