World Cup '10 Qualifications - Videos Rating Options

[Huy]

SPC didn't send a video because they haven't the number of people requis (they didn't take old videos, they are fair) and you forget that...

I guess you are talking about "SPSC" and not "SPC". Though, for sure we are fair too.

~Huy

[thund3rcrash]

Angara, have you even read what I said, apart from two lines, anf you did so, did you make sure you fully understood it?


No, in my example, they shouldn't have, for the reason stated in my post: it would make the CV useless to judge the level of the board, and that's the whole point of the CV.


It is not a matter of being retroactive or not. In judiciary matters, there are such things as the word of the law and its spirit. Doing something that is not written as illegal doesn't mean it is ok to do it. For instance: "Do not walk on the grass" -> hey great, I can cycle on it then! That's the reasoning of a 5 y.o.
even better example: I don't know in your country, but in France it is not illegal to cheat on your wife. It doesn't mean it is fair to do it, and it certainly doesn't mean you're going to get away with it easily.

so to keep it simple, We're not adding a new rule. We're underlining the fact that there was an important logical and implicit rule, that seemingly only BPSC broke.

[sangara]

It is not a matter of being retroactive or not. In judiciary matters, there are such things as the word of the law and its spirit. Doing something that is not written as illegal doesn't mean it is ok to do it. For instance: "Do not walk on the grass" -> hey great, I can cycle on it then! That's the reasoning of a 5 y.o.

Actually it is a matter of being retroactive. Did BPSC submit a collab following the rules as outlined? If you don't agree than you're insane. In the rules as written, there is nothing, nothing, that had even mentioned the age of the videos. And once again nothing specified that they had to be specifically filmed for this event.

And yes I do agree that in your example that is the reasoning of a 5 year old, but how you're jumping from that situation to this situation I don't know.

even better example: I don't know in your country, but in France it is not illegal to cheat on your wife. It doesn't mean it is fair to do it, and it certainly doesn't mean you're going to get away with it easily.

Yeah in America it's not illegal to cheat on your wife, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. There are no legal consequences to cheating on your wife. She may leave you, divorce you, hate you, etc. but it's not like you're going to get a fine because you cheated on your wife.

so to keep it simple, We're not adding a new rule. We're underlining the fact that there was an important logical and implicit rule, that seemingly only BPSC broke.

You are adding a new rule that wasn't written down before, sure you and your board decided that "Hey we only want new videos", but because it was never written down as an official rule, it was only implied. And for that my friend you can refer to my first post in this thread.

-> http://www.upsb.info/forum/index.php?showt...22143&st=60 post #75, just in case.

This post has been edited by sangara: Nov 24 2009, 03:45 PM

[thund3rcrash]

now let's stop for a second. It appears to me that we're having a disagreement over what a rule is.


It seems that for you, rules are just what is written down.

according to your definition, yes, adjusting our judgment on BPSC would be retroactive, as it was not written down that they couldn't use old combos.

But as for my definition, rules are what is written down PLUS what it implies, according to the context. and in that context, using old videos goes against the logic of the selection, and therefore shouldn't have been made. It's as simple as that.
Do we agree on this?

[LittleboyBPSC]

The only possible thing to do... is to change rules for the next WC (or WT)...
But you can penalize us... or juge our combos (without katix and knuckles's combos) because the rules were clear when we made the collab... And it was not forbidden!

So you can battle against the rules but not against bpsc...

[sangara]

But as for my definition, rules are what is written down PLUS what it implies, according to the context. and in that context, using old videos goes against the logic of the selection, and therefore shouldn't have been made. It's as simple as that.
Do we agree on this?

You see the problem with implied rules are that they are just that, they are implied. They are based upon what you (the reader) interprets from these already written down rules. This is why they cannot be justified as a real rule for example the the rules say:

The collabs will be watched by pen spinners all around the world.
Each community’s objective with the collab is to showcase its
local talent and prove to the world that they have enough talent to
deserve a spot in the main event. Each community needs to make a
collab which will impress people and make the audience want to
see them take part in the World Cup.

Now if I were the collab organizer I could say "Alright give me the best videos from our community so we can impress everyone.". But here's the thing, there's also a rule that states:

It is important to note that the spinners in the collab do not
necessarily have to be the same spinners that will in the team for
the main event.

