PDA

View Full Version : suggested ammendum to Hardcore Challenge rules


JM^3
13-10-2006, 12:14:46
If someone posts a challenge, even if it isn't a proper challenge, and you don't post for 24 hours after that challenge, you lose your belt.

Comments?

JM

Lurker the Seconder
13-10-2006, 12:15:47
seconded

Chris
13-10-2006, 12:15:56
Damn you and your rules!

Lurker the Seconder
13-10-2006, 12:16:10
not for weekends tho

Funko
13-10-2006, 12:18:09
will agree with that, if weekends don't count.

JM^3
13-10-2006, 12:18:37
if you were Hardcore you would post on weekends..

JM

Funko
13-10-2006, 12:19:29
:lol:

JM^3
13-10-2006, 12:28:18
Additional ammendum, you can challenge AEs..

JM

Funko
13-10-2006, 12:28:46
Agreed. I'll update the rules.

Kitsuki
13-10-2006, 12:28:52
That would just get confusing...

Funko
13-10-2006, 12:29:21
Well if it's like this where MrG wants to keep posting and not be challenged it's totally against the spirit of the Hardcore Belt. So it's banned.

Tizzy
13-10-2006, 12:29:33
Originally posted by JM^3
Additional ammendum, you can challenge AEs..

JM

I agree.

Venom
13-10-2006, 12:30:15
No AEs.

Kitsuki
13-10-2006, 12:32:25
Just been allowed... He accepted the challenge... ;)

fp
13-10-2006, 12:32:52
Ammendum isn't a word.

Fistandantilus
13-10-2006, 12:35:11
There are too many ways in which a challenge could be not set up properly. That would make a lot of confusion.

It could be something on these lines.

Long term challenge:
- Has to be made with a "HARDCORE CHALLENGE" post
- Doesn't matter in which thread is located
- Doesn't matter if it's within two mins of a holder's post or not

You win the title if the hold fails to reply to that post within 24 hours, if he does he retains the title.

Week-ends should be ruled out btw. And still I see it only as a way to prevent a lack of activity from holder which is so forced to post sometimes.

Funko
13-10-2006, 12:35:26
First Amendment: No AEs (added to rules)

24 hour thing still open for discussion. Not sure if I like it.

Funko
13-10-2006, 12:36:20
I think 24 hour thing should only be allowed if a poster hasn't posted for like a week or something.

fp
13-10-2006, 12:39:06
The two minute rule is good. It could maybe be extended it to five or ten minutes, but droppin it completely would be a bad idea IMHO.

fp
13-10-2006, 12:40:10
Originally posted by Funko
I think 24 hour thing should only be allowed if a poster hasn't posted for like a week or something.

So that would essentially create an "8 day rule"?

I think replacing "the 24 hour rule" with "the 7 day rule" would be better in that case.

Funko
13-10-2006, 12:41:29
Not really. If they don't post for a week anyone can post a 24 hour challenge at any point after that.

fp
13-10-2006, 12:42:09
Ah I see.

Venom
13-10-2006, 13:04:44
Make it a week. And then the belt is essentially up for grabs again.

Funko
13-10-2006, 13:05:32
A week of no posts and we have a free for all event again? Which anyone can post? That'd be cool. Royal Rumble style.

Tizzy
13-10-2006, 13:05:53
That sounds fair

Venom
13-10-2006, 13:07:15
Yeah, that sounds like a great idea.

Funko
13-10-2006, 13:09:20
ok.

2nd Amendment: If the holder doesn't post for an entire week, the belt is up for grabs and any poster can start a new Royal Rumble free for all thread to open the belt up to all comers.

Venom
13-10-2006, 13:09:58
The only trick is keeping track of the week.

Funko
13-10-2006, 13:10:27
If you click on their profile it has a last posted date.

Venom
13-10-2006, 13:12:37
Good point.

New proposal:
The Hardcore Champion can, at any time and place, start his own Hardcore Challenge thread, which kicks off a Royal Rumble.

Funko
13-10-2006, 13:12:57
Great idea. I like that.

