Master Index of Archived Threads


BLC: Cordial Discussion About Rules (spin-off) (renamed)

cooby Mar 10 2006 09:55 AM

One last question and I promise I'll stop. ELO is now allowed to challenge any one between themselves and Prince, correct? But no higher than Prince, forever and ever, right?

Willets Point Mar 10 2006 09:55 AM

Correct.

cooby Mar 10 2006 09:56 AM

thanks!

Johnny Dickshot Mar 10 2006 10:12 AM

I strongly disagree with limiting the steps on a ladder a band may endeavor to climb: It should all be up to the manager how far they want to reach. Since any one matchup depends in part on the lineup(s) there may be a situation where you've identified a weakness and want to try again, even against the same band that beat you before. This is what OO called the "Any Given Sunday" effect, I believe. No need toi eliminate this part of it -- I think it makes it exciting. In practice, I doubt we'll see too many overly ambitious challenges anyway, so we may as well not put a ceiling on it. Coobers, go ahead and challenge the Stones if you want. Who agrees with me?

Elster88 Mar 10 2006 10:14 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 10 2006 10:15 AM

No. What's the point of calling it a Ladder if you don't play the right way? If you want to move past the team you lost to....challenge them again. Until you beat them, the bands higher on the list are off limits.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 10 2006 10:15 AM

I don;t understand that response. If it's a ladder you can climb up or climb down. You don't sit on the same rung forever. If, for example, Cooby rearranges the lineup and takes out Prince, Prince can respond and take the slot back. It's all up and down. It's fluid.

Elster88 Mar 10 2006 10:16 AM

Well yeah, that's what I said too. Might have missed my edit. Challenge the band you lost to, until you beat them.

Willets Point Mar 10 2006 10:19 AM

I agree with challenging a band that beat your band to a rematch, but until you beat them you can't challenge higher. Otherwise you'd have the possibility of a band being ranked higher than a band it lost to, which makes no sense.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 10 2006 10:24 AM

I still don't see a reason why you can't aim higher if you wanted to. Perhaps the band that beat you once provides a particularly difficult matchup, but you see a stylistic weakness you can exploit in the band above it. Also, with new band being introduced all the time, there's probably going to be a points where bands just sit there atrophying because they're not comfortable challenging ahead of them. If you've got more CAHNfidence in your band than the guy ahead of you, then screw him and take the chance. Put another way: the Mets could lose every game of a season series to the Marlins and still finish ahead of them in the standings. They'd do so by succeeding a greater rate vs. the other teams in the league than the Marlins did.

Elster88 Mar 10 2006 10:28 AM

If the goal is to rearrange this contest so anyone can challenge anyone, anytime...then the standings should go by wins and losses, not the way they are now.

cooby Mar 10 2006 10:51 AM

That would be cool!

Elster88 Mar 10 2006 10:53 AM

I like the ladder. It makes more sense to me that way. If you have wins and losses then everyone has to play everyone else the same number of times to make it fair....would take forever. The method we have now seems to be working.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 10 2006 10:55 AM

Like I said, there's a strong disincentive to challenge higher up the ladder than you've won but since what you're challenging with can change, rematches and higher-up challenges shouldn't be prohibited out of hand.

cooby Mar 10 2006 10:59 AM

It does make the ones at the top rather pompous. And they have nowhere to go, because they would hardly challenge anyone lower than they are. So whoever is number one now can only be unseated by one whale of a challenger, unless number two hasn't played against them yet and can beat them.

Elster88 Mar 10 2006 11:00 AM

So re-challenge who you lost to! I don't get the confusion.

cooby Mar 10 2006 11:01 AM

No, I agree with that, I see the logic there. I'm just talking about #1 and #2, they are landlocked, so how could anyone unseat them, unless as I say, a very successful challenge is made

Elster88 Mar 10 2006 11:11 AM

A band has to work it's way up to get to 1 and 2. It's a long, arduous process, but a band worthy of the number 1 rank should be able to make it.

seawolf17 Mar 10 2006 11:11 AM

For example: Aerosmith could beat Tom Petty, but lost to Pink Floyd. Do I have to wait until the Floyds move out of the way to take down Petty?

