Just for the record:
GUNDAM wrote:
Ok STRO, since you asked for it:
Transparency Rules:
We reject the draft transparency rules because they are complicated and unnecessary.
Your team proved the necessity for these actions through their actions.
GUNDAM wrote:
ANON is doing a great job as commissioner; you are the only person with complaints.
I think I wrote about 5,000 words to the contrary. Where was I wrong? Show me. If I'm the only complainer, your crew are the only praisers. God, this is personality cult.
P.S. BTW, could you please tell us how great the coverup was, which he apparently hid from even your team? How about those imaginary rules and invisible exceptions, how exemplary were they? Good and bad deeds are determined by their merits and demerits not by whether or not they are noticed. Sneakiness is not a virtue.
GUNDAM wrote:
Prohibited practices:
We do not accept the draft prohibited practices rules because they are too complicated and we think the existing rules are fine.
The existing rules were so "fine" I didn't understand them due to the clumsy English. I merely described the prohibited practices that have emerged over the years and took care of some minor omissions. Really, "the best trivia team in the world" keeps finding clearly enumerated rules too hard for them?
GUNDAM wrote:
Exceptions for site-poor location:
We do not accept the site-poor location exception rules. Travel time is no acceptable reason for an exception to the general rule. Tournaments should promote in-person play. Ask your local bars to get Buzztime trivia; that's what we did.
You just gave the finger to all the orphaned Buzztime players. Has it ever dawned on you that Buzztime does not justify its cost in most locations, never has? You expect us to walk into a bar and say, "Please Mr. Bar Owner, start paying $500 a month for this game. We won't spend enough money for you to cover your costs, but we're nice people, so get it anyway." We don't even go to bars except to play the game.
But I'll give you some credit for not mincing words.
GUNDAM wrote:
Relationship Requirement:
We do not accept the relationship requirement rules. Tournaments should not discourage new Buzztime players. This may surprise you, but we frequently get new players (under 50 years old even!!!) to join us at the bar, and often they become regular team members. More players is good for Buzztime and we reject any rule discouraging new players.
The relationship requirement refers to remote-play teams. That rule was put in there because your great commissioner was afraid we or some unknown team from the future was going to recruit armies of Ken Jennings to beat you, which makes your comments really ironic.
GUNDAM wrote:
Our team has already spent more time engaging civilly with your comments than they frankly merit; do not expect further comments.
That's a nice phrase "engaging civilly." Your crew certainly didn't answer or respond meaningfully to the vast majority of what I had to say. Your crew was much better at running away after a couple volleys. In a lot of ways, the tenor of these exchanges reminds me of the exchanges I had with the West Covina folks and their allies over computer use. One big difference is that a lot of people took sides back then. Now, virtually nothing.
What is really sad about all this is the degree to which each side finds the other side incomprehensible.
GUNDAM wrote:
If you want to keep spamming the thread with angry rants . . . you do you, I guess
One man's facts is another man's spam.
What is really sad about all this is the degree to which each side finds the other side incomprehensible. You cannot see how criticism of you can be legitimate, and I cannot see
how you cannot see it. I'm sure you're thinking the same sort of things about me.