Let's make an example, let's say I'm organizing a collab for UPSB to be entered and I want to put Toast in the collab. Now I feel that he will impress people enough to get us into the World Cup, but there's a problem, Toast isn't active anymore, and he hasn't put out a video since 08'. So what do I do? I take one of his old videos. The rules allow me to do this, because I am doing two things here, I am making a collab that I feel will impress the audience enough, and it doesn't matter that Toast won't be on our World Cup team. Why? Because it is outlined that "the spinners in the collab do no necessarily have to be the same spinners that will be in the team for the main event.".

The problem with this implied logic is that it is all there. I can make an argument just as good as yours that states why I should be able to use old video, as opposed to not using old video. Do you now see what I'm trying to say?

[Zombo]

I would like to summarize some of the points made during this whole debacle and make a decision. I don't think this decision can be called final for now because we have a few more days, but I think it is the best we can do for now.

Now for the facts that I think are not debatable:

1. "The definition of Collaboration means new material, promo means you can use old material". This is FALSE, there is no international convention for such terms. As a proof, PPP released what they call a promo as collab for the qualifications.

2. "It was the organizers' intent to forbid released material". This is TRUE. If we had to do this over again, such a rule would be clearly stated. If anybody asked a question about this subject prior to the deadline, they would have been answered the same way and a notice would have been sent to all communities telling them not to include released material.

3. "The rule is explicitly, or implicitly written in the rulebook". This is FALSE. Nowhere does it imply anything about released material. There are however 2 points that, situationally, can be applied to BPSC:

Each community’s objective with the collab is to showcase its
local talent and prove to the world that they have enough talent to
deserve a spot in the main event.

and

3- Who has shown they have the necessary talent to form a team
for the World Cup?

It is well known that a team requires 6 members. BPSC collab has 7 members. If the reason why Knuckles and Katix didn't film in this collab are because they don't spin anymore or don't have the talent anymore or are not available, then BPSC, in fact, doesn't have enough talent to form a team simply by the lack of members. It is my understanding that BPSC picked videos from members that are currently not spinning to meet the requirement.

It seems also that this is also the reason why SPSC didn't submit a video. If they had old members who very good but left recently and used their videos, it still doesn't mean they have the necessary talent now to form a team because of lack of members.

Of course this whole reasoning can be undermined by the fact that unreleased old videos are acceptable, but still doesn't show say anything about the current state of the community.

4. "BPSC cannot be disqualified or penalized for using a loophole." This is technically TRUE, but in practice, this rule has already been broken. Technically, we cannot even penalize anybody for breaking any rule. Nowhere in the rulebook does it say what happens when a rule is broken. Therefore deciding and applying penalties to collabs was done retroactively. In theory, people can break rules without consequences, since no consequences have even been outlined in the rulebook. It is only implied that there is some consequence for breaking them and the consequences are not stated.

----------------------------------------------

Now I have received some opinions from other communities.
I asked 3 things:

1) Whether they think BPSC should be penalized
2) Whether they implictly understood this rule and whether or not they tried to use old videos.
3) Whether or not they know any other collab that used old videos.

SPSC, although not participating, has already made clear that they understood implicitly the rule and followed it, leading to their forfeiture. They do not think BPSC should be penalized.

FPSB, of course is the strongest voice against.

We also know that GPC themselves used an old video. That video was also made public, but it was not judged in an international tournament because the tournament was canceled. Whether or not it is a greater, smaller or equal fault to BPSC is debatable.

I have received 4 emails so far, I won't reveal the communities.

One think that BPSC should not be penalized, but doesn't care if they are. They understood the rule as implicit and did not use any old videos.

Another one think BPSC did not commit any fault, because it is not written in the rules. "It definitely does not deserve any penalty."
The organizer of that community misunderstood and changed his mind. Now they think that they agree it is a valid complaint from FPSB and deserve a penalty. Also, " The rules didn't say that, but it should be clear, that you should not use old combos, BECAUSE you don't have the skill / time / mood or anything else to make new combos. I didn't try to use released videos because every member of my communities knows that I absolutely dislike it to put a already released combo into a collab."

