Quote from: Fiasco;575095If we go with party individuals mode I don't mind stepping up. Happy to play any of he iconic 4 with core feats.

One caveat though. I really think this will work much quicker if JA runs all four. The delays in coordinating 7 people will slow this down even more than how Kaelik ran the bone devil.

Wait, you're willing to run a individual character?  I could do that.  Just make her up. I have no idea about 4e rules and barely care about 3x rules.  It's perfect. Be warned I play IC whenever possible.

Quote from: MGuy;575032I think that Kaelik should get another creature and another set up. I know that the basic outline of his approach has already been ruined in the last thread. I think that to avoid any metagame possibilities that another creature should be used and the situation switched up. At the very least it'll keep things fresh.

Since the bone devil has a 100% chance of achieving a TPK according to Kaelik I don't see how it could be relevant.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;5750853) I will not consent to have my PMs reviewed by committee.

I made my position clear. And since Kaelik has also rejected this provision (thus forfeiting the challenge), there's really nothing further to discuss here. It's fairly obvious at this point that neither deadDMwalking or Kaelik are actually interested in any sort of fair test.

Which should tell you exactly how much confidence Kaelik actually has in his assertion that the bone devil has a 100% chance of achieving a TPK.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;575108Since the bone devil has a 100% chance of achieving a TPK according to Kaelik I don't see how it could be relevant.



I made my position clear. And since Kaelik has also rejected this provision (thus forfeiting the challenge), there's really nothing further to discuss here. It's fairly obvious at this point that neither deadDMwalking or Kaelik are actually interested in any sort of fair test.

Which should tell you exactly how much confidence Kaelik actually has in his assertion that the bone devil has a 100% chance of achieving a TPK.

Hmm.. this bullshit is what I get for liking football, seriously?  How disappointing.  Totally with you Justin but it sucks straight up.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;575108Since the bone devil has a 100% chance of achieving a TPK according to Kaelik I don't see how it could be relevant.

Without the players cheating by acting on information they don't have. The fact that you not only demand that the Monster must be a Bone Devil, but also that your friends PM you every action I take is just proof that you are only up for the challenge if you can cheat.
Color me surprised.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;575108I made my position clear. And since Kaelik has also rejected this provision (thus forfeiting the challenge),

You don't get to set unilateral conditions and then declare the other side has forfeited by not complying with them.

If that were an option, I would set the unilateral condition that no one on this forum other than the actual DM know my actions until the PCs would in some way know them, and then you would be forfeiting the challenge by demanding that you be allowed to have your friends PM you my actions so that you can metagame.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;5750853) I will not consent to have my PMs reviewed by committee.  It's not that I really care, but I have absolutely no way to prove that I'm revealing the PMs as requested, nor do I have any way of knowing if those PMs are used inappropriately by a third party.  If I can't be trusted to adjudicate the match, then I can't be trusted to adjudicate the match - someone else acceptable to all parties will need to be chosen instead.  

If that's your condition for play, it's a non-issue.  Even if I agree to the provision, I cannot prove my compliance.  That's clearly just a trap to claim things are unfair.  

The only way it could work is if I gave someone else my log-in, and they checked my PMs before I do (since I could delete them).  Since I don't trust anyone with my password, this is a stupid requirement.  

I've explained why it's stupid.  But whatever.  Maybe you can get fectin back.  I'm sure he won't agree to this provision, either, but I also imagine you don't believe there is any need to enforce it.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575117If that's your condition for play, it's a non-issue.  Even if I agree to the provision, I cannot prove my compliance.  That's clearly just a trap to claim things are unfair.  

The only way it could work is if I gave someone else my log-in, and they checked my PMs before I do (since I could delete them).  Since I don't trust anyone with my password, this is a stupid requirement.  

I've explained why it's stupid.  But whatever.  Maybe you can get fectin back.  I'm sure he won't agree to this provision, either, but I also imagine you don't believe there is any need to enforce it.

Well actually, the best part is that there is a way to enforce partial compliance.

You would have to reveal any actions that I take, because after all, if I took any actions without you divulging those PMs to the committee, that would prove non compliance.

But of course, there would be no way to prove that I had been arguing with you about rulings.

So we have a situation in which you would not have to divulge me arguing with you about rulings, but would have to divulge every action I take.

Which is what he wants anyway, since he just wants his friends to PM him what I'm doing so he can cheat.

Quote from: jibbajibba;575098Cut the offline chats, all discussions should be here using spoiler tags so its clear to everyone. I totally think Justin is capable of not reading the tags.

A thunderdome when 80% of it occurs off-line is never going to conclude in a worthy way.

If it continues the MGuy haters are going to continue to accuse him of badgering the DM, trying to squirm round rules and all that palava. Transparency and Openess are critical for a genuine test.

The people that read this site are not stupid. If Justin's guys leap into the room where the Bone devil is hang from the ceiling invisible and choose their first action to coincidentially be peppering the ceiling with arrows of demon slaying we will all be able to see the bullshit.

