/tnt/ - Tournaments & Events

This board is for hosting tournaments and other organized competitions, be it either events, contests, or anything where a winner must be determined through votes or otherwise. Just for this board, image duplicates are enabled and the bump limits are set extra high. Roleplaying is encouraged, unless event hosts ask otherwise.


File allowance: 4MB mp4, 4MB webm, 4MB swf, 4MB mp3, 4MB gif, 4MB png, 4MB jpg

Thread stats: 30 posts, 7 files (7 image(s))

Toggle poster info Replying to /tnt/16105 Close window
Options
No.16105
Tourney /Phil/osophyAnonymous
save file
image:167225654756.gif(408kB , 500x345 , 1445475714205.gif)
So I'd like to have a thread focused specifically for the foundational questions about the tournaments.
The biggest question I want to bring up is:
>What does the tournament actually represent? Is it a popularity contest? Is it about OC? character love? a war of wills and tactics? just plain fun? If multiple things to what extent is each?
Also by extension:
>What does it actually mean to be a board tournament winner? What makes a character "worthy" to be a winner? popularity? OC? campaign? actual quality of character?
>Should we limit more popular characters/series's/franchises? to what extent?
>How much does "validity" of a character's run matter? Does or should getting rigged fully tarnish that character?
>Do the ethics of a character's run matter? Are spite, psyops, or rigging valid tactics?
>How much do tournaments matter and how much is it worth getting invested in?
I think laying out thoughts about these kinds of questions would in the future better facilitate the constant debates over the years about rules, rulefagging, who's the "better"" candidate, a "good" winner and the such. And while there may not be objective answers to these questions it's nice to see other's opinions and perhaps lay out something resembling a consensus.
And of course feel free to bring up whatever other query's and ponderings about tournaments too.
No.16106
Anonymous
>>16105
Tournaments are a funpost ground and they do NOT matter. Any character is valid as long as they meet the criteria to be a character of the board. That's it, everything else is just a secondary thing you can do. Everything is valid, even psyop, falseflags, rigging, everything adds in someway to the tournament.
save file
image:167226455364.png(355kB , 600x599 , 1644024828192.png)
>>16105
>What does the tournament actually represent? Is it a popularity contest? Is it about OC? character love? a war of wills and tactics? just plain fun? If multiple things to what extent is each?
Everything.
The tournaments aren't actually just plain popularity polls, they're a rare event of engagement and funposting that is actually not seen in any other board in 4chan or internet for that matter.

>What does it actually mean to be a board tournament winner? What makes a character "worthy" to be a winner? popularity? OC? campaign? actual quality of character?
Depends, usually it is all of these with a slight nitpick. Midna for example is a clear popularity winner while Recette and Zorak are more underdog winners who won through their kino campaiging. The character should represent the board in some way and shouldn't be just a boring and bland pick.

>Should we limit more popular characters/series's/franchises? to what extent?
There should never be any restriction on any franchise, which is why I wholeheartedly disagree with the new two character rule. As long as a franchise has a three character limit like everyone else then it doesn't matter. If they make it to Elite Eight then it's deserved (aside from some cases).

>How much does "validity" of a character's run matter? Does or should getting rigged fully tarnish that character?
As long as a character isn't straight up unrelated to the board. You can't put moby dick in a /v/ tournament because he is a /lit/ character and basically no ties with vidya. But if a character has at least some amount of funposting alongside it being related to vidya they should be allowed.

As for rigging, it is a complex topic because the character sometimes can actually be 100% worth the spot they're given but are tarnished by the rigging done, but then there's the * who didn't deserve to go past the first round.

>Do the ethics of a character's run matter? Are spite, psyops, or rigging valid tactics?
I don't really have strong opinion on this one really.

>How much do tournaments matter and how much is it worth getting invested in?
Not that much, but they're genuinely one of the most fun events in 4chan period. Many great memes and artwork have come from these tourneys and I am proud to have partaken in each one of them.
No.16109
Anonymous
Tournaments are primarily meant for fun, but I think that's exactly why it's good to have a sort of a conduct and some guidelines we adhere to, so that discussion doesn't fall below a certain level. So that it doesn't just become chaotic shit posting like what would happen if we allowed DBZ characters in.
No.16110
Temp
>>16105
As far as I'm concerned, just with the site itself, it is a constantly changing beast.

Year 1 and initially Year 2 were mostly popularity contests straight up. The Spinel debacle put that on the back foot and the rise of Monarch Posting and RP in Year 3 effectively killed that dead.

