| 0 |
Subject: Bad Blood Results
Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall
- Leader [1629107] Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 10:10
JR 5
Jerry Lawler 5
Chris Benoit 16 + 12 + 30 + 10 = 68*
Edge 16 + 12 = 28
Sylvan Granier 10 + 12 + 5 = 27
Rob Conway 10 + 12 + 5 = 27
Kane 10 + 15 + 12 = 37
Bischoff 5 + 5 = 10
Coach 5 + 15 + 12 = 32
Eugene 5 + 30 + 12 = 47
Chris Jericho 30 + 12 = 42
Tyson Tomko 15 + 12 + 10 = 37
Trish Stratus 10 + 25 + 15 + 12 = 62
Randy Orton 5 + 10 + 30 + 10 + 12 = 67
Shelton Benjamin 15 + 10 + 12 = 37
Ric Flair 10
Lita 5 + 12 + 12 = 29
Matt Hardy 5
Victoria 12 + 12 = 24
Gail Kim 12 + 12 = 24
Cookie Girl 10
Garrison Cade 10
HHH 30 + 12 + 20 = 62
HBK 15 + 12 + 20 = 47
Notes:
1. I might owe Benoit another 12 points. Not sure if we give ppv points for each match when a wrestler has more than one match in a ppv.
2. Gave Randy Orton 5 points for the backstage interview and then 10 more when he brought the mike out to the ring. I guess it could be argued that it was technicly the same vignette, and therefore should only get points for one or the other, but since he spoke both backstage and in the ring, I felt he deserved points for both. |
| 1 | Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 11:54
|
I don't see why Benoit wouldn't deserve points for 2 matches.....just because it's a PPV shouldn't make a difference. If anything, 2 matches in a PPV deserves extra points because your push is pretty significant to get 2 matches.....
|
| 2 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 1629107
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 12:08
|
I just wasn't sure exactly how those points are attributed.
Haven't there been other recent ppvs where someone had more than one match? I looked but couldn't find any. I think the Brock/Royale Rumble event was before we changed the scoring format.
One other thing I noticed in my search was that the scoring that we originally agreed to and voted in specified that wrestlers are not supposed to get 12 PPV points AND 20 PPV main event points. But almost immediately after those original scoring changes, we were awarding 32 points to everyone in a PPV Main Event. I figured it would be wrong to suddenly change that now since we've been doing it for so long without anyone raising an issue, but we should probably revisit it either sometime soon or at least before Season 4 starts to establish what the rule should be and to make sure we do it that way from that point on.
|
| 3 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 1629107
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 13:16
|
The Benoit thing might have to go up for a vote. I can't find anyone who has been in more than one match in a ppv since the Season 1 RR.
When we originally changed the scoring back in Season 1 to eliminate negative showings, the following rule was voted in:
10) Keep the same scoring system for matches that we agree upon for both TV shows and PPVs, and simply add +12 for every wrestler involved in a match, except for the main event(s). Main event wrestlers would get +20. Other scoring, vignettes, heel/face turns, run-ins and all other non-match points could remain the same.
When I clarified that proposal here is what I wrote:
My proposal is that anyone in a PPV match gets points they would otherwise regularly get for their matches, plus 12 points. Regarding run-ins and face/heel turns and vignettes, interviews and other "extras", I have no problem keeping the established PPV scoring for them, but I do not feel that non-match-wrestlers and managers and interviewers and others should get those 12 points
Although the grammar indicates that I did, I have no idea if I was actually considering the potentiality of multiple matches by the same wrestler.
|
| 4 | Tree
Donor
ID: 599393013
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 13:33
|
MITH - no sure how you scored it, but The Bad Blood website is listing La Resistance as the winners of the match with Benoit and Edge.
that could be a typo, because if Kane attacked Benoit and Edge, La Resistance should have been DQed...
i'd watch this carefully, and see what the final result it.
|
| 5 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 1629107
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 13:42
|
Tree that's a typo. From your link, the very last line of the recap (right above the results listing):
La Resistance retained the World Tag Team Championship belts despite being disqualified in their match against Chris Benoit and Edge.
|
| 6 | kev
ID: 3155515
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 21:40
|
wow...nice night for Team Latino Superhero Champions!
|
| 7 | kev
ID: 3155515
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 21:52
|
and for having 2 matches, why shouldn't Benoit get 2 PPV points for that? It wasn't even a gauntlet or anything of the sort...it was 2 completely different matches.