Just play it out and man the fuck up

I think Jibba basically has it right. The Pms t the Gm are a bad idea, especially when we saw the badgering kaelik was doing to get rulings he wanted (though I must say deadDM treated him pretty firmly). Still spoiler tags should be sufficient for a test like this. Personally I think Justin is a good opponent for this scenario.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;575128I think Jibba basically has it right. The Pms t the Gm are a bad idea, especially when we saw the badgering kaelik was doing to get rulings he wanted (though I must say deadDM treated him pretty firmly). Still spoiler tags should be sufficient for a test like this. Personally I think Justin is a good opponent for this scenario.

Agreed, spoilers on both sides. I don't understand the obsessive paranoia. Is this a characteristic of the denners?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;575108I made my position clear. And since Kaelik has also rejected this provision (thus forfeiting the challenge), there's really nothing further to discuss here. It's fairly obvious at this point that neither deadDMwalking or Kaelik are actually interested in any sort of fair test.

Wow.

I don't think I've ever seen someone ask for a committee to review a referee's decision making because the player's he's ruling (typically against)on complains a lot.

Let alone seen anyone walk off the field when the referee says that he rejects such invasive oversight. No referee enjoyes a back seat driver.


...wait, maybe I have seen such a thing. There was as lot of poor-sportsmanship whining similar to this by Bobby Fisher back in the day.

Quote from: Fiasco;575141Agreed, spoilers on both sides. I don't understand the obsessive paranoia. Is this a characteristic of the denners?

It's not the denners asking for a committee here.

It's a question of fairness.  

If the DM is not trusted to adjudicate fairly, a different DM should be found.  

Jeff is running a Thunderdome and there is not the same call for transparency at his table.  

Jeff avoided revealing a silent image was an illusion, and/or that a wizard was invisible by using PMs.  

Any demand for revealing PMs is counterproductive to the point of the exercise.  Further, it is impossible to prove compliance.  Kaelik could PM me on another board.  Or start skywriting in Knoxville.  If we were going to collude, there's no effective way to prevent it.  But since I insist we're not going to collude, that should be good enough.  Demanding that I reveal knowledge that PCs would not have as a condition of play is not worth consideration.  

And I don't really care if nobody at the RPGsite has the balls to contest Kaelik's victory in an intellectually honest fashion.  Spike was the first champion, duly chosen, so an additional champion is just gravy.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575146It's a question of fairness.  

If the DM is not trusted to adjudicate fairly, a different DM should be found.  

Jeff is running a Thunderdome and there is not the same call for transparency at his table.  

Jeff avoided revealing a silent image was an illusion, and/or that a wizard was invisible by using PMs.  

Any demand for revealing PMs is counterproductive to the point of the exercise.  Further, it is impossible to prove compliance.  Kaelik could PM me on another board.  Or start skywriting in Knoxville.  If we were going to collude, there's no effective way to prevent it.  But since I insist we're not going to collude, that should be good enough.  Demanding that I reveal knowledge that PCs would not have as a condition of play is not worth consideration.  

And I don't really care if nobody at the RPGsite has the balls to contest Kaelik's victory in an intellectually honest fashion.  Spike was the first champion, duly chosen, so an additional champion is just gravy.

First off, i think you ran spike's session fairly. A pm here or there is fine, but when one player is essentially doing everything by pm, and with the kind of badgering kaelik brought to the table, it is going to raise doubts.

As to the last part, i think people here have been very accomodating and intellectually honest. If kaelik killed spike's characters, i would absolutely have said he won fairly (even with the pms). But not a single blow was landed. Spike forfeitd, which does nothing to prove kaelik's position. It is intellectually dishonest to boast victory after that affair. Justin Alexander knows 3E and is an ideal opponent for kaelik to test his bonedevil strategy against.

Quote from: gleichman;575144It's not the denners asking for a committee here.

I agree a comittee to review pms is not a good idea and not very workable. I also think it is true that badgering can influence even the most objective Gm. While i think deadDM did a good job deflecting many of kaelik's requests, I also think that pattern of communication could potentially shape his judgements. Spoiler tags are the way to go.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;575167I agree a comittee to review pms is not a good idea and not very workable. I also think it is true that badgering can influence even the most objective Gm. While i think deadDM did a good job deflecting many of kaelik's requests, I also think that pattern of communication could potentially shape his judgements. Spoiler tags are the way to go.

I don't even like the concept of spoiler tags. It's requires not just restraint on the part of the combatants- but restraint on the part of everyone reading the thread. Restraint is not a trait therpgsite is known for.

deadDM did a good job once, I trust him to do a good job again. Even if I were not to agree with any individual calls.

Quote from: gleichman;575170I don't even like the concept of spoiler tags. It's requires not just restraint on the part of the combatants- but restraint on the part of everyone reading the thread. Restraint is not a trait therpgsite is known for.

deadDM did a good job once, I trust him to do a good job again. Even if I were not to agree with any individual calls.

I agree but the nature of such tests is that don't just have to be fair they have to be seen to be fair.

I think Kaelik and Justin are both able to avoid reading spoiler tags. I think they are both grown up enough to know that a test needs to be transparent or its not a test. Neither should be relying on corner case rule interpretations to win the day. If the competition is as clear as is indicated by either side then minor rule interpretations matter not a jot.