Another one simply says "no, no, no, no" to all 3 questions. Meaning, BPSC did not commit a fault, they did not think the rule was implied (but didn't use an old video themselves) and they don't know any other collab using old videos.

My last email says that they agree with thund3rcrash about 'If everyone had been allowed to use some old combos, then any board could easily have picked the best possible combos. ' They think the penalty should be similar to long combos, something like -0.5. They implicitly understood the released video rules and do not think that they used any released videos. Some of their videos were 5 months old, but never public.

----------------------------------------------

My reasoning is that the whole "it's not written in the rules" appeal to a very rigid and formal understanding of the rules. Yet, the world cup and the world tournament have always been informal, amateur, tournaments ran by pen spinners for pen spinners in the spirit of friendly competition. There have always been problems in the past with rule breaks, unclear rules, bad judging systems and judging. And solutions to those problems were always improvised or solved informally.

In my opinion, this is the main reason why we don't have significant prizes for the competition. Because it has always been informal and a battle for honor and glory. Our system was not formal enough to support big money prizes.

I understand that the WC, in 2010, and pen spinning may have become too big to continue to be informal. I have no problem with making a more formal, structured, competition with very systematic decisions. But if we do this, we will lose some of the spirit that first started those competitions and we will also have a different atmosphere.

----------------------------------------------

With the way the rules are written, we simply cannot penalize BPSC. To me, this is clear. But that would be in the context of a very formal competition. If we still want to continue keeping the loose atmosphere of the WT/WC as it was before, then I suggest the BPSC to voluntarily impose themselves a penalty if they wish. It can be anything, from points to having judging only consider the 5 valid combos (like TONY said). If BPSC feels they have wronged the spirit of the competition or think they need to do something noble, then they are welcomed to tell me what solution they offer. But other than that we have no power to do anything more.

I invite other communities to do the same, such as GPC in the case of taichi, and also FPSB, if they're willing to tolerate this unfairness for the spirit of the competition.

My other decision is that we will take the month of December to seriously revise the rules. We have learned a lesson here and I suggest people to read to the rulebook more carefully and contact me with feedbacks. I did not get many feedback from anybody when I first released the draft. Not only should you point out unclear rules, but you should also comment on how the system itself functions. We have introduced some significant new elements, like themed battles and the relative judging system. If you don't like these then please tell me NOW before it's too late.

[Huy]

Let's make an example, let's say I'm organizing a collab for UPSB to be entered and I want to put Toast in the collab. Now I feel that he will impress people enough to get us into the World Cup, but there's a problem, Toast isn't active anymore, and he hasn't put out a video since 08'. So what do I do? I take one of his old videos. The rules allow me to do this, because I am doing two things here, I am making a collab that I feel will impress the audience enough, and it doesn't matter that Toast won't be on our World Cup team. Why? Because it is outlined that "the spinners in the collab do no necessarily have to be the same spinners that will be in the team for the main event.".

"Each community’s objective with the collab is to showcase its local talent and prove to the world that they have enough talent to deserve a spot in the main event. Each community needs to make a collab which will impress people and make the audience want to see them take part in the World Cup."
"3- Who has shown they have the necessary talent to form a team for the World Cup?"

You have to show that you are a community with good spinners NOW and not that you had some good spinners two years ago. I don't care how this is going to be solved but your example was bad. It's as if Bonkura was in one of the collabs. Senseless if you just take an old video of any spinner so that you can impress the other communities. You should show that you have the potential to participate now. Not a year ago or so.

~Huy

//e: LOL, I didn't want to "copy" your post. I started writing quite a long time ago and I'm currently watching soccer, sorry for that. ^^

This post has been edited by Huy: Nov 24 2009, 04:51 PM

[sangara]

"Each community’s objective with the collab is to showcase its local talent and prove to the world that they have enough talent to deserve a spot in the main event. Each community needs to make a collab which will impress people and make the audience want to see them take part in the World Cup."
"3- Who has shown they have the necessary talent to form a team for the World Cup?"

You have to show that you are a community with good spinners NOW and not that you had some good spinners two years ago. I don't care how this is going to be solved but your example was bad. It's as if Bonkura was in one of the collabs. Senseless if you just take an old video of any spinner so that you can impress the other communities. You should show that you have the potential to participate now. Not a year ago or so.

