New Scaratings

Welcome, Davo--it is great to have your team in the mix!

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

Here is an updated list of teams that have signed up so far:

The Fellowship/Red Fox/Punts & Pints, Cuyahoga Falls, OH
Primetime Sports Grill, Tampa, FL
Alien Bar, Albuquerque, NM
Danny K’s, Orange, CA
Time Out West, Hanover Park, IL
Hanko’s Sports Bar and Grill, Lake Oswego, OR
Teaser’s, Chicago, IL
Blue Horn Lounge, Chapel Hill, NC
Moose McGuire’s, Ottawa, ON
Big Guys, Winnipeg, MB
Phat Turtle, Cave Creek, AZ
Oak Tree Lanes, Diamond Bar, CA
Wallaby's, Lenexa, KS
The Market at John Hall Store, Cecil, AL

As a friendly reminder, the deadline to sign up is by noon on March 7.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

On behalf of everyone else outside of Red Fox, I must point out that by banning all forms of telecommunications, you also banned the use of Buzztime even more explicitly than you did before.

You need to put any ban on telecommunications in a separate sentence from that of any ban on reference material. I will rewrite it for you if you like.

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

The Market at John Hall Store (or just JHS for short) is a historical building in the Pike Road/Cecil area that has been around as a general store, restaurant or bar for about a century. It offers simple, but good food (BBQ, Hamburgers, Pizza, Wings, etc.). It is very rustic and has a great old ambiance.

We have a team of about 12-15 regulars that have played at various locations around the Montgomery Area (BWW, Buffalo Cafe, some other locally-owned locations as well). We have a great time and love to compete, so we are excited to be a part of the competition this year!!

PS: There might be a couple of more Montgomery area locations that might join the fray as well!

I find it interesting that the location in charge of the tournament will welcome any team to compete and blindly trust that they will play in a way that does not give them an unfair advantage but will not allow a team to compete that has been around for 30+ years and has no record whatsoever of playing in a manner that would give them an unfair advantage.

The McCarthy Cup was originally created to allow all teams to compete that for whatever reason were not allowed or able to. While it is the previous winner's right to make the rules for the following year's event, that spirit is not being followed in this case.

I also find it sad that more players have not made their thoughts known publicly in this forum. I did see MERKIN's statement but nobody else's.

In the end, if a team competes in a way that gives them no unfair advantage, they should be allowed to play. And if they aren't allowed to, then the tournament means nothing. Kind of reminds me of how LIV Golf conducts business.

I agree with you entirely that the team in question has no record whatsoever of playing in a manner that would give them an unfair advantage, but the issue is not over whether they have an unfair advantage. The issue is over whether the rules should be amended to allow teams to Zoom in players. As mentioned above, when counting all responses solicited everywhere, the response to this proposition was unambiguously negative.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

I just believe you as Commish should amend the rules regarding Zoom to only the NYC team as they are the only team in this site poor situation where the only other out is a 5 hour round trip commute. And the reason I am in favor of this is their long term standing in the BT community. I would feel otherwise about many other teams.

I also have a hard time believing that other teams have an issue with the NYC team and only them playing in this manner.

OK, so now that is one vote against me being an unaccountable tyrant, and one vote for me being an unaccountable tyrant. Got it.

Funny story regarding this, though, if you have a minute: There was a time not too terribly long ago that our team was favorably disposed to granting an exemption to that team because of their long term standing. However, the tireless efforts of one member of that team convinced us that this was a mistake, and that the single set of rules should apply to all. He even inspired a unanimous vote on the matter, which (as I mentioned earlier) is an extremely rare thing for us. If you have complaints, you should probably take them up with him.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

ROTFLMAO!!! On Sundays, it's due to the ancient rules. On Mondays, it's due to
a Fellowship vote. On Tuesdays, it's due to a Badbart vote. Today, it's due to royal
umbrage coming from STRO criticizing us. I'm sure we'll see "Buzztime will magically get
money from people who are too far away to go to a place" and "We must save us and the world from the Techno Peril" recycled soon.
Expect to see "It is too late to change this year's rules." shortly.