BTW- Lita will be your next Women's champ...thankfully.
I need the points!
|
| 8 | wiggs
ID: 545471416
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 22:00
|
Benoit gets points for both matches. There is no question about that. I dont believe he should get the 12 points 2 times though because the 12 points is basically for being involved. You dont get 12 points for each thing you do, for example orton didnt get 12 extra points for his interview and then 12 more for his match.
|
| 9 | kev
ID: 3155515
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 22:28
|
But Orton didnt have 2 matches. Orton had one match. Orton did get points for 2 different interviews. He had 2 PPV matches. In the points thread, it states, a PPV match is 12 points. I don't see how this should be something that needs to be put into a vote. It was 2 completely different matches- one a tag match, and one a singles match.
Is there any other way to see it?
|
| 10 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 22:31
|
I think it's going to have to come to a vote. Unless someone can show otherwise, there's no precedent established. I could have sworn that this happened in another fairly recent ppv, but I can't find it. There's a solid argument for doing it either way and it's really just a matter of what the league want's those 12 points to represent (points for having a ppv match or points per match).
As I said above, it's a variation from the original intent of the rule that we award 12 PPV points and then 20 more Main Event points for PPV main events. I'm not suggesting that we change that at this stage, but I do think it starts to get out of hand when you could potentailly have a situation where someone is in 2 matches and one is the Main Event.
|
| 11 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 22:33
|
The original proposal that was voted in during Season 1:
My proposal is that anyone in a PPV match gets points they would otherwise regularly get for their matches, plus 12 points.
|
| 12 | kev
ID: 3155515
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 22:42
|
How is it out of hand? How often does it happen? Name the last wrestler to hold the Heavyweight belt and the Tag team belt, and defend both at the PPV.
And in the Season 3 point system, it says 12 points for a PPV match. It says nothing about having more than one match at any point. Going back to Season one doesnt really matter much, mostly when your just basing it on a plural that doesn't really represent the arguement at hand. I am pretty sure they were talking about "matches" on Raw or SD.
|
| 13 | kev
ID: 3155515
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 22:48
|
From Scoring for Season 3
PPV Match: +12 (in addition to win, loss or no contest points for the match)
PPV Main Event: +20 (in addition to win, loss or no contest and also PPV match points)
PPV interview: +5
PPV backstage vignette: +5
PPV in-ring vignette: +10
PPV run-in / interference: +10
PPV heel/face turn: +15
PPV Hosting: +5
So Orton has an in ring, and backstage, so he gets his points for both, but Benoit doesnt get 2 PPV match points, even though it is clearly stated.
Put it to a vote. If this gets turned down, this league is way beyond any help. The points clearly state that Benoit should get 12 + 12 for his PPV matches. There was a week anyone could have brought up the scoring issue. Waiting till after the fact is a little much.
It seems like punishing any wrestler for having 2 matches at a PPV seems stupid. There should be no way that a guy who fights in 2 matches, including defending the Heavyweight Championship is almost outscored by a guy because he carried a mic into the ring and defending a title in one match (Orton)
|
| 14 | Farn
Sustainer
ID: 451044109
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 23:22
|
gotta side with Kev on this. It does say for a match. He had 2 matches. That's 2 seperate 12 point totals that should be awarded.
|
| 15 | Mike D
Sustainer
ID: 41831612
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 23:27
|
kev, calm down bud. There was no vote, and nothing therefore is hurting your team here. Nothing wrong with MITH or anyone else questioning how to score something. After all, it's a made up league dude.
I agree with the 2 matches, BTW.
|
| 16 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 23:32
|
If this gets turned down, this league is way beyond any help.
What help are you suggesting it requires?
Why in the world would you cite the rule as it is written in the 3rd evolution of the 'official scoring rules' over the original proposal that was voted in? Don't make the mistake of sticking to the shorthand version of it as the be-all-end-all. Whenever there are rule disputes, its important to go back and see what was discussed to try to figure out what we were trying to do not just stick to whatever arbitrary language was jotted down.
I'm not saying that the rule should be one way or ther other (tho I admit that I am leaning toward him only getting 12 points, since main event wrestlers are getting 20 points more than they should as it is, according to the rules). All Im saying is that the original clarification is ambiguous regarding this particular issue.
