New ITC Poll

[Lord Hanaur]

 

 

Exactly.  If the Majority of players who don't play a faction voted to keep down the factions they don't play, ridiculous things like a 400 pt Stompa with built in big mek wouldn't pass.  

So now the people who vote are saints?  

 

Ok.

[pretre]

lol wut?

[fluger]

You're FIXATED on the Tau ruling.  Fine.  REPLACe the word Tauwit whatever faction you like and tell me WHY you oppose a super majority requirement?

And you're fixated on a super majority?  

 

I legit don't understand what you're so insistent about.  If you have a contentious rule, there needs to be a clarification.  If you demand there be a super majority on it, then what happens when you don't get it?  Do you have players dice off each game to figure out how it works?  

 

I seriously have no clue what you're getting at here.  

[AbusePuppy]

REPLACe the word Tauwit whatever faction you like and tell me WHY you oppose a super majority requirement?

 

You're the one proposing an idea (supermajority rather than mere majority.) The burden is on you to explain why it works better than the current system.

 

For example, say we go to a "supermajority only" ruling system. Something like the Coordinated Fire issue comes up that people have vehement disagreements about how it is even supposed to work and there is no way to make a mutual resolution. A vote is taken, and splits 51/49 (or any other non-supermajority.) How does ITC now play that rule? The vote essentially becomes a null result at that point and no resolution is had, which defeats the entire point of having it- and failing to come to agreement on rules questions entirely defeats the point of having the ITC.

[Lord Hanaur]

The ITC ruled that Khornate Daemonkin are subject to Daemonic Instability.  They now have Daemonic Instability.  We now have clarity.  You might not like it but now you have it. Pretre says that's what matters.  The vote is just icing (he says).  Apparently, according to others, by vote or by dictatorial decree, at least you know.  Forget that it never should have been a question in the first place.  That is not important.  That the ITC asked, and that it is now clear how Daemonkin opponents want it is.

 

I for one saw no difference between Daemons of the Codex: Khornate Daemonkin and normal Codex: Chaos Daemons from any practical perspective when asked by the ITC whther I did or not/  50% felt the same, and so I tipped the vote at 50%+1 (most of whom don't play Daemonkin, but all of whom were entirely reasonable chaps with no self interest involved).  Fortunately we only needed 50.01% to get consistency restored.  It helped that we voted on a week where two Daemonkin players were busy with real world stuff.

 

Given 50.01% agreement has been reached among those voting, you will accept it silently plus defend it publicly.

 

If true, then discussion over.  Nothing said will sway you, and you will tell guys like me that you don't understand what we're getting at, as ome have done here (and you'll be right about that).  If false, then you'd dissent, thus agreeing with my central point entirely, despite having said you don't understand it (and you might still be right while being in agreement).  So simply put:

 

True or false?

 

My hypothetical aside:  They need to reserve judgement and allow the players and TO's to reslve it until there IS a super majority.  This mechanism exists and is used.  Keep doing ti until the ITC has the super majority.  If you need a shenanigan to work to win, havent you already lost?

[galahad911]

Wait, so you would rather there be no ruling until there's some arbitrary margin of victory on a vote? Having things that are not universally accepted ruled on so that you know what the rules are before you decide whether or not you want to participate is the point of the entire endeavor. Here, think of it this way, hypothetically there's a tournament in February some place out of state. You don't know whether or not your paint score is going to affect overall scores enough to make it a really important part of your score. Wouldn't you rather know the answer to that question before you go? Wouldn't it be good to know that the same answer is going to count for most any event you go to so that you can get better paint done, or not go at all?

 

Not every question addressed is about shenanigans. In fact, I would venture the statement that the vast majority of them are not. Acting like they are just because you don't like what they're doing only makes you appear petty. Not getting a ruling on things like the combined arms question before you go to an event just because there wasn't a super majority pretty much defeats the purpose of doing the thing in the first place.

[AbusePuppy]

You didn't actually answer the question with your slippery slope example, though (WHAT WE START MARRYING DOGS, HUH?!?): if there is an issue where the rules are genuinely unclear and people cannot agree on how it should be played, how do you resolve that if neither side can achieve a supermajority? Do you just... stop playing the game? Flip a coin every time the rule comes up? Resolving that sort of issue is the very reason ITC exists- so explain to me how you think they should handle it.