But let's get back to Badbart. This seems to be the only place outside of Red Fox that allegedly is opposed
to letting us play. I did find the other Facebook page, "Friends Who Like Buzztime" which actually lets people
in, and the vote total there is STRO 1, ANON 0.

So that leaves the Badbart vote. Can I or others join up to see what was said? Oh, no, that's a private group,
and that page has been telling me my application is pending for many days. I asked your ex-teammate DROLL to reproduce
those comments. Out of nine, he put up three. We have no idea what most of the people said, what they were told before they said it,
what experience they've had with tournament play, nothing. If you want us to count "your" votes, you ought to let us see them.

Why not do this instead? Why don't you let the participants in the tournament vote on the matter? Every team gets a message containing
a short piece from each of us (say 250 words each). Each team votes in a PM/email sent to a neutral third party. Fair enough?

And before you drag out the old "This is not a democracy; the winning team has ruled from days of old," if you really believed that, why are you
counting votes? Or do votes only count when they're in your favor??

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

The phrase "unfair advantage" caught my eye, and I decided to put my two cents worth in (Sorry, Stro). The team with the most obvious unfair advantage is ANON's horde of assistant professors. Just taking yeserday's Brainbuster game as an example, they had 26 players (or boxes) as opposed to Herrill Lanes' 7. Now you can assume that 26 brains are inevitably better than 7, but there is also the factor that with 26 boxes a team can very easily split on tough questions, guarateeing at least five correct answers. A tournament that is truly "fair" would limit the number of players (or at least, boxes) so that it is the same for all teams. (A fuller discussion of the possibilities can be found at the Brainbuster thread.) Would ANON & co. agree to such a limit? Methinks not, because that kind of unfair advantage is one that they enjoy.
XT

First of all, I do agree that teams with more boxes undoubtedly have an advantage over teams with fewer boxes. For Showdown last night, for example, we had 17 boxes that kept their charge throughout the whole game. As you note, this provides more opportunity for splitting on a question than, say, a team with 10 boxes. This advantage only increases for games like Brainbuster, for which people can use the Buzztime app.

I think we also agree that having more brains is better than fewer, and I would argue that more brains can make up for fewer boxes. Last night Danny K's, for example, had 21 boxes in action, but we were able to get past them anyway. In other words, having more brains makes you less likely to NEED to split to prevail.

Where I think we probably disagree is whether having more brains is necessarily an "unfair" advantage. I suppose I could quibble over whether the six professors who were there last night constitutes a "horde," but that is really beside the point--most of the questions on any given night are either Greek choruses or answered by people who aren't professors. I suppose it would be an unfair advantage if we had a patent on having a lot of people come out on a Tuesday, thus preventing anyone else from doing the same; but the good news for everyone--especially Buzztime and the home locations--is that we don't: everyone is free to invite as many people to play on any given night.

We didn't start out that way, of course. Back in 2004-2005 we were often lucky to have seven folks playing and sometimes had fewer than six. By 2007-2008 or so we could reliably count on about a dozen on average, sometimes more and sometimes fewer. As the years went by we continued to add or recruit new players to help out, often as a result of being forced to move. For example, we got DAL when we were at Damon's-Twinsburg, ZIGGY and LEMPKE when we were at BWW-Kent, and FALCO and DAN from Red Fox. We actually probably average fewer at Red Fox/Punts & Pints than we did at BWW-Kent, when having more than 20 folks was the norm (While there were more than 20 there last night, in the two weeks previous we had more like 14-15).

So now, no doubt, we are one of the larger teams, but we got that way simply by asking people to play with us--which literally any team can do. Is that really an unfair advantage? If we can get folks to come to Punts and Pints in Cuyahoga Falls, OH on a Tuesday night, I have to think it would be possible to do the same in most other places, especially places with a lot more people. (I admit it probably might be considered unfair in a place like rural Wyoming, but I suppose there probably are not going to be too many Buzztime locations in those places, anyway).