Calling it "punishing a wrestler" is the same as saying that we are taking 12 points away from him that he deserves. Whether he deserves them or not, as far as I can tell (and I likely have spent more time today looking than anyone else) has NEVER been established.
If you guys can make a case for ignoring the original clarification and sticking to the literal meaning of the shorthand reference, that will be when this league is beyond help.
|
| 17 | Farn
Sustainer
ID: 451044109
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 23:45
|
hmmm
MITH makes a solid point as well. The original scoring was to give 12 points for appearing at the PPV. The shorthand said for a match.
I am back on the fence.
|
| 18 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 00:02
|
Farn make no mistake, the original proposal was mine, and I don't recall considering the possibility of a wrestler having multiple matches. I tend to think that if I did, I would heve been more specific about it at the time.
I really believe that my original proposal was flawed in that I simply didn't address it and that we just need to decide now exactly what those 12 points are for: a) a reward for having a match (or matches) in the ppv or b) specific points for each match in the ppv.
|
| 19 | kev
ID: 3155515
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 02:36
|
It has no bearing as to if it is my wrestler or not. These were 2 seperate matches. I do believe, in any of the point totals, we have been giving them points for each match, not just each victory or defeat... I do firmly believe, if a wrestler wrestles in 2 matches, at a PPV no less, he should be rewarded for this. What is the point of having these wrestlers. Randy Orton scored a whopping one point less than Benoit for having one less match, and a lesser title defense...why? Because Benoit didn't carry a mic from the back to the front? That is my point here. Benoit wrestles for 2 belts, and wins both matches, defends one belt, and has one more point than Orton because Orton went from the back to the ring....doesn't this seem wrong?
I just say look at post 1. Species hits it on the head. We should look at 2 seperate matches (IE matches, not the Royal Rumble/Battle Royal), as what it is- 2 seperate PPV matches.
Fine. Put it to a vote.
I believe, Chris Benoit, winner of 2 matches at Bad Blood, should recieve credit for being in both matches, more so for the point that Randy Orton got 1 less point than Benoit, for being in one match, and carrying a microphone to the ring.
Tell me- anyone- does that make any sense? If it is chosen that Benoit does not recieve the 2 match points, I don't think Orton should recieve points for 2 vignettes that he did in one segment.
|
| 20 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 06:42
|
Tally
12 points for at leas 1 match:
Wiggs
MITH
12 points for each match:
Species
Kev
Mike D
|
| 21 | Tree
ID: 31558145
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 07:06
|
i guess i'm not grasping something.
we're debating on 12 points, correct? can someone clarify to me what these are for - why are we awarding them?
for appearing in a PPV, or appearing in a match?
or am i on the wrong track altogether?
|
| 22 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 60151121
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 08:38
|
That I think is the question Tree.
Should the points be for appearring in the PPV or for each match in the PPV.
Personal opinion is that they are for appearring and each wrestler should only get 12, even if they were in every match.
Cliff
|
| 23 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 1629107
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 08:41
|
Goatlocker is correct. This vote is to in fact decide whether they are (as you say) for appearing (having one or more matches) in a PPV, or appearing in a match.
|
| 24 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 1629107
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 08:42
|
...unless of course you think you can show us where this issue has already been discussed, but I've been looking.
|
| 25 | Great One@ Work
ID: 40150137
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 08:55
|
copy and paste...
I vote for -
for appearing (having one or more matches) in a PPV
|
| 26 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 1629107
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 09:03
|
Still need votes from Young Gunz, Tree and Farn.
|
| 27 | Tree
Donor
ID: 599393013
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 12:31
|
MITH - you seem to pretty much have become our historian and....ummm....a word i cant think of in a moment.
is there anywhere where we've discussed this previous? surely this isn't the first time someone has had more than one match at a PPV?
right now, i'm leaning toward 12 points being for appearing and not per match.
my rationale for this is similiar to the fact i hate baseball leagues that count both home runs and SLG pct, because to me, that's counting home runs twice.
appearing in a PPV deserves bonus points. the match point bonus for appearing in multiple matches are the tallies for each individual match. if you're in two matches, you're naturally going to score additional points than those who are in only one match.
|
| 28 | Great One@ Work
ID: 40150137
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 12:34
|
were any people in a regular match AND the Royal Rumble?
that might be the situation we are trying to think of...
|
| 29 | Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 12:39
|
My apologies, but I screwed up when I read this:
1. I might owe Benoit another 12 points. Not sure if we give ppv points for each match when a wrestler has more than one match in a ppv.