OC can and has made a difference multiple times, and Year 3 was probably the peak of it with Monarch being carried to the win off it and Mr. /co/ being an RP fest.

Year 4 was a battle of tactics and spite, with spitevoting leading to the loss of basically all the so called heavy hitters. Year 5 somewhat clapped back on this, but due to the extensive rigging it's hard to say exactly how much of an effect this had(Albeit it appears 2 Farts members, Raven and either Frankie or Shego, would have made it to the E8 without rigging, so definitely less pure spite than Year 5).

Personally, I do not mind this as long as the base rules stay the same, which they have since Year 2. NSA's bracketing change was the first shift since and I'm not for it personally. The biggest advantage of March Madness style bracketing is that it stops all the heavy hitters randomly being placed in one bracket and taking eachother out, and based on last years results Heavy Hitters might be seeing a bit of a comeback after the disastrous Year 4. Hence I will not be bringing them forward to Tag Team and will be advocating for seeded brackets to return. (Though Tag Team will be tightening it's rules on who's allowed in to match the other tournaments for consistency and to help break the stigma we gained as being lesser. Plenty of good primarily /tv/ or /v/ characters will be grandfathered in anyway)

What it means to be a winner is hard to define, especially since following the Fuse incident off-season discussion became taboo. Prior to that winners often saw the benefit of extra generals for their series being started with the justication of discussing their victory(Most notably Jenny, Johnny, and Kronk saw a big boost afterwards), but following the crackdowns after Year 3 this 'board wide advantages' no longer really exist and it's become a more self contained victory.

As for what the title really means, that too has shifted over time. Year 1 and 2 were popularity contests. Year 2, 3, and to a lesser extent 4 were games of OC and Art where dedication and craft payed dividends. Year 4 and Year 5 were games of tactics and intrigue, mind games to out flex the opponent, with Year 5 having a dash of the rampant rigging problems not seen on that scale since Year 1 Mr. /co/ and Year 2 Ms. /co/.

This is further evidence that these phases are somwhat cyclical and will come and go. Rigging was a massive problem in the second and third tournaments(Miss /co/ 2 and Mr. /co/ 1), then went away as a significant problem for years before coming back again twice in a row with Tag Team Year 4 and Miss /co/ Year 5.
This is also my third and final reason for being against ditching seeded brackets. One of the main arguments for getting rid of them was that their biggest advantage(keeping heavy hitters apart) was no longer needed due to heavy hitters not being a thing anymore, but as we've seen, trends come and trends go, and the so called Heavy Hitters like SCK Coalition and Team F.A.R.T.S. did far better in Year 5 than the Year prior, and may have done even better yet without rigging. Year 5 even saw a former heavy hitter and prior E8 win for the first time ever.

Yes, being rigged is quite shameful whem it's allowed unchecked. There's a good reason Emmy was more or less forgiven because her supporters helped put her down immediately to prevent an illegitimate campaign, while Shirley and Spinel are forever tainted and the entire Tag Team 2021 is forever called into question due to both Numnuts tampering with half the results and my own fuckups in the finale.

IMO, rigging offsite or with large numbers of alt accounts is not cool.
Appealing to other 4chan boards like /aco/ or /trash/ isn't a problem, and appealing on other /co/ threads isn't a problem FOR THIS REASON(It IS a problem due to the threat of provoking rogue jannies though, so don't do that). There is a huge difference between trying to pool support from /aco/(which shares the same general 4chan culture and has less janny issues) and just importing a clueless voting base from Facebook or Discord who don't even use 4chan. Very different. /mlp/ is complicated so no comment, other than do it at your own risk as being associated with them is campaign poison. Trust me.

How much they matter is entirely on the community, though as I said the tangible 'benefits' off-season of winning effectively disappeared after Year 3 due to the crackdowns. There isn't a boost to discussion of your show for the rest of the year like what Jenny or Kronk got as those threads get pruned these days.
save file
image:167227393578.png(59kB , 956x720 , 1588306632945.png)
>>16105
I'm rather split. I agree with the ideal that they've changed in nature over the years, and also I'd say there's a different nature between each tournament (like male vs. females). If I had to define an underlying unity it's that they're all board-representative. What exactly that means can be vague and mutable. At best I can say it means the expressed collective disposition of the board at the given time. I can't call it the collective disposition in general because after the second year (for both /co/ and /v/) the tournament increasingly became a sort of institution in itself with it's own history and codes. So while it's still a collective expression, it's one within a particular context - no longer just the board's, but "the board as regards the tournament". So the meaning of the winner went from "board mascot" (in a sense) to more the "tournament mascot".

