Pharaoh Atem

~+-Superior of the In-Between-+~
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15742 RAWR means ilu in dinosaur

About Pharaoh Atem

  • Rank
    The Ruler of Benevolence - Your Translator
  • Birthday 07/05/88

Contact Methods

  • AIM EarlSkyhawk
  • Website URL
  • ICQ 0
  • Skype Earl.Ratliff

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Ohio. Huffman Prairie.
  • Interests Hanging out with my friends and family.

Recent Profile Visitors

7150 profile views
  1. you remind me of me from a few years ago at this point I don't have the luxury of considering the republican party capable of divorcing its actual tenets from its dogwhistles
  2. We had them on the ropes, Joe, and their speaking in code is exactly what made them run from the hills in support - this has been brewing since 20 years before I was born. It's only overt, I believe, because people are willing to hate on racists as long as they don't feel like they have something to lose, and once they have something to lose, they seem more likely to wanna get quiet.
  3. Thinking on the last few pages, Joe, I note you said Trump may've transformed the Republicans into a white nationalist party. Are you sure it wasn't the Southern Strategy that did that?
  4. the general gist of what I was saying was "how did ARG not see that coming, also the fact that it didn't is reason for people to be wary of its judgment in the future despite these changes being good ones"
  5. the core of my stance for years has never been advocacy of policy as much as "players need to wise up about lots and lots o' shit". I can understand a new kid making this mistake, but you're too fucking old and been exposed to me far too many times to miss this one. opposition to IDs, for example, isn't so much "i like koomy" as much as "think about this from an event design perspective, not the perspective of what makes you as an individual feel good." this doesn't require me to side with the policy as it currently stands as if that policy is perfect, it just requires me to acknowledge the present policy, despite its faults, does meet the threshold of opposing IDs. I shouldn't have to prove my bona fides, either, by passing some arbitrary "sounding sufficiently negative about present policy" litmus, and your reaction makes me think that's where we're headed. the fact is that things that look like advocacy to you sometimes are advocacy and sometimes aren't, and you're losing the ability to tell the difference, and you need to be told so, especially about the likes of me.
  6. T8 instead of T16 is good stuff. Rather than keep IDs I'd just make it impossible to have match draws if they don't want to do things the official way. Official locals already can't have match draws, so it won't be a hard adjustment to make. The extra round of swiss might be difficult unless you teach people to start enforcing SP-Minor
  7. I could get behind increasing notoriety back when dealing w/ players from 05 or so. Players today don't make me care enough about "oh hey I hope so and so is there." That's probably just my age, though. I learned from Suffridge, not Jones. That said, matchmaking variance is a good point, but I wouldn't so much go for a bye there as much as push for a sort of thing that still has players play an exhibition match of sort that matters within the bounds of the event - perhaps a sort of "you win a feature R1" thing, and you're matched up against someone else who won the feature. winning a feature this way, natch, should be difficult - that way, you don't get an R1 easy fluke, and nor does someone else who is good, and the ezpz opponent who might've been matched up with you and destroyed by you has a higher chance of getting an ezpz opponent R1 as well. Solves variance of matchup difficulty early-on in swiss, while also making the event's X-round grind stay X rounds for everyone. I want heat turned up, and part of that is making people play. Further, making people play more DOES help change up who will or won't end up prevailing: fatigue and impatience being factors is valuable to me from an event construction perspective. This soapbox of yours, while legitimate, had nothing to do with what I said, which was that players [in the case of liking these bought byes, as obv from the context of my prior post] might have no idea why not playing a game can be bad for an event. ARG wouldn't have tried issuing byes in the way they first tried it unless they felt it would be a good and liked thing, and for a time, it bloody well was, which undergirds the point I was actually making. ARG and players alike had to learn why this was a bad thing to do, and the fact that it had to be learned at all doesn't speak well for thinking through things like this. We should've all known already that it wasn't the best idea, is what I'm saying, and the fact that some of us didn't is a disappointment. I didn't say SHIT in defense of current draws+noIDs procedure, but you're coming after me as if I'm blindly defending every present policy. Your accusation doesn't match the content of my post. Your frustration with official policy is making you see red. Calm the fuck down and read. I'm not just the strongest judge this forum has, I'm also still able to admit the good and bad in policies that we've discussed YEARS ago. So, again, calm the fuck down and read.