Funko
13-10-2006, 13:13:32
Maybe it should say "HARDCORE CHALLENGE ROYAL RUMBLE"

Venom
13-10-2006, 13:14:37
Yeah, something to easily identify it.

And it has to be a new thread.

Tizzy
13-10-2006, 13:14:48
That's a good one

Fistandantilus
13-10-2006, 13:15:33
How does it work? The one who collect the most post in the next 10 min wins?

Funko
13-10-2006, 13:15:38
It's going in as the third amendment:

The Hardcore Champion can, at any time and place, start his own Hardcore Challenge thread, which kicks off a Royal Rumble. It must be a new thread and include in the title "HARDCORE CHALLENGE ROYAL RUMBLE"

Funko
13-10-2006, 13:16:28
Originally posted by Fistandantilus
How does it work? The one who collect the most post in the next 10 min wins?

Yes.

Venom
13-10-2006, 13:16:31
Originally posted by Fistandantilus
How does it work? The one who collect the most post in the next 10 min wins?

Yes

Venom
13-10-2006, 13:16:53
Yes.

Funko
13-10-2006, 13:16:57
OK I think that's enough new rules for the moment.

Venom
13-10-2006, 13:17:36
Yes

MoSe
17-10-2006, 09:00:12
http://www.counterglow.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35977

MoSe
17-10-2006, 09:15:27
From the second the challenge is posted the posting race is on. For the next ten minutes the challenger and holder must make as many posts as they can in the thread in which the challenge took place.
The winner is the competitor who posts the most times in the 10 minutes following the challenge post.

humble amendment proposal:

suppose the timestamp of your challenge post is on the clock, say 9:00

the challenge is on until 9:10
this means, until the whole of the 9:10 minute, i.e. until 9:10 & 59sec, as the post tiemstamp doesn't show seconds.

This makes the challenge last actually MORE than 10 minutes, up to almost 11.

Besides, the rule is ambiguous, as when it says that you have to post the most times in the minutes FOLLOWING the challenge post, you "might" interpret it as "not in the SAME minute of the challenge post". Thus clashing with the initial quote statement.

So:

A.
I propose that if your challenge post has for instance a 9:00 timestamp, the posts will be counted for the Challenge starting from the 9:01 timestamp.
That is, the challenge doesn't start in the same (partially elapsed) minute of the challenge post, but from the following minute, crisp and whole

B.
You could even introduce a further delay, if you not only agree with my intent of making it last a neat 10 exact minutes, but also would like to mitigate the effect of "false starts" (i.e. lucky crossposts) and the surprise effect.
But that would be a separate sub-amendment.

Funko
17-10-2006, 09:17:42
Ok, I think the way we do it now is best because it's really easy to know when the challenge ends. Even though it can lead to challenges being almost 11 mins as you say but we need to word it more clearly possibly. If you leave it a minute before anyone can start posting then it gives much too much of the advantage back to the holder of the belt again.

I think lucky x-posts are part of the game and should be left in.

JM^3
17-10-2006, 09:18:53
it would make the game diferent

JM

MoSe
17-10-2006, 09:27:08
Originally posted by Funko
Ok, I think the way we do it now is best because it's really easy to know when the challenge ends.

Funko, I might agree with your subsequent objections and preferences, but this quoted statement is probably one of your most stupid and dumb here on CG!

:p

I didn't propose to change AT ALL the minute the challenge ends!

If you post the challenge post at 9:00, the challenge will continue to end on the 9:10 minute as it has always done.

---

I just proposed that if the contenders perchance sneak some early post still in the same 9:00 minute of the challenge post, those are just to be considered "warm up" and not counted.

So, it was just a humble poposal, I have no problems with you rejecting it, as it's mainly your game.

I haven't either problems in you not understanding it, or adducing idiot excuses, but in such case I won't pass up the chance of mocking you
:D
:p

Funko
17-10-2006, 09:32:52
Right ok but this still stands. If you leave it a minute before anyone can start posting then it gives much too much of the advantage back to the holder of the belt again.