Johnny Dickshot Mar 10 2006 11:59 AM

seawolf17 wrote: For example: Aerosmith could beat Tom Petty, but lost to Pink Floyd. Do I have to wait until the Floyds move out of the way to take down Petty? Perfect example. Of course you shouldn't, especially now that TP&H's sponsor is busy promoting his other entry and TP's been dropping since the start only because it was in the competition so early.

soupcan Mar 10 2006 12:00 PM

cooby wrote: No, I agree with that, I see the logic there. I'm just talking about #1 and #2, they are landlocked, so how could anyone unseat them, unless as I say, a very successful challenge is made But that would just determine beyond a shadow of a doubt who the #1 and #2 bands are and ultimately isn't that what we're trying to do?

sharpie Mar 10 2006 12:21 PM

The current #2 band is losing right now to the current #3 band. I see no problem with that. It makes no sense that you can leapfrog a band. I'm firmly with the "you've got to challenge them again" crowd. Yes you might temporarily be blocked from moving due to the way the standings are but that will change as people challenge and re-challenge. We're in this for the very long haul folks. Very. Long. Haul.

cooby Mar 10 2006 12:23 PM

But challengers leapfrog everybody right from the start. That's how the Beatles got there in the first place. And Jimi Hendrix for that matter.

sharpie Mar 10 2006 12:25 PM

That's for their original seeding. It makes no sense to always have to start at the bottom. The challengee has a natural advantage in that they get to pick how they want to match-up. Presumably the higher-up bands are harder to beat (and will be especially so as this contest goes on).

Johnny Dickshot Mar 10 2006 12:49 PM

We're gonna get bogged down in a lot of rematches and traffic jams. Like I said, it would be rare occurrance to challenge ahead of a team that defeated you, but I don't see the harm in allowing it the manager dares.

sharpie Mar 10 2006 12:53 PM

Good illustration, Seawolf. Respect the ladder.

Willets Point Mar 10 2006 01:08 PM

Jesus Feckin' Christ can we go a day without the rules being challenged. It's a ladder challenge. If you lose then that rung of the ladder is blocked by the side that beat you. Of course there's going to be less movement up top because that's where the best bands are going to be.

Elster88 Mar 10 2006 01:10 PM

The same thing happened last year with Schaefer. And Yancy has since caved.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 10 2006 02:25 PM

]GNR beats Prince. 1. GNR 2. Prince ]Prince beats ELO. 1. GNR 2. Prince 3. ELO ]By your logic, ELO can challenge GNR. Please rank the three bands. at this point... 1. ELO 2. GNR 3. Prince ]Seriously, how do you not see the problems here? What's the problem? GNR could have beaten Prince because Prince's manager decided to use obscure B-sides. If you just want to rank the bands, then why are we bothering to choose 10 songs and a lineup? If Prince wants to prove their superiority, they can re-challenge ELO, or higher up the ladder. Same with GNR. It's not goiung to ryuin anyone's day ]Jesus Feckin' Christ can we go a day without the rules being challenged. Who made the rules?

Elster88 Mar 10 2006 02:28 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: ]GNR beats Prince. 1. GNR 2. Prince ]Prince beats ELO. 1. GNR 2. Prince 3. ELO ]By your logic, ELO can challenge GNR. Please rank the three bands. at this point... 1. ELO 2. GNR 3. Prince So the last match Prince was in they beat ELO. Then, they don't compete again...but ELO is vaulted ahead of them. And you don't see the problem?

sharpie Mar 10 2006 02:31 PM

Accept the rules as they are. Respect the ladder. REM may challenge alla the way up to U2, there's plenty of real estate.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 10 2006 02:52 PM

sharpie wrote: So the last match Prince was in they beat ELO. Then, they don't compete again...but ELO is vaulted ahead of them. And you don't see the problem? Of course I see the problem: A lot of you have trouble imagining the concept that an order that will be changing shape both because of the reults of a challenge but also, perhaps because of strategies employed in the placements. Prince can challenge up again if he wants to, and ELO can use it what it learned from losing the first time to put up a better fight. What's the problem with that? Like I said there's hardly a chance that a manager would find it wise to challenge ahead of them, but to disallow it for a *temporary* displacement based on a long ago challenge that could change with a simple lineup adjustment the next time makes even less sense. ]Accept the rules as they are. Respect the ladder. WTF is this 'accept the rules' and 'don't ask questions' shit? I don't recall it even being discussed before being told not to discuss it.