Of course the original popularity contest sense of things is still there and always will be cause there will always be silent majority or outsiders that just vote and don't follow the threads and history, but their influence as the unconquerable driving force is long past. I do question if it will become weaker, I feel like it's kind of plateaued and the winner of high seeds this year (with reservations and E8 fuckery) shows there might be a cycle. As a result top seeds went from top contenders to wildcards of sort, with them being at a simultaneous advantage (pure popularity) and disadvantage (metagame). But perhaps it just shows the meta-game gets meta-gamed and it will meta-game reverse.

I've always been in a sort of purist/idealist strain, in that I still see it as essentially a popularity or board-representative and not tourney-representative contest. So while OC and campaigns are great, fun, and deserve to bring a character a long way, in the final end I vote for the character I think is the best as that board representative (why I voted Midna over Hornet). In the case of fucky finale's like Betty vs. Johanna where neither is particularly board representative I'll go for medium representative, since I don't like meta victors in any sense, and I want to have the tournament maintain as much purity as possible.

The other part of me is just cynical about all that, and I think this year's ms. /co/ kind of vindicated that feeling with a lot of people. The view of >>16106 has probably come closest to the current truth. People bring many different meanings into it but the overall result is kind of just a fun spectacle, with thinning substance to the tournament itself. Even Spinel then seems valid in both a formal and informal sense and asteriskfags look more like moralist each year. If riggers, if they're smart enough, can shift everything, piss on any aforementioned criteria, and make finals, then what the fuck, just go all the way and make it a big spite/rig/psyops metagame. It's all rather chaotic now and a strong definition on tournament meaning can't be pinned down beyond perhaps the vaguest ideal's like funposting and hopefully at least somewhat a temporal collective representation.

How much they matter probably depends on your own purpose in it. If you're there for character love and actively campaign and OC them then it might matter a lot. Otherwise it's probably not worth taking serious at all. It's cool if a main wins or goes far, but it can't be said to have much prestige (at least not the last few years) beyond an inner-tourney culture. Though I guess you get the OC for them too.


It's all kind of fascinating though, and over the years I see the tournaments as a study. I'm now always curious the turn they'll take the next year.

Can't speak for /mlp/. Far as I can tell they've got their own small insular subculture and do things their own way.

>>16110
I more or less agree with everything you said in spirit. This more purist/idealist approach would make you the perfect host in my eyes if only you weren't shown asswipe incompetent at actually running tournaments.
No.16118
Anonymous
>>16117
Should add I am strongly NOT for series or franchise limitations. The rule is hand-holdy for weaker character and unfairly disadvantages stronger characters for simply being popular in a popular series. It's a rule inherently against the (what still like to believe in) popularity contest and board representative nature of the tournament. But it's a rule people will vote yes on no matter what because they want their smaller picks and more "interesting" bracket/results, and nothing will change their mind on that. The only exception i would maybe agree on are particularly extreme cases like touhou spam, which is sort of the equivalent of ponies allowed in a /co/ tournamnet.
No.16120
Temp
>>16117
>I more or less agree with everything you said in spirit. This more purist/idealist approach would make you the perfect host in my eyes if only you weren't shown asswipe incompetent at actually running tournaments.
I'll take that as the closest thing I've had to a compliment regarding this.
No.16121
Temp
>>16117
>I'm rather split. I agree with the ideal that they've changed in nature over the years, and also I'd say there's a different nature between each tournament (like male vs. females). If I had to define an underlying unity it's that they're all board-representative. What exactly that means can be vague and mutable. At best I can say it means the expressed collective disposition of the board at the given time. I can't call it the collective disposition in general because after the second year (for both /co/ and /v/) the tournament increasingly became a sort of institution in itself with it's own history and codes. So while it's still a collective expression, it's one within a particular context - no longer just the board's, but "the board as regards the tournament". So the meaning of the winner went from "board mascot" (in a sense) to more the "tournament mascot".
Agreed for the most part. While trends on /v/ suggest this progression was natural to a degree, and I mean, the RP fest and rise of campaigning in Year 3 was a sure sign of it, I'd argue the crackdowns after Fuse's debacle sped this all up by basically forcefully pushing the tournaments into their own box. Prior to this offseason discussion was common and a character winning was used as an excuse to make generals. The crackdowns basically insured the Tournaments would develop their own subculture instead of being a part of the larger /co/ culture even if it was trending in that direction already.