  8. That's feasible for smaller events, sure, but even the Konami 3 turn EOM procedure for single elim and T1 Swiss has problems when applied to a large enough player pool. I say this having been appealed and upheld countless times when applying SP-Minor. Fact is, players aren't concerned with event health, they're concerned with what benefits them - so let's presume we did reccomend ARG scrap draws in favor of a "must have a winner in all games" system, and let's presume they use the Konami 3 turn EOM to do so. This would piss off people who lose, natch, just like it does at Konami events in EOM. It also would make ARG's events even more like locals, for what good that does.
  9. the byes are a big problem of a sort too for similar reasons as the IDs - byes don't cause problems that do direct harm to the purpose of the last few swiss rounds, but they do even if you remove the "it's too much like an overglorified locals" problem, you still have the problem of "we make people play these rounds out at official events BECAUSE we don't care about anything except seeing what the result of an actual game is." A bye isn't a game. An ID isn't a game. We run official events to make people play games and see what happens. I'm happy about these changes to ARG's plans, but the fact that ARG had to make these changes in the first place stems at a deeper issue with the playerbase itself, the issue of having no clue why not playing in a round might actually be a bad thing.
  10. Swiss tournament play functions on, and only makes sense as, a system by which gameplay is presumed to have enough impact that later rounds will do a better job of testing a player's performance and capabilities than earlier ones - such that these later rounds ought actually have outsize impact on who does/doesn't proceed. In this vein, intentional draws in late rounds are the very worst thing one can do to Swiss as a system. Anyone can be paired against a ridiculously easy or ridiculously hard opponent R1, such that a match can become a foregone conclusion. Later rounds have this problem less often, unless one is cynical and assumes one's opponents get a record just-like-yours not because of their own skills, but because of thoroughly ignorant fortune. (At that point, one's too cynical to really belong in the event in the first place, unless one also feels one's own record is a product not of one's own skill but a product of the same ignorant fortune.) "How do you do in gameplay, when both players are tired, and neither is likely to be matched up against an opponent that ridiculously outclasses them?" That's what Swiss as a system seeks to ask, as an implicit part of its pairing design. IDing in the last 1-2 rounds of swiss means we DON'T GET AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, because a match was not played with the intention on both sides for one person to win and another to lose. The notion that "people are already entitled to move on to Day 2" of something is a juvenile notion particularly because answering this question is essential to swiss play having any real worth.
  11. registration went late on account of hundreds of people entering line just minutes before the late entry cutoff, compounded by a notable amount of late entrants and also a hitherto unknown march further stalling out matters - had the march not been there, folks would've got to registration earlier and there wouldn't have been such a "nearly late entrant" backlog considering how far out these things had to be scheduled, the march staff's choice to have their march when they did after WCQ was already locked in for that day was an unforseeable happenstance, one that was a stake to the heart. shit like this is EXACTLY what Friday Pre-reg is for, and we registered about 1/3 of the event's folks on friday - had we not had friday pre-reg, we'd have started even later, or with a lot more late entrants. In essence, we had the staff we needed for the event turnout I expected, which was slightly higher than last year's Nashville NAWCQ. We did not expect to have the second-largest YGO event in world history. This is perhaps the only event in recent game history worth comparing to Long Beach in terms of logistical difficulties. Outside of registration taking 3 extra hours for reasons outside staff control, Day 1 took a long time because of SP-Minor all over the place. Players' appeals, up to and including their appeals of SP-Minor calls, also add to the time taken. And boy howdy, people sure wanted to appeal SP-Minor, far more than I expected. This is quite possibly because some assume that getting 2 SP-Minors in an event means that you get a game loss that you didn't deserve, and players want to avoid getting losses they don't deserve. I understand where one might come from on this, but this is a common misunderstanding for two reasons. Repeat penalties do not always get upgraded, which is the first misunderstanding - and when they do get upgraded, the idea that one didn't deserve the loss is also mistaken. What one deserves isn't just decided by what one wants, or