My example was to show that I could also make an argument that allows me to imply that I could use old video. Because the spinners in the collab don't have to be the same spinners for the team, the public and judges have no way of knowing that these spinners are actually going to participate unless they had to be disclosed prior to the video.

[thund3rcrash]

Sangara, I see what you mean, but I don't think your argument is correct. (and I perfectly agree with Zombo, sticking to what is written is way too rigid, )



written fact: the CV's are here to impress people.

actual fact: the CV's are here for the judges to vote on which boards are going to be selected.



Those two propositions are not equivalent. if the CVs are just impressing, regardless of how they really represent the board's actual level, they aren't worth anything to make the competition work ( to allow the judges to make a decision)

BUT if each CV represents the level of a board at a T time, then the more impressive, the better.


the only way for those two facts not to be contradictory is for everyone to show the most recent samples of their board's levels.

This post has been edited by thund3rcrash: Nov 24 2009, 05:41 PM

[Zombo]

thund3rcrash, I don't think anybody is disagreeing with you on what the rules SHOULD have been. its clear that the intent of the qualification round is to form a collab of your current community to prove that you are worthy to go to the world cup.

one rule was omitted and made the rules not follow exactly the intent of the competition. this difference is what we call a "loophole".

now the problem is whether or not we can penalize someone for using a loophole. ethically, I believe it is wrong for someone to exploit a loophole if you're conscious that it is a loophole, but under the law it is legal.

now the question is whether or not BPSC holds themselves to a higher standard than simply the rules and want to willingly penalize themselves for something that might have been wrong on an ethical level.

[thund3rcrash]

thund3rcrash, I don't think anybody is disagreeing with you on what the rules SHOULD have been. its clear that the intent of the qualification round is to form a collab of your current community to prove that you are worthy to go to the world cup.

one rule was omitted and made the rules not follow exactly the intent of the competition. this difference is what we call a "loophole".

now the problem is whether or not we can penalize someone for using a loophole. ethically, I believe it is wrong for someone to exploit a loophole if you're conscious that it is a loophole, but under the law it is legal.

now the question is whether or not BPSC holds themselves to a higher standard than simply the rules and want to willingly penalize themselves for something that might have been wrong on an ethical level.

My point was not to say what the rules should have been, but how the existing rules had to be understood if we wanted them not to be self-contradictory. I've been trying to show Sangara for several posts that understanding the rules in a way that did not include recent/never used/representative combos led to a contradiction.

As you rightly say, exploiting a loophole is ethically wrong if you are aware of it. I may be wrong, but I think BPSC basically wanted to release an impressive collab, and in their last minute hurry forgot the collab was meant to represent the actual level of the board, which is quite understandable, but puts us in a delicate situation, as SPSC chose the contrary, thus forfeiting their participation. I must say that although I really appreciate a lot of people in BPSC, I've been greatly disappointed by some reactions, and I deeply regret as well as hardly understand it came to some extreme manifestations, like Gisele8 deleting his account on fpsb.

[Zombo]

My point was not to say what the rules should have been, but how the existing rules had to be understood if we wanted them not to be self-contradictory. I've been trying to show Sangara for several posts that understanding the rules in a way that did not include recent/never used/representative combos led to a contradiction.

well, I think there are too many holes to be able to use this as an argument.

Because what you're saying is that "old combos" do not represent the current level of the community which is what should impress the public, since that is what is clearly stated as collab objective in the rules. But it does not follow that all released combos are old. If someone put in a released public combo which is recent, it represents the current state of the community, but it's still wrong to put it.

The real reason we don't want released combos is because we want each community to make the complete effort necessary to create a collab for this qualification alone. It represents your determination and how seriously you are taking the tournament. By using a combo already released, you combined the effort needed for this collab and some previous event together. But there is no restriction on the age of the videos themselves. We cannot verify that all the combos in all collabs are recent, we can only check if they've been released or not.