[fluger]

True or false?

 

True, and if the rule is still contentious enough it can be revoted on.  Which several FAQ/Erratas have been.  

 

And, as AP pointed out, you're not answering the question.  What do you do with a contentious rule if it doesn't receive a super majority?  

[fluger]

Also, it's not like you're not doing something similar at your own events!  You draw the line in the sand on what is acceptable and what is not.  For some reason you think the Wall of Martyrs bunker is out of line.  I think that's bananas, but it's your event!  

[Lord Hanaur]

Wait, so you would rather there be no ruling until there's some arbitrary margin of victory on a vote? 

I would rather the ITC left it alone and let the players/TO read their own codex's unless there is enough support.  to interpret, overturn or outright ban something.  Yes.  The ITC isnb't just ONE T.O.  It acts in effect as an overlord T.O.  I know you'll argue that you can modify any part of it and i know that.  Every TO already had the right to do it and should do it.  Thats not NEW and DIFFERENT.  THE ITC comes in and basically causes an otherwise fine TO to get blasted for not "complying".  Its happened to me.  I've had people say "I wont go unless its an ITC event".  I mean they are cutting off their nose to spite their face obviously, but they've done it.  

 

Others have gone as far as to be "insulted" because despite posting any variations to the ITC far in advance, MONTHS in advance, they just didn't read it.  They saw ITC, assumed some stuff and whammo:  problem (for them).

 

So any time the ITC "decides" something, it's kind of an albatross.  If their job is just to help people play 40K better, as some would claim (and I agree, that is what Reece wants) then make sure you're not over stepping because it does cause these problems.  If you want the ITC to truly represent an intervention where it is NEEDED, then you need to have more than 50.01% of a sample size that I know I wasn't a part of.  I didn't vote on any of this.  None.  I suspect a lot of people didnt and thats why a bigger majority is needed.

 

And since Fluger will go with anything the ITC decrees, discussion over as mentioned.  There is simply nothing to be said at that point.  =).

 

So we agree to disagree.

[fluger]

And since Fluger will go with anything the ITC decrees, discussion over as mentioned.  There is simply nothing to be said at that point.  =).

 

You completely sidestepped my questions.  

[Lord Hanaur]

Also, it's not like you're not doing something similar at your own events! You draw the line in the sand on what is acceptable and what is not. For some reason you think the Wall of Martyrs bunker is out of line. I think that's bananas, but it's your event!

What does that have to do with ITC and whether you'll take any decision they make for the sake of clarity? What does that have to do with the need for a super majority? Nada, am I right? But since you ask: The bunker you mention wasnt the issue. You know that. We talked about it in person. We talked more briefly here. It wasnt about the bunker.

[Lord Hanaur]

Stupid cell phones

[Guest]

Stupid cell phones

Finally, something I can agree on in this thread.

[galahad911]

I would rather the ITC left it alone and let the players/TO read their own codex's unless there is enough support.  to interpret, overturn or outright ban something.  Yes.  The ITC isnb't just ONE T.O.  It acts in effect as an overlord T.O.  I know you'll argue that you can modify any part of it and i know that.  Every TO already had the right to do it and should do it.  Thats not NEW and DIFFERENT.  THE ITC comes in and basically causes an otherwise fine TO to get blasted for not "complying".  Its happened to me.  I've had people say "I wont go unless its an ITC event".  I mean they are cutting off their nose to spite their face obviously, but they've done it.  

 

Others have gone as far as to be "insulted" because despite posting any variations to the ITC far in advance, MONTHS in advance, they just didn't read it.  They saw ITC, assumed some stuff and whammo:  problem (for them).

 

So any time the ITC "decides" something, it's kind of an albatross.  If their job is just to help people play 40K better, as some would claim (and I agree, that is what Reece wants) then make sure you're not over stepping because it does cause these problems.  If you want the ITC to truly represent an intervention where it is NEEDED, then you need to have more than 50.01% of a sample size that I know I wasn't a part of.  I didn't vote on any of this.  None.  I suspect a lot of people didnt and thats why a bigger majority is needed.

 

And since Fluger will go with anything the ITC decrees, discussion over as mentioned.  There is simply nothing to be said at that point.  =).

 

So we agree to disagree.

 

So you'd rather not know if painting is going to rule you out until you get there and talk to the guy running it? That's seems contrary to your other posts about that, and is much the same situation. 

