Remaining points:
ANON wrote:
Yes, because that is exactly what STRO has been demanding (and I do mean demanding): His position, going back to last fall, was not that his team should be granted an exemption, but rather that the rules somehow must allow Zoom play when they clearly don’t. And make no mistake, this IS demanding a rule change.
There's an implication here that I should have requested an exemption from a rule rather than a rule change, and that rules cannot be changed. That might not have been a bad idea: if it had existed, that is, and how can any rule be used by others if it isn't put down in writing so they can know about it? This is how he unfortunately operates, with rules that exist only in his head.
My draft rules essentially do the same thing he is implying here and actually did a year ago: create a hardship exemption. I drafted them to meet the reasonable concerns voiced about this method of play.
Here's a more succinct version of them:
General principle: People should play in bars:
Exception: People who live more than an hour away from the Buzztime location that has the game can play remotely.
I also added a further restriction to keep the likes of Ken Jennings and Company off my team, by restricting recruitment to former team members and family members.
So I wrote rules even more restrictive than the ones actually used by this team a year ago, and they unanimously rejected them. To be fair, they may not have understood them; their only comment about them was they thought a restriction that would only apply to teams like mine applied to them. Did they reconsider after this was pointed out to them? Of course not, but this was a team that fought the idea that if you ask for feedback, you're supposed to consider it.
ANON wrote:
We are not banning anything, he is demanding that we unban something that has been banned from tournaments going back more than ten years, INCLUDING THE ONE HE RAN.
Two can play this game
Let me rephrase that, "He is demanding that we unban something that has been banned from tournaments going back more than ten years, EXCEPT FOR THE TIME WE LET IT IN." You can huff and puff and blow the house down, but you can't escape that. I've said repeatedly I would have changed the rule on the spot if I knew what you thought you said, but you're especially slow on picking up inconvenient facts.
ANON wrote:
Furthermore, more recently (in case you were not paying attention), he came up with an entirely new set of complicated draft rules that he demanded we adopt as our own, lest we be haunted by them (somehow). This, too, is not asking for an exemption. It is a demand for a wholesale scrapping of our rules in favor of his. We said no, as I believe just about any self-respecting team/commissioner would do under the same circumstances.
I reposted the Players' Bill of Rights earlier in this thread, this is what they found terrible, which from their perspective I can understand because it contains a removal provision.
But a wholesale scrapping of our rules? What rules??? It's because you don't have any written or unwritten rules governing how you handle matters. and you desperately need to have some and follow them.
"My rules?" I can hardly claim credit for saying things "You need to make your decisions public." That's what you rejected. Why?
ANON wrote:
And long-time members of other teams in places like Kansas, Arizona, Illinois, and California (not to mention Ohio) are firmly in favor of it.
With the honorable exception of Teaser's, where are they? Are they in Anon's Witness Protection Program in Badbart,too? Show us. Better yet, have them come over here. I would like to hear them and maybe tell them a thing or two.
ANON wrote:
I know you think your opinion matters more than theirs, but I am really not sure that you have the pulse of the current playership on this matter.
Have an impartial ballot of the tournament teams, as I've described repeatedly. Why not? Does the man with the invisible rules has invisible supporters, too?