Nevertheless, I believe that, as in previous WT/WC, the rules are built on top of a honor system. There is an amount of trust needed between the pen spinners to do things the right way. Otherwise, the rulebook would have too be very verbose and extensive to cover all cases. For instance, here are some other loopholes based on the current rulebook:

-> What is the definition of member? For some small communities, it simply means registered on the forum. But for forums with a lot of cross-members, this is a problem. If you really want to maximize your chances of winning, you will use the most general definition of member possible (any registered member) and use the best possible members. For UPSB, this means we could pretty much pick anyone internationally. But the intent of the qualification is to make a collab that represents your community, so it would be wrong to do that. One example is the case of ChauTran. He is admin of VNPSB, so it would be natural for him to go with their collab. But he wants to participate as UPSB, so we had to respect his wish because he has represented UPSB many times internationally so we consider him a loyal member of UPSB. There will more problems once the results are revealed. If UPSB qualifies, do we use members who participated in non-qualified communities?

Even worse, there is nothing in the rules that prevent a member of two communities that participate in two different teams simultaneously! But clearly everyone know this is an implied rule because it is against the integrity of competition: you cannot compete against yourself!

-> Notice also that the rules say the collab should contain 6-10 spinners from the community, but does not say that the collab should NOT contain spinners outside of the community. A loophole here would be to respect the minimum 6 spinners from the community, and then throw in an unlimited number of videos from outside the community as long as you are under 4 minutes. Clearly this is wrong, but implied. You can also defend this by saying it contradicts with the collab objective.

-> There is no definition of community. Suppose we have smaller communities with only 2-3 good spinners each. They could form a temporary community just to register in the world cup and make the qualification. This is clearly wrong because the spirit of the competition is to evaluate real communities that exist and serve a real purpose other than the competition, but it is not explicitly written.

-> Someone makes a copy combo and puts it in the collab. This is debatable, because there is some effort involved in filming such a combo. But if you consider the time taken to design the combo as part of making the combo itself, then this should be rejected.

-----------------------------------------------

That's why I think the current issue is not legal, but moral. Morality is different standard from the law and I always thought that WC/WT had a strong honor element. So that's why we can't penalize BPSC under the law, but we can appeal to them from a moral point of view.

If they feel any guilt, wrongness, shame and are conscious of their act, then we should give them the opportunity to voluntarily clear their name and conscience. But if they honestly believe they did not do anything wrong on a moral, honor, respect for the spirit of the competition, level, then it is perfectly fine for them not to do anything. It is up to each community whether or not they want to abide to higher moral standards or not. SPSC did what they felt was the moral thing to do and forfeit. But morality is relative, so we cannot judge or impose BPSC any moral standard and if they don't think they did anything wrong then they have the right to be innocent.

The same thing should be done for all other communities. For example, taichi recognizes a moral duty to voluntarily denounce his combo and that's fine. Whether or not GPC thinks they need to do something more to clear their honor is for them to decide.

FPSB also needs to do the same process. Maybe they should think whether or not it was morally correct to accuse in public BPSC (a classier alternative would have been to do it in private) and take actions to remedy that, like an apology.

As a counter-example I give Thierry Henry's situation with Ireland. France qualified because they scored a goal off a handball. Thierry admits it was a mistake and wants a rematch, but FIFA does not allow it. As a result, their qualification is tainted and they are ashamed. In this situation, France does not have an immediate opportunity to clear their honor because the organizers prevent them from doing so. In our situation, we want to give the opportunities to clear their honor if they feel any shame in how they handled this issue.

If BPSC, GPC or any other community feel like this is not the way they wanted to do things, then you can offer a voluntary solution.

[h4stings]

I would just like to add one point to the discussion:

The qualification video of BRPSB uses at least one clip (I didn't check all) which was already released before, and that one is ~L~'s clip. It's not old, but his video is from the semi final against Mirektusheaux in the national tournament, BRT09, which was judged by international spinners.
Please verify: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MuCN28nKY4

Maybe Zombo already received an e-mail answer from the BRPSB, stating similar things, I don't know.

As far as I can see and read, ~L~ organized the WC10 collab. This is an early post from June, at that time ~L~ writes:

Uma coisa que não havia mencionado, teremos que estar prontos para lançar uma collab no outono (EUA), isso é lá do meio pro fim do ano, mas isso não vai ser problema. É só pegar os melhores rounds do BRT e juntar numa collab.
Essa collab seria requerida caso haja demasiados times na competição, necessitando, assim, de uma pre-seleção.

http://brpsb.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=957
He says that the BRPSB has to be ready to make a collab in autumn, and in bold: "this will not be a problem; we just have to catch the best rounds of the BRT and unify them in the collab". I.e. use pre-released (not necessarily old) clips. (Of course, he may have changed his mind and/or been corrected by somebody, so this of course is not a proof for anything, just a hint. It could be checked how the BRPSB/~L~ understood the rules in the end which should be in the e-mail answer to question 2) to Zombo.)