MoSe
17-10-2006, 09:35:37
Originally posted by Funko
If you leave it a minute before anyone can start posting then it gives much too much of the advantage back to the holder of the belt again.
I think lucky x-posts are part of the game and should be left in.

I could agree with this.
But the challenge post is posted by the challenger (duh).
So the eventual X-post actually goes to the advantage of the holder.

And, a challenger could want to declare an "ironman challenge" starting on a later minute, thus giving the holder the chance to start on equal basis and gaining MORE GLORY in beating him/her on mere posting raw power

:D

Funko
17-10-2006, 09:38:06
the single x-post we've had was a total fluke. It could just as easily have gone in just before JM's post and lost me the match.

MoSe
17-10-2006, 09:38:16
or should we say "ironperson"?
yuck ;)

MoSe
17-10-2006, 09:46:50
lets' forget that X-post fluke

you could have posted the challenge at the 9:00.01 second or the 9:00.59 second
beginning the count on the 9:01.00 tick:
- doesn't realy make posts harder to count
- makes the challenge duration constant, allowing also to keep truly *unifrom* hiscores and records
- only makes the challenger give up less than a minute of his surpise factor (unless he wants to declare an ironman, which I beg to consider a separate issue)
- leaves anyway roome for thrill and uncertainty, as you don't actually know when the server minute clock will tick and how much of the challenge post minute has already elapsed
- could even allow if you want to issue "penalties" for earlier posts, i.e. false starts


enough, I was just toying with the idea, I don't really care for the game
:cute:

Funko
17-10-2006, 09:48:01
Nah, it's ok. :)

I think that in a lot of these battles it's been a tie or decided by 1 post. That's 20 seconds, if the challenger throws away potentially up to 59 seconds of advantage they could turn a winning surprise attack into a loss.

Fistandantilus
17-10-2006, 09:56:08
MoSe: hardcore posting philosopher

MoSe
17-10-2006, 10:04:19
Hey, is the flood control ID realted or PC related?
that is, can one post more if he does it from 2 PCs at the same time?
In such case, could KG force 10 of his minions to win him the belt?

Funko
17-10-2006, 10:05:00
Shhhhhhhh.

Funko
17-10-2006, 10:05:34
I don't know if anyone else had thought of that yet. ;)

mr_G
17-10-2006, 10:09:28
Originally posted by Fistandantilus
MoSe: hardcore posting philosopher :lol:

MoSe
17-10-2006, 10:09:46
Originally posted by Fistandantilus
MoSe: hardcore posting philosopher

and cheater :D see above

anyway, that must be the best compliment I got in that last 10 years, awww thank!

:blush:

Fistandantilus
17-10-2006, 10:30:04
Uhm, I wonder how many ways of 'cheating' there are.

mr_G
17-10-2006, 10:37:00
I
http://hallofheroes.free.fr/Images/Wallpaper/wonderwoman.jpg

Funko
17-10-2006, 15:20:29
From the other thread including MoSe's questions.


I was just going to post some clarifications so I'll do so now.


RfC1
does it have to be a direct reply?
i.e., any intervening post by someone else invalidates it?
No, just has to be either in the same thread within 2 minutes, or a new thread

RfC1.b
Or if that occurred, shouldn't you quote the post you're replying to, for clarity sake?
Not required

RfC2
In case you post a new thread, couldn't it be that you ignore or mistake who the holder is?
Shouldn't you post in the 1st post a link to the holder 2-minutes post you're "replying" to, also to allow for later checking the respect of the 2 minutes rule?
Not required - but good practice to know where it is if challenged.