>
Of course the original popularity contest sense of things is still there and always will be cause there will always be silent majority or outsiders that just vote and don't follow the threads and history, but their influence as the unconquerable driving force is long past. I do question if it will become weaker, I feel like it's kind of plateaued and the winner of high seeds this year (with reservations and E8 fuckery) shows there might be a cycle. As a result top seeds went from top contenders to wildcards of sort, with them being at a simultaneous advantage (pure popularity) and disadvantage (metagame). But perhaps it just shows the meta-game gets meta-gamed and it will meta-game reverse.

Of course. The evidence seems to suggest this. Rigging was a huge problem early on, went away for a few years on any large scale, and then came back again twice. (Though I suppose this could also be tied to Stats simply being the best host by far and the people both before and after him being less qualified). Year 5 in general had heavy hitters do significantly better than in Year 4 and the effect would have been even larger had the riggers not screwed them over. Spitevoters got spitevoted themselves and it will likely be cyclical. This is why I am FIRMLY against randomized brackets, NSA jumped the gun on ditching them because he thought Heavy Hitters were done. Well that and it's tradition and I don't like mucking with it. If Stats had been in charge I would have handed over the tournament to him as soon as we got back to /co/, but I cannot stand for some of NSA's choices in leadership and am keeping control fo Tag Team til circumstances change.

>I've always been in a sort of purist/idealist strain, in that I still see it as essentially a popularity or board-representative and not tourney-representative contest. So while OC and campaigns are great, fun, and deserve to bring a character a long way, in the final end I vote for the character I think is the best as that board representative (why I voted Midna over Hornet). In the case of fucky finale's like Betty vs. Johanna where neither is particularly board representative I'll go for medium representative, since I don't like meta victors in any sense, and I want to have the tournament maintain as much purity as possible.

It is somewhat cyclical, but it honestly seems like you have to have both, even if the exact ratio varies.
You cannot rest on your laurels and assume because you got a high seed and did good last year you can do zero campaigning and make zero art and still get all the voters. People lose interest and gravitate to OC and discussion generators. Year 4 taught most of F.A.R.T.S. this lesson the hard way.
On the other hand, no amount of OC will save an obscure character from simply being overun. The two most OC heavy characters in the qualifiers of Year 5 Miss /co/ (Cheesecake Saint Cherrywell and Tiff Crust) both lost immediately, the former failed to get past qualifiers and the latter lost in R1. Having a core of dedicated autists backing you is nice, and the OC will sway some anons, but if you're too obscure to start with you won't get over the hump. There are exceptions to both rules, in Years 1 and 2 plenty of characters with little to no discussion got far and Shirley wasn't well known prior to her run, but the former could be considered early tourney weirdness and the latter was fueled by rigging.

>The other part of me is just cynical about all that, and I think this year's ms. /co/ kind of vindicated that feeling with a lot of people. The view of >>16106 has probably come closest to the current truth. People bring many different meanings into it but the overall result is kind of just a fun spectacle, with thinning substance to the tournament itself. Even Spinel then seems valid in both a formal and informal sense and asteriskfags look more like moralist each year. If riggers, if they're smart enough, can shift everything, piss on any aforementioned criteria, and make finals, then what the fuck, just go all the way and make it a big spite/rig/psyops metagame. It's all rather chaotic now and a strong definition on tournament meaning can't be pinned down beyond perhaps the vaguest ideal's like funposting and hopefully at least somewhat a temporal collective representation.

Some people definitely take it too far, but I'd argue Spinel really crossed a line by going offsite to Facebook and Discord. It's kinda dirty. Promoting on other boards? Fine, not rigging in my book, 4chan is 4chan. Using alt accounts? Not ideal, but I don't care too much unless the number is extreme enough to turn nobodies into winners(Ala, Shirley is past the line, that one guy who said he screwed over Alice with 3 alts isn't worth the trouble). But offsite is just plain wrong.

>How much they matter probably depends on your own purpose in it. If you're there for character love and actively campaign and OC them then it might matter a lot. Otherwise it's probably not worth taking serious at all. It's cool if a main wins or goes far, but it can't be said to have much prestige (at least not the last few years) beyond an inner-tourney culture. Though I guess you get the OC for them too.

That's true, and also probably part of the reason the early winners feel so special. They DID get to reap some rewards offseason. Jenny, Johnny, Kronk, Spinel, they all got a big boost in generals and overall discussion. Jenny's win is part of overall /co/ culture. Things became more isolated after the Fuse Crackdowns so it's more and more tourney specific. But the OC is definitely nice.

>t's all kind of fascinating though, and over the years I see the tournaments as a study. I'm now always curious the turn they'll take the next year.