Furthermore, asking more people to play can pay dividends beyond trivia-playing. When BWW-Kent announced that they were dropping Buzztime we had to cast about for a place to play--there was no nearby Buzztime location that made sense for us. Yet we were able to approach Red Fox by saying, "We have about 15-20 people--often more--who are guaranteed to come here every Tuesday night and order food and drinks if you subscribe to Buzztime." It has been a win-win-win for everyone. We have a place to play, Red Fox/Punts&Pints gets guaranteed traffic (and have treated us very well), and Buzztime gets the subscription. And the food actually is not too bad, to boot.

All of this is to say that I think that any policy that somehow limits the number of people playing would be counter-productive in several ways: to Buzztime, to the home location, and to the teams themselves. Limiting boxes would not be as bad, but it would still be counter-productive to Buzztime (less documented playership, which makes it harder to sell new locations on getting the system or renting more boxes). If folks want to run a tournament that limits boxes in the future that's up to them, but it is a moot point for this particular tournament, for which the rules have already been set.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

Since you had the time to reply to my teammate's post, could you please answer mine?

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

Let us not be distracted from the point at hand.

We have had the gamerunner trumpeting some votes cast on Badbart. Would it not make far more sense to ask the teams that are actually going to play in the tournament what they think about it? Wouldn't that vote be far more meaningful than some votes from people who may have never even the game, much less play it regularly?

Let both sides speak. We understand why reasonable people can be leery about remote play, which is why we proposed restrictions which would reduce the number of teams potentially eligible to play this way and the people that can be recruited for it. Let the tournament participants decide if that is enough to ease their concerns. Isn't consensus a far better way to develop rules than the dictates of one man/team. After all, we live in a country based on that idea.

If not, then why not? Please explain why a vote on Badbart is good but a vote by tournament participants isn't. And if lack of time is a problem, make that vote effective for next year's tournament.

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

ANON
You cleverly make it seem as if I were advocatinug limiting the number of people on a team who could play in a tournament. In actuality, I proposed limiting the number of boxes that would count toward a team score so that each team would be competing with an equal number of players. But you would still have the advantage of having a greater number of brains in the room. Anyone who wanted to could play the game. You describe the way your team increased the number of its players by recruiting, but as I understand your argument, this is your main fear—that we could expand by taking advantage of the fact we have no geographical limitations, nor difficulty of travel. We have not done this, but of course it would be possible for us, for example, to recruit a NASCAR fan in North Carolina or someone who has taken a course in Canadian history. You assert that we are hurting Buzztime’s business by essentially operating without a home location (not true, by the way). We would have a home in one of NYC’s 2,100 bars if only Buzztime would sign one up (the one in Brooklyn doesn’t have a full package). There are many ways for Buzztime to improve its business model to find new sources of income. Its management should get in touch with someone who has played the game a long time and thought about it deeply. The ideal person would be STRO.
XT

I see. I guess I was thrown by the post in which you said “Make it a rule of your tournament that any ‘team’ that has more than 12 players isn't eligible;” and then when it was stated that there would be no player limitation in the tournament, you replied “Well, then you shouldn't waste your time holding your new tournament, because ANON and his horde of assistant professors from the Harvard of Northeastern Ohio will win by sheer force of numbers. . .” I see now that you meant “12 people playing boxes” rather than “total players on a team.” I think my confusion stemmed from the fact that we tend to think of all of our teammates as players, whether they have a box or not.



I do not “fear” any team recruiting players—in fact, I thought I made it clear that I encourage it. If your team wants to pack 30 people into a nearby restaurant to play, I say that would be fantastic: fantastic for Buzztime, fantastic for the restaurant, and most of all fantastic for your team. I dare say you would immediately become the team to beat, especially if the restaurant chose to get 30 boxes to accommodate your throng.