RfC3
Because a New Thread Challenge occurring more than 2 minutes after the holder's last post is NOT a valid challenge, isn't it?
New Thread Challenge occurring more than 2 minutes after the holder's last post is NOT a valid challenge- FACT

RfC4
if the holder is engaged in a challenge, he wouldn't likely be posting anywhere else.
But the rules DO NOT STATE ANYWHERE that you can't challenge a holder who is currently engaged in a challenge.
Be it with a new thread, or even by replying to one of his ongoing challenge posts!
Can you?
RfC4.b
and how would then the holder posts get counted, in case of two OVERLAPPING challenges in the same thread?
See proposed amendment 4 below

RfC5
the title expires after an agreed absence stint.
What if the holder refuses to wear the Belt (in his avatar)?
Wouldn't it be seen as a trick to avoid being challenged?
Should't you either issue a sanction similar (maybe harsher) to the absence one, or relax the avatar-challenge rule somehow?
See proposed amendment 5 below

Proposed amendment 4:

A hardcore belt holder may only fight one title defence at a time.
New hardcore challenges can commence immediately after one defence has ended.
If a challenge comes before a count has been made in a previous bout and it's disputed, for safety's sake we suggest that all potential holders defend against the new challenge.

Proposed amendment 5:

If a poster gains the belt and does not wear it in their avatar after a reasonable amount of time (1 hour) then any poster may start a royal rumble free for all to open the belt again. Note that not wearing the belt in your avatar does not mean you can't be challenged.

MoSe
19-10-2006, 16:21:00
bumped for Tau
Proposed amendment 5:

If a poster gains the belt and does not wear it in their avatar after a reasonable amount of time (1 hour) then any poster may start a royal rumble free for all to open the belt again. Note that not wearing the belt in your avatar does not mean you can't be challenged.
I admit, we behaved as if PROPOSED Amdt.5 had already been ratified......

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
19-10-2006, 17:22:10
Another proposed amendment:


All posts in the challenge must be reasonable attempts at grammatically correct sentences (any language, so long as the language can be verified by at least two other CG posters) containing no less than 8 words. This is the HARDCORE CHALLENGE, I don't think single characters or random keystrokes qualify as particularly hardcore.


If this goes through, you'd also have to have additional rules specifying no copy/paste sentenes, no "bottle of beer" senteces (ie. Ninety nine Bottles of Beer on the wall, Ninety eight bottles of beer on the wall etc.) But now we're getting into subjective judging of the quality of posts, so maybe not.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
19-10-2006, 17:23:18
Oh, and one more.

Challenge posts are expressly forbidden in both the Word Association thread, and the Sinking Thread.

Colon
19-10-2006, 17:24:17
Please don't add addendums. I still don't understand the original rules. :(

Tau Ceti
19-10-2006, 17:41:23
I oppose the amendment. The competition has always been about quantity, not quality, which is as you say quite subjective.

The proposed amendment is in any case way over the top. It would disallow most of the posts on this challenge thread (http://www.counterglow.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36318), which I really don't see as reasonable. It would also rule out interjections of despair such as "SHIT! DOUBLE POST!" or "Nooooooooooo!", which are perfectly reasonable.

Forcing people to count their words just takes away from the fun.

Tau Ceti
19-10-2006, 17:41:50
But fine, I will refrain from listing the alphabet in the future.

Tau Ceti
19-10-2006, 17:42:12
Though it does make it easier to count.

JM^3
19-10-2006, 17:50:04
yeah, that is true

JM

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
19-10-2006, 20:05:15
I just feel the whole notion of hardcore posting should be differentiated from hardcore spammer in *some* way :) And it doesn't have to be real quality, but should give the appearance of quality.

And you're right, I proposed that in response to you posting the alphabet :D I understand at that point it might have been getting difficult to come up with new and interesting things to say, but hey, you're challenging/defending the Belt, it shouldn't be easy :) Gruelling challenges FTW!

MoSe
20-10-2006, 06:39:42
It could be "good practice" to just begin each post with a counter, and then post what you want

Like:

1 I'm eagerly poised for a thoroughly articulated dissertation

2 dooooo di dooooo

3 U R AL GAY TWATZ

Funko
20-10-2006, 09:20:28
Originally posted by Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
I just feel the whole notion of hardcore posting should be differentiated from hardcore spammer in *some* way :) And it doesn't have to be real quality, but should give the appearance of quality.