Ditto, I've been tracking trends on and off since Year 3. It's quite fascinating.
No.16122
Anonymous
Replies:>>16125
>>16110
Wasn’t Raven kept out of the elite 8 due to Fang destroying her?
No.16123
Anonymous
Replies:>>16124
>>16110
>>16121
...Why am I agreeing with Temp? I'm scared
Replies:>>16125
save file
image:167229198573.png(1.33MB , 1000x750 , Screenshot_2020-12-14 Mr Morris Gallery.png)
>>16121
>I'd argue the crackdowns after Fuse's debacle sped this all up
Hadn't considered that but yes, janny response purposely isolating things to those in the know and select off-season autists to talk about certainly further sub-cultured it. But you also get more voters each year, so there is a growing wider board awareness each year too (assuming most of those new votes aren't just more alts).

>This is why I am FIRMLY against randomized brackets
I'm somewhat against it myself for similar reason's I'm against franchise/series limits, which is it's basically a slightly more roundabout way for a more "interesting" and underdog tourney at the expense of naturally popular characters. Feels hand-holdy, and like you said it's just infringing on formal precedent which should always be assumed unless truly necessary (one of NSA's major flaws is jumping to his own arbitrary decisions and stubbornly holding them). I'm not -totally- against randomization though, cause if a character is "worthy" enough (popular + board-representative, in my own idealistic criteria) they should win in the end regardless. But it does drastically shift how the brackets would turn out to a degree impossible to really ascertain, so who really knows. As it stands I'm not behind it but it's not a major issue and it's something people are always gonna vote on anyways so may as well swallow that.

>F.A.R.T.S.
Wanna state that this was originally NOT a psyop. I was one of the people pushing this prior to that year (and kind of hold myself responsible for it's proliferation) and it was actually meant to be a banner of sorts. But yeah, that shit quickly got out of hand. I hadn't fully grasped the meta-game at the time to know I probably shouldn't have gone along with it.

>On the other hand, no amount of OC will save an obscure character from simply being overrun.
I laid out before a theory that the tournament is essentially a battle of high vs. mid's. You have the high's who's campaigning is often tenuous and are more wildcard as the years went on, who are pitted against mid characters who have the baseline to win alongside the major campaign support. So yeah, you might have someone like Tiff get in on the qualifier campaign but simply not quite rise to the mid-bar. In this sense the tournament always and still is a popularity contest, just that the baseline popularity required for a winner lowered a little. But Shirley making finals sort of throws this theory off cause she's arguably below mid.
Alternately you can have popular + OC and vocal support characters that still fail because of board conflict and seclusion. Modern DTVA suffers from this.

>Spinel really crossed a line
What i mean is, Spinel's run in my idealist frame is totally bullshit and *, but can it really be said now? or at least with the same certainty? In a cynical or practical frame after this year it's just as well she could bullshit her way to winner. This year's ms. /co/ was worse than 2019 imo because
1. It was never confirmed that Spinel was rigged as the tournament was going on, it WAS confirmed in this year but the characters went on anyways.
2. Spinel and gems DID have a legit fotm surge at the time, and I do think the Spinel and the others could've made E8 even without rigs. It's Spinel's run in her last three matches that are undeniably bullshit (just look at the drastic rise in voter numbers unsurpassed to this day). The rigged candidates this year were previously never in or were fodder though.

>Jenny's win is part of overall /co/ culture.
First year winner's will always remain the "true" winners to me. The tournaments purity ensured the most "worthy" (by my criteria) were winners. And I do think Jenny, Bravo, Samus, and Armstrong could all very likely win their tournament if it were held today. They're a solid representative pantheon.
I would almost say the same for the second year were it not for ms. /co/. The likely Frankie vs. Raven finale is imo the biggest cucking in any tournament - more so than Jack vs. Bravo cause the general sense Bravo probably would've won anyway.

>>16123
I'd always figured Temp was well-meaning. Just incompetent. A good example of his character is when the rigging last ms. /co./. was revealed. Temp went on a rant that he was pretty much entirely correct about, but then tried hijacking the tourney and got himself banned. Then he tried setting up tourney here but botched it right away and no one participated. This also temporarily caused anyone voicing the same (reasonable) complaints as him to be dismissed Temp.
No.16125
Temp
>>16122
Yeah, at the time there was rumor Fang was rigged, wasn't the case. My bad.