What I'm trying to say is that the BPSC is very probably not the only community which might have missed the implication of a collab consisting of entirely new clips, or has members which sent in pre-released/older clips. There might be more. Formally approaching, there is no way to penalize BSPC or GPC or others or appeal to them to self-penalize before Zombo has received an answer from all communities. Because I think there's a difference when there's 1 or like a dozen boards involved.

Basically, my point: let's wait for the answers to question 2) from the communities before taking immediate action.

This post has been edited by h4stings: Nov 24 2009, 08:23 PM

[thund3rcrash]

FPSB also needs to do the same process. Maybe they should think whether or not it was morally correct to accuse in public BPSC (a classier alternative would have been to do it in private) and take actions to remedy that, like an apology.

Zombo, I may be wrong, but for me it seems like you are the one who broadcasted the problem on fpsb: http://thefpsb.penspinning.fr/viewtopic.ph...50&start=15
before that, there had only been a friendly remark from a french spinner, on first page. you posted at page 2, flame started right after that.

I also would like to add that it could have been BPSC or any other board, it wouldn't have made the slightest difference. We don't give a damn about being qualified or not. But fpsb has in return been confronted to racist insults, and other rather unacceptable behaviors, as opposed to show to one of the organizers that there is the possibility of an inequity.

If half of the boards did use already released combos or old combos, etc, I don't even want to think about it. not until I've slept my whole. Good night everyone,please don't kill anybody, we're spinning pens, for ****'s sake.

This post has been edited by thund3rcrash: Nov 24 2009, 08:43 PM

[Zombo]

Zombo, as far as I know, you are the one who broadcasted the problem on fpsb: http://thefpsb.penspinning.fr/viewtopic.ph...50&start=15
before that, there had only been a friendly remark from a french spinner, on first page. you posted at page 2, flame started right after that.

I also would like to add that it could have been BPSC or any other board, it wouldn't have made the slightest difference. We don't give a damn about being qualified or not. But fpsb has in return been confronted to racist insults, and other rather unacceptable behaviors, as opposed to show to one of the organizers that there is the possibility of an inequity.

I was first aware of the situation by the public post from Picool in this thread: http://www.upsb.info/forum/index.php?s=&am...st&p=305655
I reported on FPSB to notify FPSB members that we are currently reviewing Picool's complaint, which was public.

edit: @h4stings, very interesting observation. BRPSB has not replied to me yet, but their situation is similar to BPSC (using a combo from a local tournament) so I am interested in their opinion. It shows how unreliable implicit rules are.

[Gisele 8]

just for info, i know everything has been said.
what happened exactly for bpsc:
i organised the collab, can't contact knuckles. damn.
looking rules: not forbidden using old combo
huh. ok i took combo from national tournament because it was not broadcasted outisde
i added katix too for the same reason

be sure that knuckles would have done a much better combo --...

thunder : i want you to stfu about bpsc reaction and organisation
fr:
1) si tu interrogeais les membres de fpsb qui me parlent -NON pas ceux qui se pavanent dans les parties cachées- les vrais membres, du forum de base; tu saurais que j avais prévu depuis bien longtemps de clasher et quitter fpsb, cad à ma Three years (sortie début novembre.) Je ne l'ai pas fait car j'ai préféré rester calme. Mais à n importe quel déclencheur je le ferais.
Et il y a eu cet immense déclencheur... Donc juste FTG à propos de ma réaction, none of your business. demande à lindor si tu veux; tu ne me connais pas.
2) je ne te permets en aucun cas de critiquer l organisation de notre collab, tu interprètes le fait que la collab a été lancée 1 semaine avant la dead comme un retard, il n'en est rien. sache que le mode de fonctionnement de fpsb n'est pas LA référence. J'ai préparé la WC depuis qu on nous a refusé l'entrée en 08.