what one is capable of: when one's behavior is a harm to the event, even an unintentional harm, one deserves the penalties that matches the infractions one commits. Players need to be reminded that SP-Minor penalties are the friendliest warnings in the book: everyone commits SP-Minor sometimes. But SP-Minor is a huge part of what kept us at Day 1 until 1 AM. Investigations of matters also take a long time, especially in cases where we have to inquire with a player about something in privacy, to figure out exactly why something has gone wrong. Inquiring in privacy often requires us to take a player back into the staff area, and in a large venue, that alone can be a full minute from table to inquiry zone one-way, just because there's no reasonable way to get privacy in the middle of the event floor.
  12. when you choose how you want to win, you also choose how you begrudgingly would prefer to lose. deck choice will always be a double-edged sword in this sense.
  13. I understand: the general point I was making was that there's room for us to say "you don't deserve to win if you can't win under these conditions." That is, at the very least, what the institution of EOM procedure has always meant, aside from making events manageable. Time is viewed by many players as something independent of, and foreign to, elements of being good at the game. this is a mistake on their part: game designers decide what it means to be good or not at one's own game, by concocting the hurdles the player is meant to jump over. time is a hurdle, some handle it well and some poorly, and there's no real argument to make that says time oughtn't be such a hurdle. the official answer isn't "it's tournament policy" as much as "it's what ygo is". it's even more fundamental than how players conceive of policy: policy docs are no less "what ygo is" than "you get one Tsuujou Shoukan per turn, to use on Summoning or Setting." now, if we have a proper appreciation for all that, and we still say policy should change, it's a sober judgment. if we don't care much for telling people "maybe you deserve to lose if you can't deal with time well", then our interest in removing time from the equation may have the consequence of lacking impartiality. the only problem with your position is your belief that high stakes merit a different approach, one more forgiving. nonsense: forgiveness belongs out a window, and it is pressure that makes games into crucibles where only the best decisions at the best speed can have the highest chances of prevailing. If you want good competition, you turn UP heat, not turn down heat. side note: you say "competition not being timed is no excuse for slow play", but you have no idea how empty your words are in regards to how players behave. players fight against every SP-Minor warning they can: players try to excuse slow play regardless of whether or not a competition is timed. (and god forbid a player get upset when they're cited for an SP-Minor infraction DURING end of match procedure)
  14. No, it doesn't. It's not so much a case of "we need to force these people to buy our product instead" as much as "we need to protect our IP and these folks have next to zero benefit to keeping them as customers, so if they ditch ygo as a hobby, we care less about that than protecting our IP." This is because people like you and me have nearly zero of our spending habits benefit ygo as a franchise. The secondary market exists thanks to the primary market, not the other way around, and when we go hunting for singles at mad value, we're operating in the secondary market, not the primary market.
  15. He was in just red this time, which is probably why you didn't spot him. Something the judge program does at its best events is specifically have judges shadow other judges, and occasionally inquire with and give counsel to them. This is something you'll often find an HJ-role-capable judge doing, when not chosen to be an HJ or AHJ - we call this job the Mentor Judge job. Jarel was the Mentor Judge for this event. You might ask, "Earl Atem Judge, what's the purpose of the Mentor Judge?" Read on. As an event transitions from Day 1 to Day 2, there is always a threshold players must reach to continue to Day 2. This means that there're always going to be fewer people needed for the main event, and many eliminated players will now want to enjoy Public Events during Day 2. This means we need staff to transfer from Main Event to PE. As events progress to their final stage, PE will cease taking sign-ups, and once the PE area finishes its last events (often the public event point playoffs), the PE staff will begin cleanup. More and more staff non-essential to ME will transition to PE and help with the cleanup. Once even PE has too many folks, folks will begin taking designated short breaks. We have our performance reviews at this time, during the cleanup and wind-down process. This is where the Mentor Judge's role relates to a standard judge most. Mentor Judges and various Team Lead Judges sit down with the members of their teams, and talk about what personally went right and wrong for the judge at that event. Essentially, the Mentor Judge serves to help refine the Program and its judges.