Shego and Frankie both would have won their matchups and moved on to face eachother in the Top 16 without rigging though, which is part of the reason I was so bloody ticked off by how NSA handled it. He basically used the repeated failures of Heavy Hitters to justify pushing through radical changes to Stats time tested formula when he himself made calls in vote counting that screwed them over(and again, cyclical cycles, Heavy Hitters seem to be rising again which makes seeded brackets really important to have and please for the love of god stop fucking with the majesty Stats came up with and then blocking any attempts to undo it because 'precadent' bloody hell mate you can't make up precedent on the fly, what are you, the supreme court? I got ya precedent right here, and it's Statsanons multiple years of the least drama filled tournies we had. He got rid of the rigging and as soon as we lost him it came back. Hows that for precedent you reformist wanker?

Sorry, got a bit carried away.

>>16124
>Hadn't considered that

Thank you, yes it's probably a bit of both. As for the voter numbers...eh I'm not quite sure. Last years Miss /co/ was 100% alts and rigging based on the massive sudden spike that didn't make sense based on the prior 3 years trends. Qualifying vote tallys had consistently been high 60s to low 70s for years and then suddenly it's 120s? Something ain't right. The prior very slow rise was probably mostly legit.

>I'm somewhat against it myself for similar reason's I'm againstfranchise/series limits, which is it's basically a slightly more roundabout way for a more "interesting" and underdog tourney at the expense of naturally popular characters. Feels hand-holdy, and like you said it's just infringing on formal precedent which should always be assumed unless truly necessary (one of NSA's major flaws is jumping to his own arbitrary decisions and stubbornly holding them). I'm not -totally- against randomization though, cause if a character is "worthy" enough (popular + board-representative, in my own idealistic criteria) they should win in the end regardless. But it does drastically shift how the brackets would turn out to a degree impossible to really ascertain, so who really knows. As it stands I'm not behind it but it's not a major issue and it's something people are always gonna vote on anyways so may as well swallow that.

Apologizes for asking, but was there a new franchise restriction added or is this about the same old 3 per franchise unless DCMarvelDisney rule we've had since Year 2? Because the latter seemed to work fine.

>Wanna state that this was originally NOT a psyop. I was one of the people pushing this prior to that year (and kind of hold myself responsible for it's proliferation) and it was actually meant to be a banner of sorts. But yeah, that shit quickly got out of hand. I hadn't fully grasped the meta-game at the time to know I probably shouldn't have gone along with it.

Hey, I'm the guy who got the S added. It was original just Team FART, but I noticed Shego showed up just as often and fit the acronym so I kept calling it that until it caught on. Yeah it was just a legit moniker to me. Hence when I came up with a name for the 2018/2020/2022 crew I avoided any bad puns and just went with the sterile S.C.K. Coalition. (Starfire Chel Kim).

>I laid out before a theory that the tournament is essentially a battle of high vs. mid's. You have the high's who's campaigning is often tenuous and are more wildcard as the years went on, who are pitted against mid characters who have the baseline to win alongside the major campaign support. So yeah, you might have someone like Tiff get in on the qualifier campaign but simply not quite rise to the mid-bar. In this sense the tournament always and still is a popularity contest, just that the baseline popularity required for a winner lowered a little. But Shirley making finals sort of throws this theory off cause she's arguably below mid.
Alternately you can have popular + OC and vocal support characters that still fail because of board conflict and seclusion. Modern DTVA suffers from this.

Oh that was you? Loved that stuff. Basically yeah. He tiers like FARTS, SCK, or Fang have to contend with spitevoting and especially in Year 4 were far too overly confident on thieir reputation. But low tiers can only be carried so far by OC, see again Tiff Crust and Cheesecake Saint Cherrywell both failing despite high OC support. Shirley is an outlier which further confirms her run as illegitimate as there was really nothing else going for her. This(combined with the lack of offsite evidence) points to one massive determined autist trying to break the entire tournament for a couple of his girls(And I have my theories who).

>What i mean is, Spinel's run in my idealist frame is totally bullshit and *, but can it really be said now? or at least with the same certainty? In a cynical or practical frame after this year it's just as well she could bullshit her way to winner. This year's ms. /co/ was worse than 2019 imo because
1. It was never confirmed that Spinel was rigged as the tournament was going on, it WAS confirmed in this year but the characters went on anyways.
2. Spinel and gems DID have a legit fotm surge at the time, and I do think the Spinel and the others could've made E8 even without rigs. It's Spinel's run in her last three matches that are undeniably bullshit (just look at the drastic rise in voter numbers unsurpassed to this day). The rigged candidates this year were previously never in or were fodder though.

I was mainly saying why Spinel was so hated compared to say, Emmy or the several characters who were using /trash/ for support like Jucika. Emmy's fanbase shot her down to protect their sanctity, and nobody really cares too much about campaigning on other parts of 4chan, not really rigging. Spinel was offsite and it wasn't caught in time.