When I read that, it seemed odd that he wouldn't get points the match itself. i.e. 30+25 for an individual win and a tag win. I sincerely did not intend to endorse two separate 12 point awards for "PPV match" points.
Change my vote to no additional 12 points for Benoit.
|
| 30 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 1629107
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 12:42
|
The first (Season 1) Royal Rumble had Brock in that match and in the main event (I think he had to win the Rumble to get into the ME). But that was scored before we changed the scoring rules. At that time, we were still giving +12 for ppv matches, but I cannot find the origination of that scoring, or anyplace where it is discusseed at all until we voted to change the scoring to eliminate negative showings.
In the 2003 Rumble, there were no double appearances.
|
| 31 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 1629107
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 13:04
|
MITH - you seem to pretty much have become our historian and....ummm....a word i cant think of in a moment.
I am just fond of Guru's filter menu. Hope that word you're thinking of isn't 'prick' or 'jack@$$' or the like. :)
is there anywhere where we've discussed this previous? surely this isn't the first time someone has had more than one match at a PPV?
Man, I have looked and looked for both, to no avail. I especially think this can't be the first time since the '02 Rumble that someone has been in more than one match in a ppv, but like I've said, I can't find it.
|
| 32 | Farn
Sustainer
ID: 451044109
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 13:17
|
Well, one thing that would need to be addressed if its appearance points is:
Does Teddy Long get 12 points if he comes to ringside, does nothing, and leaves having never done a thing to interfere? He would have appeared but done nothing.
|
| 33 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 1629107
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 13:22
|
No Farn, it has been clearly established that you have to be a competitor in a match in order to receive 12 PPV points. The only issue is whether those 12 points are:
a) a single reward for a wrestler having any number of matches in the ppv
or
b) specific points for wrestler for each match in the ppv.
|
| 34 | Mike D
Sustainer
ID: 41831612
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 13:42
|
IIRC, the appearance points for the PPV stemmed from us trying to place extra emphasis on the PPV appearances, a small amount more than the normal weekly shows. Thus the appearance points. I believe my interpretation of this way back when was "per PPV" as opposed to per match. In other words, extra points for just "being on the card" because we felt it was special and deserved.
All of that being said.......should being in 2 matches be "extra special?" Should there be a quantification of it----2 title matches, 2 tag matches, 2 matches period.........and how does that apply in the sense of say a tournament, as in the old King of the Ring?
Since my recollection is that the original intent of us adopting the PPV points was to be "on the card," only one set probably makes sense.....but again, appearing "on the card" twice is extra special. So I can see both sides, as MITH went on about early in the thread.
Probably easier to manage as a league if it is a one time per show thing.
|
| 35 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 1629107
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 13:46
|
Mike D, are you changing your vote? I was under the impression (based on post 15) that you felt 12 PPV points should be given for each match.
|
| 36 | Mike D
Sustainer
ID: 41831612
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 13:53
|
I'm fine either way really. But after reading and thinking back, and "talking out my thoughts in my last post, I think 12 per show was the intent. At least as i understood it.
And easier to manage too.
So I guess so.
|
| 37 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 1629107
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 14:06
|
I guess it looks like this is pretty much decided.
Mith, Wiggs, Species, Great One, Goatlocker and (it looks like) Mike D and Tree all seem to be in favor of 12 points for being on the card (thanks for the apropriate phrasing Mike D).
This is something that I definitely think should be revisited for Season 4. We should see if the consensus prefers to use the originally agreed method of awarding 12 PPV points OR 20 ME points at PPVs for wrestlers, but not both. If so (or if some other change is voted in), then perhaps it might change some peoples' minds about the issue we voted on here.
|
| 38 | kev
ID: 3155515
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 14:39
|
Fine with me, as long as Orton's points get cut too. The in ring vignette was just an on going backstage vignette.
