Quote from: jibbajibba;575216I think Kaelik and Justin are both able to avoid reading spoiler tags.

I'm more worried about cross-talk on the thread not using spoiler tags that reveal something.

And while I think both Kaelik and Justin are capable of not reading the tags- I worry that someone (a 3rd party, or even one of them after the fact) claiming that they did so anyway. Why leave the door open for that type of misery.

Quote from: gleichman;575170but restraint on the part of everyone reading the thread.

Explain. I would have to avoid reading the spoiler tags as someone who would lurk and not comment?

I'm sure I'm the exception in that last bit, but there's no reason to expect non-participants to interfere. Unless there's something I'm missing.

Quote from: beejazz;575221I'm sure I'm the exception in that last bit, but there's no reason to expect non-participants to interfere. Unless there's something I'm missing.

Expect? Perhaps not.

But if it does happen we'll have a completely derailed Thunderdome again. Everything can be posted after the battle is over. There is no need to monitor it (i.e. interfere with the DM's calls) during the battle.

Quote from: gleichman;575220I'm more worried about cross-talk on the thread not using spoiler tags that reveal something.

And while I think both Kaelik and Justin are capable of not reading the tags- I worry that someone (a 3rd party, or even one of them after the fact) claiming that they did so anyway. Why leave the door open for that type of misery.

This is a possibility. But if things go to pm, someone can complain jst as easily about collussion or badgering. I think spoiler tags are the best option here.

Quote from: gleichman;575224But if it does happen we'll have a completely derailed Thunderdome again. Everything can be posted after the battle is over. There is no need to monitor it (i.e. interfere with the DM's calls) during the battle.

the problem is I think pms between a player and the gm can impact outcome more than people glancing at spoilers. I do believe DeadDM is trying to be objective, but that kind of player badgering does have an effect, which is why players do it. Even if the GM isn't actively trying to cater to the player, it will impact his judgement if the only person he is hearing from when making the call is the player seeking a particular outcome.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;575232Even if the GM isn't actively trying to cater to the player, it will impact his judgement if the only person he is hearing from when making the call is the player seeking a particular outcome.

So what you're suggesting here is the everyone watching the battle send the GM our PMs in order to counter the PMs from one of his players... and then shouldn't the player then see our PMs in order to counter mistake errors in those? Of course we would respond to his response...


Doing this by committee during actual play is a horrid idea. Everyone should trust the people playing and leave it at that, or just forget about the idea. I know that if I was involved in this- I'd walk away now.

Eh, I can see Justin's point, kind of.  dDMw ruled, it wasn't good enough for kaelik so dDMw went to a neutral site to get his ruling checked out, it wasn't good enough for Kaelik, so dDMw went to the Den to get his ruling checked out, and finally it was good enough for Kaelik.

When you have someone who is going to combat the GM on an almost pathological level, there's a case for wanting to make sure things are kosher, the problem is, there's no way to be sure.  If dDMw is going to knuckle under, nothing anyone can do about it.

BTW, although he did a decent job in the first Thunderdome, let's not forget nothing actually happened, so there wasn't much to adjudicate.

His supposedly having no dog in the hunt is an outright lie.

Quote from: deadDMwalkingAnd 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.

Remember these are all guys that according to them don't like each other and are all here within a couple days of each other by coincidence. :rolleyes:

Starting to think we've been metatrolled this past month, very effectively I might add.

Quote from: gleichman;575238So what you're suggesting here is the everyone watching the battle send the GM our PMs in order to counter the PMs from one of his players... and then shouldn't the player then see our PMs in order to counter mistake errors in those? Of course we would respond to his response...


Doing this by committee during actual play is a horrid idea. Everyone should trust the people playing and leave it at that, or just forget about the idea. I know that if I was involved in this- I'd walk away now.

No, i said by comittee is a bad idea. Just keep everything in the open using spoiler tags. I am frankly fine with whatever the people involved agree to. And regardless i dont think there should be bitching after the fact if the battle is actually played out (even if kaelik gets to pm directly). But i do think it is hard to remain truly objective as gm when a player is badgering you the way kaelik was badgering deadDM by PM (especially when there is no other point of view coming in).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;575242No, i said by comittee is a bad idea. Just keep everything in the open using spoiler tags.

