Just in case some one wants to see why Math conceded
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
CTP PBEM Challenge Ladder - February 2005+
Collapse
X
-
well..game end one way or another..personally the way I look at it is if you know in your heart your strategy wont work give up,concede or whatever ya call it and move on take the loss give the win to the opponent and have a blessed day
Congrats BerXpert..Moi BuenHi, I'm RAH and I'm a Benaholic.-rah
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mathemagician
i will drop quinns in my next update (sadly ). then i will respond to your challenge, Dimytes, and see if i have time. dont worry. its unlikely that i will be out of range by then. in case berXpert miraculously concedes our game before that, i will update the ladder first.
©2004 Dimytes
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dimytes
Math, time for you to update the ladder and start figuring out map settings for our game. I expect it to be updated before the end of this weekend. I am completley stuck atm due to the lack of update.
©2004 DimytesHi, I'm RAH and I'm a Benaholic.-rah
Comment
-
Ladder Update 06.04.05
Due to strong demand here is the new challenge ladder (see entry post).
Events/Changes:
06.03.05
- Challenge Match #113 ended. Checkmate defeats Grandpa Troll.
I'm sorry, but I can only include it now that it has been reported.
09.03.05
- Challenge Match #94 (Dimytes vs. blackice) cancelled
- quinns and david42one dropped to bottom of BAID (Deity) and marked "INACTIVE"
(See note #2 below)
29.03.05
- Challenge Match #142 ended. berXpert defeats Mathemagician on turn 143 (resigned).
-----
Note #1
I will be working on a set of rules changes/additions to suggest to the players for implementation into the ladder, in order to make the rules more clear and, hopefully, fair.
I will (try to) use the following modus operandi:
1.) If relevently plentiful, I will post the suggestions in a thread, point by point, to which a link will be posted here. If not plentiful, I will simply do it in this thread.
2.) I will give the players time to respond to the points and discuss them (two weeks sound okay, or not ?)
3.) After that time, any point that goes uncontradicted and is unaffected by any contradiction to any other point will be implemented.
4.) As for the remaining points, a poll will be held (possibly 2 more weeks of time ?) whether they should be implemented or not. Any sensible alternative suggested by the players will be included in the poll (with possibly very similar suggestions merged into one). An absolute majority is required, which may result in a second ballot poll.
I reserve the right to deviate from the exact polling procedure in single cases, should the nature of the suggestion(s) demand it.
Note #2
As a rather quick-to-implement and unlikely-to-be-contradicted change, I took the liberty to include the following change rightaway, or at least to shape the ladder update so as to support it:
A player that is dropped to the bottom of his BAID is marked as "INACTIVE" (anyone like "MIA" more ? ). That player does not count towards the "challenge-3-players-above" limit until he officially becomes active again.
If no one objects that rule within one week, it can then be used along with the current ladder update, showing david42one and quinns as INACTIVE.
Have fun everyone.Baal: "You dare mock me ?"
O'Neill: "Baal, c'mon, you should know ... Of course I dare mock you."
Comment
-
About the challenge from Dimytes.
I happen to be very busy with work and a couple of challenge matches/SL games, let alone ladder updates and rules changes . So I again have to decline your challenge.
However, the question of "challenge-ability" is one major issue in the upcoming rules change suggestions. So hopefully this issue won't cause any more problems in the future.Baal: "You dare mock me ?"
O'Neill: "Baal, c'mon, you should know ... Of course I dare mock you."
Comment
Comment