 

Really, what this comes down to is that you don't like ITC. It doesn't matter what they do, or why. If they do anything at all, you don't like it. That's entirely your prerogative, but like I said in the post you largely ignored, it makes you appear petty. If you're cool with that, then more power to you I guess.

[white_devil]

I wish we had more ITC style events up North in Bellingham. I'd run them myself if there was enough interest for 40k tournaments in general.

[fluger]

What does that have to do with ITC and whether you'll take any decision they make for the sake of clarity? What does that have to do with the need for a super majority? Nada, am I right? But since you ask: The bunker you mention wasnt the issue. You know that. We talked about it in person. We talked more briefly here. It wasnt about the bunker.

 

It is literally the same thing.  You've made a unilateral decision to draw lines about what you think is appropriate, if people want to play at your events, they abide by your decisions, regardless of what they feel about the restrictions.  Again, you are side stepping my questions, What is your solution for something like ITC when presented with a contentious rule?  You seem stuck on this super majority thing, but that doesn't make sense because if you don't get a super majority one way or the other on any issue, then how do you then rule on it for the events that are forthcoming?  

 

I mean, the ITC could go back to what it did before and just make rulings on their own with no community input.  Would that be better?  

[Lord Hanaur]

So you'd rather not know if painting is going to rule you out until you get there and talk to the guy running it?

 

Paint doesnt affect game play.  Its a non sequiter

[Lord Hanaur]

I mean, the ITC could go back to what it did before and just make rulings on their own with no community input.  Would that be better?  

I am under no obligation to defend what they did before because I didn't support that either, now did I?  I am on record on my blog on that point.  Same for the INAT which I liked even less.  At least with ITC, there is a level of transparency that definitely exists.  So your question is not one for me.  You can take that up with someone else who did support it before it took polls.

 

Look, every TO has the prerogative and duty to make decisions.  The ITC effectively gets treated as the TO!  You can argue this way and that, but that's the effect.  What people who base their attendance on whether it's ITC or not ITC are doing is selecting their TO ahead of time in a pretty real way.  if they base their attendance on it, that is.

 

ITC or not, I'll go because I just am not affected by it, and I happen to dig the game.  That doesn't mean I sit around praising ITC for its flawless execution.  My criticism is for its betterment, not to tear it down.  My suggestion is constructive.  I'm telling you how to make more people like and accept it!

 

I run ITC events.  Why not.  Some people care about their points.  Give them what they want.  What I don't do is get online and tell people how "bewildering" it is that anyone doesn't want to praise its virtue to the rafters.  Sorry.  I don't do that.

[pretre]

Oh lawd. I take a day off and things go crazytown.

[Lord Hanaur]

What is your solution for something like ITC when presented with a contentious rule?  

If actually interested, Scroll back.  I answered that.

 

What I already said was:  As with all things undecided yet by the ITC, the TO can rule.  it's not as if we don't have a mechanism to "cope" with this "contentious" issue.  It's not like they could not take the equally fair minded view that another vote is needed.  I mean if the TO disagrees, he's going to rule otherwise anyways!

 

Be clear on this too:  The ruling itself didn't bother me much on its own.  Have I been talking about the rule or the process here?  The process.  And to improve it, they have got to seek a larger majority.

 

This is not an unreasonable thought.

[pretre]

Consistency. Different tos ruling different ways fragments the community.

[Lord Hanaur]

Consistency. Different tos ruling different ways fragments the community.

I don't feel very "fragmented" by different venues ruling slightly differently.  So...  I get the sentiment but...  I don't really know what that even means.  We already have 50% of the people who voted in total disagreement.  How much more than 50% can you be fragmented?  Lol.

 

And again:  my issue isn't the actual ruling... as I've repeatedly said.

[PourSpelur]

You could have 64% of attendees disagreeing instead of 49%.

Not jumping on your back, just not seeing what you're shooting at;)

[Mr.MoreTanks]

But the ITC makes it VERY clear that the only event that actually uses their rules are the BAO and LVO. EVERY other event that uses the ITC is making that choice as a TO.

 

It's still a TO choice. You can be an ITC event and not use a single ITC ruling, FAQ, mission, etc.

 

So you don't like them? Fine. Don't use them. People like them, people use them.

 

If you don't like the process, then offer a different process. It's a free market. Make your own system.