What I'm trying to get at, more importantly than Benoit's 2 set of points for PPV matches, is that Orton should not be one point behind him for the PPV when he wasn't involved in the Main Event, or 2 matches, but is getting treatment because he walked into the ring.
|
| 39 | kev
ID: 3155515
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 14:39
|
Now, also, does Benoit get any sort of points for being in a 2nd match? I mean, everyone else on the card gets 12 points for being in a match...other than the result, Benoit gets nothing for a 2nd match?
|
| 40 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 1629107
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 15:15
|
Fine with me, as long as Orton's points get cut too.
What do Orton's vignette points have to do with this issue about Benoit?
Your new issue now is that a tag DQ win is 16 points and a backstage vignette + an in-ring vignette is only one point less? Well I guess I agree in that I have ha occurred to me that maybe 5 points for backstage promos/interviews and 10 points for in-ring promos and run-ins might be a little much. So if you want to propose a change, make your case and if it's convincing and maybe I'll vote with you. But any change that you vote in at this point cannot be applied retrospectively. Those scores were set before Bad Blood and so they will remain as they have been for scoring that event.
Now, if your argument is that Orton doesn't deserve 15 points according to our scoring system, I disagree, but I do think it's a subject worthy of discussion. That's why I brought it up in the notes.
Now, also, does Benoit get any sort of points for being in a 2nd match?
Yes, he got 16 points, which is the established league scoring for a tag-team DQ win.
|
| 41 | kev
ID: 3155515
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 15:19
|
You don't get it MITH...
As I see it, and it is sketchy at best for both sides, but every PPV match should get 12 points. After the fact, you brought it to a vote, and said, no, what was meant to be said was 12 points for a PPV appearance, not match.
So now, after the fact, we are changing things. You can say we are going with the rules posted above, but that is not the case- what we are doing, is changing the fact after the problem. I said it before- there was a week for this to be brought up beforehand, and nobody said anything.
Now, what I am saying, is Randy Orton does not deserve points for both vignettes. It was done in one session. He should get points for the opening back stage thing, and that is it.
I don't even care anymore actually....give your guys on your teams all the points you want.
|
| 42 | kev
ID: 3155515
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 15:29
|
And people wondered why I said this was a joke.
I have had fun with this league. In a league like this, obviously, there will be scoring problems, and people calling something different than someone else. That is fine with me, as it comes with the territory. My problem is, the voting occurs and is changed after the fact.
There is clear cut evidence, in the scoring thread for season 3, that a PPV Match is worth 12 points. Saying afterwards, you think it is a little much, should be too late. But of course, because the wrestler involved is not one of the one's that are scoring the event, it is put to a vote, and not counted.
Everyone searching for evidence, doesn't have to look far. PPV Match is clearly stated in the Season 3 Scoring thread. I don't see how things can be changed now because people don't agree with it.
And this is why this league is pretty much a joke. When in the scoring for season 3, there is a clear point of PPV Match- 12 points, but because people think it is a little much, it is changed after the fact, it is wrong.
Done. Finished. I am done putting input into this league, because frankly, it doesn't matter. You guys push your wrestlers points as high as you want, and change things after the fact. This was supposed to be fun, and for me, right now, I just don't care enough to write anymore.
|
| 43 | kev
ID: 3155515
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 15:40
|
Okay, so I can't give this up, because it seems so obvious that something is screwy.
I butted the Rumble thread- it to me, looks like Lesnar gets 12 points for being in the rumble, and then 12 points for his other match as well. If anyone can tell me differently, I would like to know what that 12 points is for.
|
| 44 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 1629107
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 15:56
|
So now, after the fact, we are changing things.
You're wrong right there, Kev. In spite of what you think the rules said or meant or whatever, this issue has never been established, and a majority of the league agreed with that. You might contend that you have it right and everyone else wrote it wrong, but I was the one who wrote the original proposal. So don't tell me that I have it wrong. I happen to be pretty familiar with how I communicate, and I'm prety certain that if I meant it to specifically mean 12 points for being on the card or 12 points per match, I would have made that clear.
There is clear cut evidence, in the scoring thread for season 3, that a PPV Match is worth 12 points. Saying afterwards, you think it is a little much, should be too late. But of course, because the wrestler involved is not one of the one's that are scoring the event, it is put to a vote, and not counted.
Everyone searching for evidence, doesn't have to look far. PPV Match is clearly stated in the Season 3 Scoring thread. I don't see how things can be changed now because people don't agree with it.
