|
Post by LugiaDialga on Jan 22, 2011 23:05:30 GMT -5
Amtrax:
SuperiorLarxene:
LugiaDialga:
Tie breaker ends 1/23/11 @ 11:59 pm CST.
|
|
|
Post by pokemoneinstein on Jan 22, 2011 23:30:11 GMT -5
For the future, these tiebreakers aren't necessary. They don't determine any of the top 3 places.
|
|
|
Post by LugiaDialga on Jan 22, 2011 23:49:09 GMT -5
For the future, these tiebreakers aren't necessary. They don't determine any of the top 3 places. Aye, but you would be wrong in that case. These DO affect the top 3 places because, there can only be 1 winner for the top 3 places. Soo if someone ties, we need another vote to break that tie. lol
|
|
|
Post by Maestro Triplet (Larx) on Jan 23, 2011 4:03:14 GMT -5
For the future, these tiebreakers aren't necessary. They don't determine any of the top 3 places. ... Just... no comment... no comment at all...
|
|
|
Post by pokemoneinstein on Jan 23, 2011 10:44:05 GMT -5
The three people with the most votes are Sonicwabve, TGH, and Lala. No matter who wins the tiebreaker between Lala and TGH, both of them are still in the top three. it's pretty simple, really.
|
|
|
Post by Maestro Triplet (Larx) on Jan 23, 2011 10:54:12 GMT -5
The three people with the most votes are Sonicwabve, TGH, and Lala. No matter who wins the tiebreaker between Lala and TGH, both of them are still in the top three. it's pretty simple, really. No... that's not how it works... You ever played SSBB's tournament mode? Let's say you are in the semi-finals. You defeat your opponent, that player is knocked out of the competition. The same applies here.
|
|
|
Post by pokemoneinstein on Jan 23, 2011 14:37:21 GMT -5
That's not how it should work here. This isn't a round-by-round tournament. It's not a match-up tournament, it's a voting tournament. They're two completely different things. If you want it to work that way, you'd have to match up songs by two and then knock them off one-by-one.
|
|
|
Post by Maestro Triplet (Larx) on Jan 23, 2011 15:25:21 GMT -5
That's not how it should work here. This isn't a round-by-round tournament. It's not a match-up tournament, it's a voting tournament. They're two completely different things. If you want it to work that way, you'd have to match up songs by two and then knock them off one-by-one. That still doesn't change anything.
|
|
|
Post by tobinus on Jan 23, 2011 15:45:53 GMT -5
I'll come with an example, although I'll probably get ninja'd xD
Let's pretend the songs A, B, C, D and E are participating. It ends up like this:
A: 5 votes B: 4 votes C: 4 votes D: 2 votes E: 2 votes
With the current system, two tiebreakers will be made: one for B and C, and another for D and E. In this example, C and D won. That makes the final results this: 1st: A 2nd: C 3rd: D
But.... why does D stand there? He got less votes than B! And yet, B's not on the list..!
This is what Stein is suggesting: One tiebreaker will be made, for B and C. C will still win. In this tiebreaker, they were competing for the 2nd and 3rd place. So, C will be at 2nd, and B is not just forgotten about, but he is then placed as 3rd. He did better than D and E after all!
I hope everyone understands why we want it changed ;D With the current system, it's better to get 4 votes and not have a tie, than getting 5 votes and having a tie, and lose that tie. That's not how it should be.
|
|
|
Post by Dasgust on Jan 23, 2011 15:48:12 GMT -5
I understand now, too. Let me quote (kinda) Pokemoneinstein: If there's a tie for the first place, whoever wins the tiebreaker, wins the first place, and the loser(s) doesn't/don't make the top 3. Same with the second and the third.
So in this current example, Lala and TGH tied for the second. The winner of that should be the second, and the loser should be the third. Instead, the winner gets the second, and the loser doesn't make the top 3 and the third place is determined by the second tiebreaker.tobinus: I got ninja'd instead.
|
|
|
Post by Maestro Triplet (Larx) on Jan 23, 2011 15:50:41 GMT -5
I'll come with an example, although I'll probably get ninja'd xD Let's pretend the songs A, B, C, D and E are participating. It ends up like this: A: 5 votes B: 4 votes C: 4 votes D: 2 votes E: 2 votes With the current system, two tiebreakers will be made: one for B and C, and another for D and E. In this example, C and D won. That makes the final results this: 1st: A 2nd: C 3rd: D But.... why does D stand there? He got less votes than B! And yet, B's not on the list..! This is what Stein is suggesting: One tiebreaker will be made, for B and C. C will still win. In this tiebreaker, they were competing for the 2nd and 3rd place. So, C will be at 2nd, and B is not just forgotten about, but he is then placed as 3rd. He did better than D and E after all! I hope everyone understands why we want it changed ;D With the current system, it's better to get 3 votes and not have a tie, than getting 5 votes and having a tie, and lose that tie. That's not how it's should be. Thanks for stating it a better way than mr.stein did. so shoor wai nawt
|
|