okay okay now let's wait but

about penalty: okay. sure. but it has to be smaller than a very clear rule : not outpassing 4minutes. logical
and if you really want to penalize our collab for reusing those combos, please watch carefully at EVERY collab and search ALL OVER YOUTUBE if some combos were not realesed before. And maybe combos released before are deleted now. haha.

so, good luck in your youtube research.
i hope you understand you can't penalize us before reviewing all combos from all collabs.
see you in some weeks? =/

[TONYMONTANAED]

just for info, i know everything has been said.
what happened exactly for bpsc:
i organised the collab, can't contact knuckles. damn.
looking rules: not forbidden using old combo
huh. ok i took combo from national tournament because it was not broadcasted outisde
i added katix too for the same reason

be sure that knuckles would have done a much better combo --...

thunder : i want you to stfu about bpsc reaction and organisation
fr:
1) si tu interrogeais les membres de fpsb qui me parlent -NON pas ceux qui se pavanent dans les parties cachées- les vrais membres, du forum de base; tu saurais que j avais prévu depuis bien longtemps de clasher et quitter fpsb, cad à ma Three years (sortie début novembre.) Je ne l'ai pas fait car j'ai préféré rester calme. Mais à n importe quel déclencheur je le ferais.
Et il y a eu cet immense déclencheur... Donc juste FTG à propos de ma réaction, none of your business. demande à lindor si tu veux; tu ne me connais pas.
2) je ne te permets en aucun cas de critiquer l organisation de notre collab, tu interprètes le fait que la collab a été lancée 1 semaine avant la dead comme un retard, il n'en est rien. sache que le mode de fonctionnement de fpsb n'est pas LA référence. J'ai préparé la WC depuis qu on nous a refusé l'entrée en 08.

okay okay now let's wait but

about penalty: okay. sure. but it has to be smaller than a very clear rule : not outpassing 4minutes. logical
and if you really want to penalize our collab for reusing those combos, please watch carefully at EVERY collab and search ALL OVER YOUTUBE if some combos were not realesed before. And maybe combos released before are deleted now. haha.

so, good luck in your youtube research.
i hope you understand you can't penalize us before reviewing all combos from all collabs.
see you in some weeks? =/

It's too bad that you hadn't read / you hadn't understand last posts from Zombo.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT CHEATING, THIS IS ABOUT MORALITY.
BPSC MUST CHOOSE BY ITSELF IF IT DESERVES A PENALTY OR NOT. And if you choose not to receive any, you can also choose to make the new combos the only one judged. But once again, you and nobody else can say if you deserve any of these options.

I don't think it's really smart to say: "so, good luck in your youtube research.
i hope you understand you can't penalize us before reviewing all combos from all collabs.
see you in some weeks? =/"

Do you have any respect for SPSC ? I'm sure you do, but these three lines seem to show that you don't give a s***.

Now, this is your time to speak. Please discuss with BPSC members and tell Zombo your decision, so the show could go on.

[Gisele 8]

no penalty.
our video is done, our judgement is done, we won't do anything more.
i respect and respected everybody and everything.

about judging, i let the others communities decide.
my suggestion : too late to change, but if you want to, don't judge katix's combo.
edit: because knuckles will be part of the team if we qualifiy and will have done a better combo if i could contact him

This post has been edited by Gisele 8: Nov 25 2009, 05:12 AM

[Huy]

about penalty: okay. sure. but it has to be smaller than a very clear rule : not outpassing 4minutes. logical
and if you really want to penalize our collab for reusing those combos, please watch carefully at EVERY collab and search ALL OVER YOUTUBE if some combos were not realesed before. And maybe combos released before are deleted now. haha.

so, good luck in your youtube research.
i hope you understand you can't penalize us before reviewing all combos from all collabs.
see you in some weeks? =/

This sounds like a very rational and fair community. NOT. Are you aware of your coward and effeminate way in which you act? Zombo alrealdy stated several times that he can't penalize you anyways. Though, he appeals to your sense of morality, which - as it seems to me - you absolutely do not have.

"i respect and respected everybody and everything.
my suggestion : too late to change, but if you want to, don't judge katix's combo."
1. It never seemed to me that you respected anyone here but that you always thought you had the only true opinion.
2. It is not about US. You should not say "if you want to, do this and this" but Zombo appeals to YOU acting!

~Huy