Well, the good news here is that you can do exactly that—that’s what we did with Red Fox. Just find a set of suitable places and begin asking them (I think Dave Peters even offered to help with this if he was given some names of places). The even better part of this is if they sign up, you get a $250 tab at the location. You can get more information on the Bar Buddies referral program here:

https://www.buzztime.com/business/referral-2/

Just let me know if you would like me to find out if Dave Peters is still willing to help with this.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

I will respond to part of your comments to Xtrain because I have more background of the items in question.



You certainly have. March Anon, meet October Anon:



But folks, look at what he does. He says "I'm not afraid of others recruiting" then talks about recruiting in bars, which is not what he nor I nor Xtrain have been talking about. He does this sort of thing constantly.

But there's something else even odder here. He raises a number of fears, but the only answer he has for any of them is "Ban it." It never dawns on him that the only choices aren't to fully allow it or fully ban it; you can set limits and restrictions. I provided draft rules which would put limits on what a team like ours could do, but the faux Fellowship didn't even want to look at them even though they had asked for feedback, rejected them mostly without any real explanation, and in the one instance where they did, they wrongly thought the rule would apply to them rather than us.

I've seen this elsewhere and the name I came up for it is "black-and-white brain." That doesn't work well in a color world.

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

Next, we have the issue of "Why don't you find a bar to play in. We did" This quote actually illustrates the problem for us quite well:



And if that were the situation here, if we had 15-20 or more people guaranteed to patronize a place every week, we could not argue against this for a second. But we don't. Even more importantly, this is not due to post-COVID shrivelling. We never have. No New York area team ever has. The old Nickelodeinn team might have approached 15. 8-12 was the usual NYC group, and we are not unique. Most competitive premium game teams have around that number, maybe a little more, if only because relatively few locations have more than 15 boxes.

Back in the late Nineties, I came up with a rough and ready formula to determine whether this game made financial sense for a place: take the monthly rental and double it: do you spend that much in the place? While doubling may not be sufficient in real-life situations, if you don't spend that much, you certainly aren't spending enough to cover the expense.

I have used that formula over the past quarter-century to judge the viability of locations. The only place I've been associated with in that time that might have met the test was the old Nickelodeinn back in their heyday, and that was only because some of them would play and drink until the wee hours.
That was mostly because there wasn't a mob of people playing premium, and few if any playing the other games. Mad River had two people other than us who would play somewhat regularly.

While the situation in New York was probably worse than the average, the sad fact is Buzztime doesn't make financial sense for most locations, which is why most locations drop it. Part of the reason why Buzztime couldn't make money over the years was because of the high churn rate; they had to spend a lot money to get new places to replace the old places. BWW propped up the number count when they forced all their locations to have the game, but when that ended, the number of BWW Buzztime locations dropped from 1200 to 6. It looks like the new owners have given up on that and are now depending on players to do their recruiting for them.

Back to us, what could we say to a prospective location? Hello, we want you to spend $500 a month to get this game for us. About 8 of us will show up, have a few drinks, and maybe have a meal. We'll show up one/two nights a week. You won't make enough from us to cover that tab, but we're nice people.
You might say, "Well, overestimate," but when the bills come in and the people don't, who will be around to be blamed? Us.

It would make more sense for us to get a location of our own except:
1) Buzztime doesn't normally sell to individuals
2) At least some of us would still use remote and hybrid play to our location
3) If Buzztime ever competently handled the GPS spoofing issue, it would knock out our remote players who were paying to play that way.

This is quite a predicament, but not a unique one. Go to the Buzztime Facebook page, and the number one comment there is "We have no place to play"
and the answer from both Buzztime and faux Fellowship is that of the three monkeys, with a sizable portion of "I got mine, Jack" as a side dish from the Red Skulk.

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

Last but not least, could you please reply to all those questions I raised in my posts in this thread in March? You know, it is your job. Or if you will not, why will you not?

But if for some reason you can answer just one, could you please tell all of us why you point out your alleged landslide victory on Badbart but have no comment on letting the teams actually affected by our inclusion/exclusion have their say?