Shirley is less about the rigger himself(Again, seemingly a lone wolf with either extreme autistic love for Shirley and a few others like Tigress, or someone with a Vendetta ala Fuse or Tourney) or moreso about NSA's horrible response to it. Neither of those things had to happen if it had been quashed in the craddle. Hence I take rigging so seriously, it has major knockon effects, and the longer you go on the worse they get. Stopping it in Round 1 is crucial hence Emmy recovered.

>First year winner's will always remain the "true" winners to me. The tournaments purity ensured the most "worthy" (by my criteria) were winners. And I do think Jenny, Bravo, Samus, and Armstrong could all very likely win their tournament if it were held today. They're a solid representative pantheon.
I would almost say the same for the second year were it not for ms. /co/. The likely Frankie vs. Raven finale is imo the biggest cucking in any tournament - more so than Jack vs. Bravo cause the general sense Bravo probably would've won anyway.

Oh yeah. Always vote for Frankie and Raven, they earned it. Frankie was robbed last year and Raven...might have been? Maybe? Definitely Frankie though, it was confirmed.

>I'd always figured Temp was well-meaning. Just incompetent. A good example of his character is when the rigging last ms. /co./. was revealed. Temp went on a rant that he was pretty much entirely correct about, but then tried hijacking the tourney and got himself banned. Then he tried setting up tourney here but botched it right away and no one participated. This also temporarily caused anyone voicing the same (reasonable) complaints as him to be dismissed Temp.

In my defense out of my 4 most infamous fuckups, 2 and a half of them were reactionary responses to someone elses fuckup and I wouldn't have been in that situation on my own.

The 'reset' debacle in Ta
No.16126
Temp
Replies:>>16129
>>16125
>In my defense out of my 4 most infamous fuckups, 2 and a half of them were reactionary responses to someone elses fuckup and I wouldn't have been in that situation on my own.
The 'reset' debacle in Tag Team was in response to Tourney basically coming out and saying he had rigged every matchup to fuck with people and take out the more popular characters. So basically the legitimatcy of the whole tournament was DOA at that point. A reset was the only way to bring back any semblance of actual validity. I wanted R1, but partially due to a lot of people wanting different and partially wanting to skip qualieirs I settled on a R3 compromise. People did not take kindly to that. Maybe not the best call, but again, entire situation would not have happened without a certain Laughing Joking Numnut taking the ballot box for a spin cycle just prior.

Same with the coup. NSA was utterly mangling the response and was openly allowing several girls to be screwed over and then using his own tardiness and slow acting as an excuse not to act because 'it's been too long'. It was BS, everyone knew it was BS, and I couldn't stand to watch the legitimacy of the tournament get torched like that. Especially since I never liked NSA's style since the start, bad vibes. The Coup Attempt was a brash call and didn't work at all, if anything it basically allowed NSA and his kabal(possible alts i dunno) to right off any complaints as "Temp Alts or Temp Sympathizers" and push through his radical reforms while I was banned and couldn't speak up. But again, consider in context I myself was forcefully booted against my will the year prior for less severe fuckups than that and then booted out someone else for worse fuckups, and both of those coups went by fine with the board. So I was under the impression that was on the table in an extreme situation like this, and I supposed to failed to read the room properly. Apologizes.

The Tag Team finale was partially my fault for making a bad call and screwing up how the tie breaker worked, but also partially a glitch and the result of all the prior voter fuckery so I dunno this could go either way.

And yeah I got nothing for the qualifiers. No denying that. I got in over my head and couldn't figure out how to tally shit up properly. All my fault. Apologizes.
save file
image:167229894649.jpg(3kB , 600x450 , 422.jpg)
>>16125
>>16126
>Qualifying vote tallys had consistently been high 60s to low 70s for years and then suddenly it's 120s?
I'd contest this particular suspicion cause rigging qualifying forms would make things incredibly obvious, otherwise it's simply too uber-autistic to pull off in a major way. Big-rigging the tournament itself, particularly later rounds, is always very believable. I did do a thread-ip to voter ratio calculation across years before which had suspect results, but it's still not enough to be certain there's such a massive rise in alts.

>was there a new franchise restriction added
/v/ had a rule limiting franchises of previous E8's to two characters. Screwed over some popular picks.
>Because the latter seemed to work fine.
Sure. Still never agreed with it in principle though. These kinds of rules tend to come about from butthurt over a particular thing, and people think about alleviating that butthurt without any other considerations.

>I'm the guy who got the S added
Ah, probably spoke with you directly before then. I don't think S.C.K. ever really caught on, certainly not to the same infamy. Anyways no more acronyms, fuck them.