And you're right, I proposed that in response to you posting the alphabet :D I understand at that point it might have been getting difficult to come up with new and interesting things to say, but hey, you're challenging/defending the Belt, it shouldn't be easy :) Gruelling challenges FTW!

I agree that's certainly the spirit of the belt and in the most part people have posted genuine things. The fact you have to post coherent posts is in the basic rules.

Tizzy
20-10-2006, 09:29:36
I don't agree with having a minimum word count but the general idea I do agree with.
Having said that, I did make a couple of gibberish posts yesterday out of sheer panic.

Fistandantilus
20-10-2006, 09:35:09
Proposed amendment 4:

A hardcore belt holder may only fight one title defence at a time.
New hardcore challenges can commence immediately after one defence has ended.
If a challenge comes before a count has been made in a previous bout and it's disputed, for safety's sake we suggest that all potential holders defend against the new challenge.


I don't like that. I enjoyed watching the chaos of multiple challenges. :D Why don't we allow that as long as they are in the same thread?

King_Ghidra
20-10-2006, 09:47:29
Originally posted by Funko
I agree that's certainly the spirit of the belt and in the most part people have posted genuine things. The fact you have to post coherent posts is in the basic rules.

That's just dumb. There are very few coherent posts on here anyway and now we're trying to set some standard for a posting contest. It smacks of poly nonsense.

mr_G
20-10-2006, 10:55:11
Originally posted by Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
I just feel the whole notion of hardcore posting should be differentiated from hardcore spammer in *some* way names pleezzzz

mr_G
20-10-2006, 10:55:44
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
That's just dumb. There are very few coherent posts on here anyway and now we're trying to set some standard for a posting contest. It smacks of poly nonsense. hear hear

Funko
20-10-2006, 10:58:36
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
That's just dumb. There are very few coherent posts on here anyway and now we're trying to set some standard for a posting contest. It smacks of poly nonsense.

Yeah, I totally agree... but I think it's a bit boring if you get pages of people just posting

Tizzy: 1
Tau Ceti: 1
Tizzy: 2
MoSe: 1
Tau Ceti: 2
Tizzy: 3
Tau Ceti: 3
MoSe: 2

Funko
20-10-2006, 10:59:23
I don't think it should really be a rule as such, just part of the spirit of the game that the posts aren't totally boring just numbers or letters or something.

Funko
20-10-2006, 11:00:00
Shit like dooo di dooo is obviously fine.

mr_G
20-10-2006, 11:01:36
o/c

dooo di dooooo is from a different level.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
20-10-2006, 18:33:55
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
That's just dumb. There are very few coherent posts on here anyway and now we're trying to set some standard for a posting contest. It smacks of poly nonsense.

Okay, you got me there. As with Funko and MoSe, doooo di doooo and U R ALL GAY TWATS should be okay, as they're in the CG spirit, as much as anything can be. But just posting a minimum in order for the challenge to be nothing more than beating the flood control is lame.


Originally posted by Funko I agree that's certainly the spirit of the belt and in the most part people have posted genuine things. The fact you have to post coherent posts is in the basic rules

So how does one get disqualified for incoherency? I'm all for a defender losing the belt 25-25 because the other poster was more hardcore in their responses as well as just their volume.

C.G.B. Spender
21-10-2006, 14:12:00
Suggestion: If someone wins all have to post "Hail Spender, mighty hero of the universe in pink underpants!" three times until some posts "get a job, suckers"

Tau Ceti
21-10-2006, 18:13:01
I didn't know the universe wears pink underpants.

C.G.B. Spender
21-10-2006, 20:40:45
FACT

zmama
22-10-2006, 01:37:40
I am now cursed with the image of Spender in pink underpants....

Funko
23-10-2006, 08:12:26
Luckily I can't see that image.

mr_G
23-10-2006, 08:13:38
and another month it is.

Funko
24-10-2006, 13:28:55
I wonder if in a Royal Rumble any tie should go to the challenger, as the holder has an advantage.

mr_G
24-10-2006, 13:30:38
jesjes