I don't think you understood my point. If the purpose of the tags are to help the GM resist badgering- that means we now have the equal of a committee looking over his shoulder and commenting during play.

Without an agreed upon GM or method of GMing, and pretty sure everyone is going to want to see the Bone Devil which the Denners will try to weasel out of, might as well shut this whore down too Dan, no Design, Development or Gameplay is gonna happen.

Justin should be allowed to run all four characters, unless he chooses otherwise.

Both players should use SPOILER tags for their moves, so that everything remains transparent.

How is bullying the DM into using your interpretation of the rule, not a form of "Mother, May I?" or "playing the DM and not the rules"?

Even if this Thunderdome doesn't begin, wouldn't it be a good idea to establish a precedent of rules for future Thunderdomes on this forum?

Quote from: Rum Cove;575270How is bullying the DM into using your interpretation of the rule, not a form of "Mother, May I?" or "playing the DM and not the rules"?

Even between people who think games should be RAW, there are disagreements about what the RAW actually is.

Kaelik did not badger me into making any rulings in his favor, nor is he capable of doing so.  

The purpose of the surveys on other sites was for my benefit.  While I considered the rulings I made pretty clear, I'm always open to reviewing other opinions.  I wouldn't consider them binding, but I think a ruling is stronger when the reasoning can be analyzed.  

As far as my opinion of Kaelik - he's not very nice.  Of course, nobody on these boards has been particularly nice.  That's a culture thing, I guess.  It doesn't bother me.  But if anything, I have more reason to dislike Kaelik than Justin Alexander (who I've had very limited dealings with).  

Since I did DM the first Thunderdome, and Kaelik won, I will defend that win on his behalf.  Calling the win into question dismisses the entire purpose of a Thunderdome match.  While Kaelik asked the question rhetorically - if one side had 1 hit point left and the other was untouched, would ending the match mean it was 'inconclusive'?  I contend that Spike left the match when he decided he didn't have an effective strategy to deal with the Bone Devil.  He felt that 'see in darkness' - in this particular case, was a 'I win' button.  At least, that's the vibe I got in the post to the 'What I Learned from the Den Invasion' thread.  He pointed out that getting better than 60' darkvision for PCs is really hard in core-only.  

But whatever.  

If someone wants to try again, I'd be willing, but only with the original parameters.  I prefer PM to spoiler tags, myself.  Partly, this allows a player (either one) to ask a rules question without revealing their strategy.  Further, while the players might be good about observing spoiler tags, it's easy for SOMEONE to ask a question or post a comment about the Spoiler without intending to reveal the question, but doing exactly that.  If Kaelik had a spoiler tag, and the Party player didn't read it, but SOMEONE ELSE did and accidentally posted the relevant bit in another post WITHOUT spoiler tags, and the Party Player saw it, how could they then ignore it?  

The easiest way to avoid metagaming is to ensure that it can't happen.  

Since I've learned that the consensus here is that the DM should be trusted to do 'what's best for the game' and that would be 'follow the rules as closely as possible, only interpreting things that the rules are silent on', there shouldn't be any problem.  

In my opinion, this is something of a coordinated effort to dismiss Kaelik's victory.  And that may be human nature, but that's also pretty small.

DeadDM. Kaelik won in the same way that McBride defeated Tyson. We are happy to acknowledge a clear defeat. But it just wasn't one by any reasonable measure. Spike certainy shouldn't have quit but it says nothing about Kaelik or Kaelik's arument about bonedevils. I really think this is quite obvious. If kaelik wants a real victory, we need to see some of this actually play out. Kaelik's "victory" is the sort that satisfies the likes of Don King, but not anyone who genuineoy appreciates the sport. Kaelik presents himself as a true 3E sportsman, and if he wants bragging rights he at least needs to come to blows with the opponent. This is a TKO with an enormous asterisk.