>Shirley is an outlier
Yes, but still throws a problem to the theory as it shows rigging can just demolish any reasonable expectation.
>one massive determined autist trying to break the entire tournament for a couple of his girls(And I have my theories who).
I think a few people claimed to be the 50 alts fag this year. The most convincing one was the peridot fag.

>I was mainly saying why Spinel was so hated
Oh sure, I see. Even so my point about cynicism is still there. Offsite fuckery can be seen as okay the generally shittier the tournaments get. Once you let bullshit slide and the general attitude gets to not caring then "anything it takes" no-ethics runs become just as valid. After all why care when it's ultimately just a "funpost ground", a spectacle to fuck around with?

>'reset' debacle
Last years whole tag tournament was just fucked. People did not want a R1 or even R3 reset because of the precedent you set in handling qualifiers, the hassle in going through all those votes again, and it just wasn't worth it cause the tourney was sucking up to then anyways.

>Coup Attempt
I don't think couping is ever a good idea so long as the existing host hasn't stepped down. Even if they're fucking up people will automatically keep following their tourney cause that's what's been settled with from the start. Also people were cautious then cause of janny's and mods attitude. Better compromise with the dickhead host they know and keep it contained.

So I think two of those fuckups come from not having a certain common sense in those situations. And honestly no one really expects a smooth tourney from you this next tag team. I'd advise getting a guide to help ensure things like Balls.
save file
image:167232467742.png(105kB , 380x511 , calvin.png)
>>16105
>what does it represent
imo at first just who the boards thought represented them the most and in the next years a mix of fotm popularity, board presence and presence in the tournament threads
there's also placement and match ups that can help, I don't think batter would've gotten far if he was up against some of the other noms
>what does it mean to be the winner?
they get to go to /v/alhalla when no one talks about their games anymore
>limiting popular characters
imo should just be 3 for every franchise
>validity and tarnishing
>ethics of a characters run?
Neutral Responseyoutube thumb

>how much do these tournaments matter
only as much as you want them too, for me it's a week and a bit of fun and ruined sleep schedules
No.16142
Anonymous
Tempanon of all people suddenly taking calmly and sensibly is extremely fucking weird and I’m half convinced this is an impostor.

Does he have some kind of selective autism that makes actually running the tournament a nightmare when he clearly gets it?
No.16146
Anonymous
Replies:>>16148
>>16142
talking about doing something is always far easier than actually doing it
No.16148
Anonymous
>>16110
>>16142
>>16146
I'm sorry but whenever I see Tempanon post I always hear and see him looking like Charlie from Smiling Friends. Don't know why.
save file
image:167234929555.jpg(129kB , 2048x2048 , christmas_darcy.jfif)
>>16106
Finally, SOMEONE gets it.
No.16150
Anonymous
>>16125
Tourney is not malicious like that. You're probably talked to him so you know how much he bends over to please everyone and show that he totally deserves a second chance. If he wanted to sabotage the tournament, he would've given up on his groveling long ago.
No.16151
Anonymous
>>16125
>In my defense out of my 4 most infamous fuckups,
Nobody keeps a tab on your fuckups.
No.16156
Anonymous
Replies:>>16157
>>16150
Okay, Tourney.
No.16157
Anonymous
>>16156
Tourney is banned here. I'm not defending him either, just pointing out that it would make no sense for him to try to suck everyone's cock to get back in good graces while also somehow simultaneously being so jaded as to want to burn it all down. Those states contradict each other.
No.16158
Anonymous
Replies:>>16159
>>16157
it makes sense if he's a bipolar attention whore. which he is.
No.16159
Anonymous
Replies:>>16168
>>16157
>Tourney is banned here
That wasn't permanent. And no one would defend that fag if they weren't him. Also >>16158
No.16168
Anonymous
>>16159
His ban expires sometime next year. And I already explained what I mean above.
No.16202
Anonymous
>>16150
he wants us to forgive him so he can continue to try and ruin these tournaments, simple as
No.21852
Anonymous
Replies:>>22246
>>16105
>What does the tournament actually represent? Is it a popularity contest? Is it about OC? character love? a war of wills and tactics? just plain fun?
There's a concept called "emergence" where simple systems exhibit complex behavior. A common example is in video games where a "meta" is collectively identified by players given enough time. I think this is the case for the tournaments.
No.22246
Anonymous
>>21852
This is at base what i've been trying to say. It's an entity in itself now. It probably excludes solid parameters for defining its meanings. But one can still try to gain patterns and predictions.