And this is why this league is pretty much a joke. When in the scoring for season 3, there is a clear point of PPV Match- 12 points, but because people think it is a little much, it is changed after the fact, it is wrong.
Kev, that is a shorthand reference, not an official Constitution to our league. You voted yes to the proposal that I made back in season 1. I'm telling you that that proposal was flawed in that it was incomplete for not addressing this particular issue. A majority agreed. You have continually ignored this.
give your guys on your teams all the points you want.
You guys push your wrestlers points as high as you want, and change things after the fact.
Now that is something I resent. Time and again through this league I have stood by policies that have damaged my standing and scoring because I thought it was the more honest thing to do. I've also lost considerable points and standing because of rules that were voted in that I didn't support. I was the one who insisted on using keepers' 'total points' instead of 'team points' to count against our draft standing . IIRC, I was the one most negatively affected by this but I still did all the research (we hadn't been tallying total points for season 1) because I honsetly thought it was for the best for the league. I was also not allowed to change my posted keepers for that draft some 24 hours before the deadline, meaning that I had to carry over Rodney Mack instead of Mark Henry. Henry wound up getting a huge push in season 2 and Mack was useless. Mack also had the burdon several hundred points counting against my draft standing while Henry had hardly any.
I very seriously draw the line at you taking a shot at my integrity, Kev.
I butted the Rumble thread- it to me, looks like Lesnar gets 12 points for being in the rumble, and then 12 points for his other match as well. If anyone can tell me differently, I would like to know what that 12 points is for.
The Rumble happened several days before we voted on the scoring changes. We opted to change the scoring in part because we didn't like the way that the Rumble scoring worked out.
Now, what I am saying, is Randy Orton does not deserve points for both vignettes. It was done in one session. He should get points for the opening back stage thing, and that is it.
You have every right in the world to make that case. Godspeed.
|
| 45 | wiggs
ID: 545471416
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 16:00
|
MITH, Dont worry about him taking shots at your integrity. You are doing things to the best of your ability and while sometimes I dont agree with how things work out, they are always done exactly as the rules are written. Thanks for everything you have done.
|
| 46 | kev
ID: 3155515
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 16:09
|
MITH- the fact is, and it is a fact- things in this league always change after the fact. I have found the fact that Lesnar was rewarded points for both matches. Everything you have posted in post 3 does not seem to me, that the fact was never changed.
Please. Read your post 3, including the references you yourself make to "match" points.
This shouldn't have gone to a vote, and I said it before, because it is clear cut. In post 3, there is nothing there that tells me that every match does not deserve 12 points. And once again, that was YOUR evidence!
I apologize for challenging your integrity. It comes with a ton of frustration. Time and time again, it seems I am on the short end of the stick. You can talk about how the keeper thing might have screwed you, but points are another matter.
I just dont get how Benoit's points, in your opinion, debatable, weren't given, but Orton's points, also in your opinion, debatable, were given.
|
| 47 | Tree
Donor
ID: 599393013
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 16:09
|
Kev, i'm gonna call you out...
I said it before- there was a week for this to be brought up beforehand, and nobody said anything.
it didn't cross my mind. did it cross yours?
I have had fun with this league. In a league like this, obviously, there will be scoring problems, and people calling something different than someone else. That is fine with me, as it comes with the territory. My problem is, the voting occurs and is changed after the fact.
as i understand this, it's not a voting on a rule, but a clarification on the intent of the original rule. that's the difference. no one is voting to change anything, but rather to clarify.
Now, also, does Benoit get any sort of points for being in a 2nd match? I mean, everyone else on the card gets 12 points for being in a match...other than the result, Benoit gets nothing for a 2nd match?
seems to me that being in a second match on a PPV is a hell of a bonus into itself.
Done. Finished. I am done putting input into this league, because frankly, it doesn't matter. You guys push your wrestlers points as high as you want, and change things after the fact. This was supposed to be fun, and for me, right now, I just don't care enough to write anymore.
you've complained several times on various ways things have been scored in this league. and each and every time it has gone to a majority vote, because that's how this league does things. Every owner in this league holds equal weight, and i think we've worked hard to help this league maintain its integrity.
it is absolutely the most fair thing to do. if you think that we're out to get you an individual, then you've got much bigger issues you probably need to attend to.
i've played in different leagues in different sports with every single one of these people, and i feel very comfortable in saying that every single owner in this league puts what's best for the league over what's best for their team.
i resent strongly your accusations, and i take it to be very insulting.
|
| 48 | kev
ID: 3155515
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 16:13
|
Last post on this subject, as I have already wasted a ton of my time on this, and don't want to anymore, since it is useless, as it wont change.