Willets Point Mar 10 2006 03:32 PM

Well there are the rules of logic which you don't seem to comprehend. There are also the rules of a ladder tournament which are well established format and what we accept by participating in this style of tournament. Edgy is the one who selected the ladder tournament format so I suppose it's ultimately up to him to incorporate changes as he's "host" of this "invitational."

sharpie Mar 10 2006 03:33 PM

You attributed an Elster-quote to me. Though I don't disagree. It was discussed. At length. If someone has the energy, all discussions may be found. In the meantime, respect the ladder. Speak not against the rules.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 10 2006 03:36 PM

Elster88 wrote: The same thing happened last year with Schaefer. And Yancy has since caved. Huh? This is the first time I ever opened this thread, and I find that I "caved." Interesting.

cooby Mar 10 2006 03:52 PM

Well, I guess I started this with my innocent question. But I also guess I didn't stop, like I promised...

Johnny Dickshot Mar 10 2006 04:10 PM

Willets Point wrote: Well there are the rules of logic which you don't seem to comprehend. There are also the rules of a ladder tournament which are well established format and what we accept by participating in this style of tournament. Edgy is the one who selected the ladder tournament format so I suppose it's ultimately up to him to incorporate changes as he's "host" of this "invitational." 1. Bite me. My questions haven't defied logic. 2. Most established ladder tournaments I know about only limit the number of places one can reach (for example, you can challenge as many as 3 places ahead, etc). What ladder tournaments do NOT discourage is the idea that one can reach and upset the existing order, even it means jumping a guy who beat you.

Elster88 Mar 10 2006 04:24 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: ="Elster88"]The same thing happened last year with Schaefer. And Yancy has since caved. Huh? This is the first time I ever opened this thread, and I find that I "caved." Interesting. Joking, with regards to the change in Schaefer rules.

Willets Point Mar 10 2006 04:38 PM

Okay. Fine. Get your Queen lineup ready because there's going to be a Royal Rumble on Tuesday.

Edgy DC Mar 10 2006 04:42 PM

]I don't think you should get to challenge over who you lost to. It takes time and commitment to vote and too many willy-nilly challenges hurts the contest. If a band that kicked your band's ass still sits below Tom Petty and His Glass-Jawed Heartbreakers, you have three perfectly viable options: (1) Post, "Hey, sad-sack, get off your duff and go after the freaking Heartbreakers already. Maybe if you're too big a wuss to throw a few punches at them, I'll take over sponsorship, maybe, huh?" (2) Take another whack at Seargent Sloth ever few weeks until you finally take him out. (3) Accept your fate and attack up the ladder with another band. It seems (1) would prove a very popular and successful route. But you shouldn't get to leapfrog over a guy you couldn't take out (ergo, the ladder model). Growing toward a certain degree of atrophy in the rankings is going to be what we're growing towards inevitably anyhow. These bands are called dinosaurs for a reason. It'll make changes that more dramatic over time.

soupcan Mar 10 2006 05:01 PM

You guys make me laugh and cry at the same time.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 10 2006 05:06 PM

I don't really understand that explanation, edgy. Can you challenge ahead of a band that beat you once or not? (I'm not planning to or anything. It's just that the nature of this contest includes so many variables -- song choice, lineups, etc. -- it just doesn't make sense to me to "freeze" bands on the ladder once the contest is over. Let them be free!

Edgy DC Mar 10 2006 05:11 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 10 2006 05:18 PM

I say no, you can't challenge over them. What you can do is revamp your lineup and go at them again. And if you can't beat them after several lineup changes, maybe yours is the lesser band. Eventually, if there are lesser lights ahead, the band in front of yours will challenge up, leaving more fodder for you to go after. Or others will challenge up against you and the guys ahead of you. There'll be enough action.

cooby Mar 10 2006 05:12 PM

Can Jimi challenge the Beatles, even though the Beatles challenged him first?

cooby Mar 10 2006 05:13 PM

Edgy DC wrote: . There'll be enough action. And we'll all get fired and be unemployed by July

Edgy DC Mar 10 2006 05:21 PM

]Can Jimi challenge the Beatles, even though the Beatles challenged him first? I say, sure. I think the only rule with rematches is at that a band should have to have won a fight in the interim before demanding a rematch. It keeps a nusiance from rechallenging every damn day.

cooby Mar 10 2006 05:22 PM

lol, I wouldn't do that

sharpie Mar 10 2006 05:37 PM

Good rule there, Edgy (that Jimi would have to win a different to challenge to go after the Beatles). JD, you're fighting a lonely battle. Respect the ladder.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 10 2006 05:43 PM

I still think the barrier is artificial and unnecessary.

Elster88 Mar 10 2006 05:48 PM

Stop trying to convince him. His mind is set.