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

Chef John's Manhattan Clam Chowder

Ingredients
2 (10 ounce) cans whole baby clams, undrained

2 (6.5 ounce) cans chopped clams, undrained

4 strips thick-cut bacon, cut into 1/2-inch pieces

1 cup diced yellow onion

3 cloves garlic, minced

kosher salt to taste

2 tablespoons tomato paste

2 tablespoons all-purpose flour

1 cup bottled clam juice

2 cups chicken broth

2 medium carrots, cut into 1/2 inch pieces

2 ribs celery, sliced into 1/2-inch pieces

½ cup diced Italian tomatoes

freshly ground black pepper to taste

3 pinches cayenne pepper

3 cups peeled, diced Yukon Gold potatoes

2 teaspoons minced fresh tarragon

2 tablespoons chopped fresh Italian parsley

Directions
Drain baby and chopped clams. Reserve liquid in the refrigerator until needed and set clams aside.

Place bacon in a soup pot over medium-high heat; cook and stir until well-browned and almost crispy, 7 to 10 minutes. Add onion, garlic, and a pinch of salt; cook and stir until onions start to soften and turn translucent, 5 to 7 minutes.

Add tomato paste; cook and stir for 2 minutes. Don't worry if some of the tomato paste sticks to the bottom of the pot; we want that to happen. Sprinkle in flour; cook and stir for 2 to 3 minutes.

Dump in reserved clam juice plus bottled clam juice and chicken broth. Stir with a spatula, scraping the bottom of the pot to deglaze any caramelization.

Add carrots, celery, clams, diced tomatoes, pepper, and cayenne; stir and bring to a boil. Reduce heat to medium-low and simmer for 15 to 20 minutes, skimming off some bacon fat if desired.

Add diced potatoes and cook until tender but not falling apart, about 20 minutes. Taste and adjust for salt, if needed. Stir in fresh tarragon and parsley just before serving.

close up view of Manhattan Clam Chowder with crackers in a white bowl
CHEF JOHN
Chef's Notes:
The steps in my video for adding the clams and clam juice vary slightly from the written recipe. For best results, follow the written recipe.

To simplify things, you could just use six 6 1/2-ounce cans chopped clams.

Bacon is optional, but I consider it a key ingredient. If you skip it, toss in 3 to 4 tablespoons butter.

You can use fresh peeled and seeded tomatoes in place of canned, or russet potatoes in place of Yukon Golds.

NEW YORK CHEESECAKE
PREP TIME: 30 minsCOOK TIME: 1 hr 20 minsTOTAL TIME: 1 hr 50 mins
YIELD: 12 servings

A dense, rich and creamy New York cheesecake that requires no waterbath to bake!

Ingredients
Crust
1 and 1/2 cups (150g) graham cracker, digestive biscuits, or vanilla wafer crumbs (pulse in a food processor until finely ground)
2 tablespoons granulated sugar
4 and 1/2 tablespoons (65g) unsalted butter, melted

Filling
4 cups (900g) full-fat cream cheese, at room temperature
1 and 1/8 cups (225g) granulated sugar
2 tablespoons cornstarch
4 large eggs plus 1 egg yolk , at room temperature
1/2 cup (120 ml) heavy cream
1 and 1/2 teaspoons pure vanilla extract
Grated lemon zest from 1 small lemon (1 teaspoon)
Instructions
Preheat oven to 350°F/180°C. Grease the bottom and sides of a 9-inch springform pan.

In a medium bowl, mix together crumbs, sugar, and melted butter and mix until combined and moistened. Press mixture into the bottom of prepared pan to form an even layer of crumbs. Bake for 8-9 minutes until golden brown. Allow to cool completely on a wire rack. Meanwhile, prepare the filling.

Increase oven temperature to 425°F/220°C.