Chris Benoit, HBK, and HHH were the 3 stars of Bad Blood. Benoit fought in 2 matches, and HBK and HHH fought in the main event. HHH won the match. Benoit won 2 matches. Randy Orton outscored HHH, and came one point short of Benoit, because on a debatable issue, MITH decided to give him the points, and keep Benoit's points off the table.
It is much harder, I feel, to change someone's decision than to keep it. I feel to get Benoit his points after he was not awarded them originally, is much harder than to take away Orton's points after they are already awarded.
Consistancy. It is hard to do in a league like this, but it is what I ask for. I do commend your efforts in the league Mith (as well as Farn et all). I hope you also commend my passion for having things be consistant and right.
No hard feelings. Let us just move on.
|
| 49 | kev
ID: 3155515
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 16:20
|
Tree- I am not calling myself out as "picked on". All I said was, it seems, I am the one who seems to be on the wrong end of decisions. In which, every time, I have accepted the decision. I have not pulled a blue hen, and quit. I have stuck with the league, as I do enjoy it.
I notice we posted at the same time. I know you will take the time to read my previous post, and realize, my passion got the best of me, and I do apologize.
The Cowboys still suck though.
|
| 50 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 1629107
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 16:26
|
Thanks Wiggs.
Kev, on two occasions (the keeper change fiasco and the roster posting deadline) I disagreed with a league ruling. I also believe that in both cases, I was more directly affected in a negative way by them than anyone else (with the roster deadline thing, if you remember I lost out on 30 points from Kenzo's pre-announced debut because of an unexpected obligation). But thems the breaks and while I have bitched about those decisions from time to time because I honestly believed they were wrong, I accepted them and moved on. In the one case only after other people made note of their displeasure about the new roster deadline did we revisit it a few weeks later, and in that case the change passed overwhelmingly.
So with all that said, I think you can understand my frustration with you taking an absolute $h!t here over 12. If it's the point of the matter more than the points themselves I really do respect that, but the league has spoken and your dissenting opinion is widely noted (loud and clear). Please stop with the accusations about the league pushing their wrestlers' points in favor of yours. I don't believe that is happening here and I'm not comfortable with the idea that such is what you think of your leaguemates.
Now on to the issue of my post 3, you're going to have to get into specifics because I don't really understand what you're talking about. I'm about to leave work for the day and then I have some errands to run and possible dinner plans, so I won't be back for a while.
|
| 51 | Great One@ Work
ID: 40150137
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 16:48
|
This is how I view the rule changing... 12 points or 30 points isn't going to make or break your season... hell - if you are 6th or 8th it might help you get a better draft pick!
But constantly tweaking/working on the rules as issues arise will help this thing in the long run and thats what really matters.
I think all 10 of us agree on that.
Thank you. Live well and prosper. Lets all have a nice hug.
|
| 52 | Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 19:33
|
kev chilled and apologized for a slight overreaction. He realizes nobody is attacking him - that we're just discussing the position he's taking. No biggie.
I still think, although imperfect, that the rules/scoring in this league have been great - it's kinda like the US Court system - it ain't perfect, but it's better than anything else out there, so we live with the imperfections.
I want Mike D to be the next one screwed by a rules interpretation though, so I can vote against him ;-)
|
| 53 | Mike D
Sustainer
ID: 41831612
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 23:30
|
I'll agree to be screwed. But I'll choose door # 3 (the one with the hot chicks, not any of you beer bellied, foul mouthed, whiskey swiggin' old men).
|
| 54 | Species
ID: 225521422
Wed, Jun 16, 2004, 00:34
|
You sound like Rick Rude......
"Now I want all of you dumb, fat, lazy, out of shape bastards to SIT DOWN, so all of the fine ladies can watch me finish......"
|
| 55 | Mike D
Sustainer
ID: 41831612
Wed, Jun 16, 2004, 07:15
|
Awesome pick up! Rude was such a great heel. RIP, Mr. Rude.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|