Week 17 Chat/Matchups/Rankings

[El Muffin]

Originally Posted by Certain

Why would you use a no-show line in a 1-2 battle. Also, why would you assume Destroyer would no-show?

With that said, I don't get the rule either. But I have seen it before.

i was using that as an example

but yea

things are back.to where they were.

so it dsnt "reaaaaly matter"

i mean if you want to try to get ppl to enforce sumthin that hasnt been in a rule thread all season then gl w/ that destroyer

[Certain]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

@Certain

I think it places too much value in posting second. I guess it's a bigger deal in battling because everyone has a few good lines in storage.

[Destroyer]

the rule exists simply so the first battler can't rethink his bar after seeing the bar he's going up against. yes, it gives an advantage to whoever posts second because they can see the bar/verse they have to beat.
that's just how it is though
the other option means the first guy can then edit his shit and it just becomes a battle of edits until the first vote drops

[El Muffin]

Originally Posted by Certain

I think it places too much value in posting second. I guess it's a bigger deal in battling because everyone has a few good lines in storage.

exactly

this is why i tried to sync up w/ des last night


he said post..ill follow suit

i posted. he didnt drop to nearly an hour later

so how is tgat different

the rule encourages ppl to wait till deadline to drop which equates to less voting timeframe. snowballing to.other shit tbh

[El Muffin]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

the rule exists simply so the first battler can't rethink his bar after seeing the bar he's going up against. yes, it gives an advantage to whoever posts second because they can see the bar/verse they have to beat.
that's just how it is though
the other option means the first guy can then edit his shit and it just becomes a battle of edits until the first vote drops

or it can be "oh i dont like my bar. let me change it"

lol ur bar had NOTHING to do w/ it

n who.is going to sit there n have a battle of edits lol

ud think sum1 would be content rather than just waste shit

thats assuming each edit will be "stronger" than 1 before it. but that situation seems unlikely. lol a battle of edits rofl

[Destroyer]

I love how you can somehow find a way to make what I perfectly logically explained seem questionable
whether or not my bar mattered to your edit means nothing muff
it's not a case by case basis, its a fucking rule because people don't have time to research someone's intent upon editing, it's just not allowed.

[El Muffin]

what if the rule was each person was limited to one edit?

im.just speculating

would that erase the whole edit battle thing?

[El Muffin]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

I love how you can somehow find a way to make what I perfectly logically explained seem questionable
whether or not my bar mattered to your edit means nothing muff
it's not a case by case basis, its a fucking rule because people don't have time to research someone's intent upon editing, it's just not allowed.

who cares

bars are in their original state so shuddap 1-2 district attornwy

i now kno about this unwritten rule. ok? quiet down now

[Destroyer]

I'm only the assistant 1-2 district attorney, faggot

[BROKE LESNAR]

After briefly reviewing the matter at hand here is my judgment. Muff violated the edit rule that has been common knowledge for years. Destroyer is correct. Once both bars are posted, the only individual with permission to edit is the individual who posted second as long as a vote has not been cast. Therefore, Muff is disqualified and will receive a loss to his record. Destroyer will have a win added to his record. However, I will not allow a championship title to pass hands on a NS or a DQ, so to maintain the integrity of the championship match (and to capitalize on the animus both competitors have directed towards each other as result of the fuckery), the match will continue per Rebuttal Option rules. Destroyer will post his bar next and Muff will post the final bar.

Winner will be declared champion and have an additional win added to their record, likewise an additional loss will be attributed to the loser.

I will be back later tonight to address any misgivings.

[El Muffin]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

I'm only the assistant 1-2 district attorney faggot

we know

[Destroyer]

@BROKE LESNAR

so will the new bars be the only ones judged?

[El Muffin]

goddamit

well hey make that shit clear in rules

before the next unfortunate soul gets this work too

[BROKE LESNAR]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

@BROKE LESNAR

so will the new bars be the only ones judged?

How do you feel ab it? You were the one that was wronged so I will allow you to make that decision.

[El Muffin]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

@BROKE LESNAR

so will the new bars be the only ones judged?

no

all 4

Hold up now

I fkn put the original bar back in its place

how do the edits matter now.

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by BROKE LESNAR

How do you feel ab it? You were the one that was wronged so I will allow you to make that decision.

at this point, I'd prefer just a clean slate, I'm sure muff would agree

[jilti]

Muff made a mistake but edited his bar to original bar, so no harm no foul. Both bars are terrible anyways so it'd be fun to see how its voted on tbh @BROKE LESNAR

[El Muffin]

i dont.

start rebuttal from here

all bars are in their place as was before

or is there more punishment im unaware of

[El Muffin]

Originally Posted by jilti

Muff made a mistake but edited his bar to original bar, so no harm no foul. Both bars are terrible anyways so it'd be fun to see how its voted on tbh @BROKE LESNAR

swaht im saying

i didnt think dq was neccesary solely because i made things right

but were goin to be a stickler for unwriiten rules i.understand

this shit u tryin to.mk me do now?

overkill

[El Muffin]

lol. sooooo

a vote is in.

both lines are original bars in their original state imo theres no need for this unneccesary extra shit

id rather lose then vacate then be subject to some "common law" rule i misinterpreted

how is des "harmed"?