In an electric mixer fitted with the paddle attachment or using a handheld mixer, beat cream cheese on medium-low speed until smooth and lump-free, 1-2 minutes. Add sugar and beat until blended. Scrape down the sides and bottom of the bowl as necessary using a rubber spatula. Add cornstarch and mix until blended. Add the eggs and beat until fully combined. Add cream, vanilla extract, and lemon zest and beat just until combined and smooth. Pour batter over cooled crust and spread evenly.

Bake cake for 10 minutes, then lower temperature to 225°F/110°C and continue to bake for 60 minutes until the sides are set but the center is still slightly wobbly (some comments suggested this was not enough baking time. I baked this so many times and it works. If you're not sure if your oven temperature is accurate or if your baking time is usually longer than those called for in a recipe, you can add an additional 10-20 minutes, and avoid opening the oven door too many times). My cheesecake always gets golden brown around the edges but if yours doesn't, that's ok, just trust the recipe Turn off oven, open the oven door slightly or halfway to let in cold air, and leave the cake in the oven for 60 minutes. This will help prevent the cake from cracking and the cake will remain creamy. Transfer the cake to a wire rack and allow it to cool to room temperature. Cover the cake with plastic wrap and refrigerate overnight or for at least 12 hours.

Cheesecake will keep in the refrigerator for up to 5 days.

This thread is for McCarthy Cup discussion only.

ANON is not stepping down as Commissioner.

Herrill Lanes is not eligible to participate in the tournament. The end.

If you want to shit upon ANON and The Fellowship at 5,000 words apiece, there is a thread for that.

If you want to run your own "tournament", there is a thread for that.

I merely responded to your leader's comments, and asked for a reply to unanswered questions directly related to McCarthy, a trifle more relevant than your recipes. Or is that forbidden, too?



I got that impression. This is America, even the Ohio part. He makes mistakes or does something wrong; he's going to get criticized for it. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with America.



The same people found us eligible for a different tournament a year ago, even gave us a medal. There's this concept in our country called "consent of the governed." Your leader himself was counting votes, so why not ask for and count the votes of the people most affected? What's wrong with that idea? Tell us. Explain why that's bad, and hint, "The end" is not an explanation.



There is only one 5,000 word criticism, and it is not found here. But there are shorter ones. Again, do you have a problem with that?

My, what a difference a month makes! A month ago, you were saying:


Now you're applying for stormtrooper/censor!

Let me give you some advice:

If you want to argue with someone who is calling you and yours a petty tyranny, maybe you shouldn't sound like a petty tyrant. Consider the possibility that maybe all you are doing is proving my point.

I don't doubt you're being motivated by loyalty and that you think loyalty is a very important, maybe most important virtue. May I suggest to you that truth is the most important virtue and that blind loyalty is often just that: blind.

You have reasons for believing what you do. So do I. My experience is much different than yours. One thing you can count on me doing is telling you why I think what I think, perhaps ad nauseum. Examine my reasons. Put yourself in my shoes seeing what I describe. Forget your own experience for a moment and focus on mine. Be open to the idea that maybe both of us are right: people are often saints to their own but demonic to strangers.

But if you find fault with my side, fault me on the specifics. Calling me names is less than useless; that just tells me you have nothing serious to fight me with. Fight fire with fire; if I'm arguing facts, you argue facts. That's one grave weakness in the arguments of the cohorts, they are almost substance- and specifics-free. I say "This/he/they stinks because of A, B, C, D and E." They say "This/you stink(s) because of (a few more pejoratives).

One last thought: take a moment to think about what those who are not members of your group or mine are likely to think about what you are saying. They may not be as favorable as you think.

Think about it.

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

For posterity:

No - 35 (this is charitably putting Red Fox's votes as 20)
Yes - 4

This includes votes from BadBart, Friends who Love Buzztime, two team votes, and this site. All members of the Fellowship (approximately 20) and Teaser's voted no.

Please note that most of the BadBart votes were from people who are playing in the tournament, including at least one of the votes cited in a previous post. Two of the Yes votes were from STRO and xtrain, and another from BUD, who is not playing in the tournament.