Maxs Masters - Finals & various problems
- Thread starter Stan
- Start date
Re: Jean !
Yeah rightOriginally posted by manike
Can we hold you to that on all boards and all threads?
Wow
manike
Oh ? You go around insulting people but get touchy when it comes to you I see?
Ok, English is not my mother tongue, you tell me what the word should be for:
* You say we changed the rules but agreed when we spoke that:
- the calculation system for hot gun penalty points was abviously wrong (I admit you expressed doubts when I spoke of a "cut and paste" mistake, but not when I added "or something of the sort" -I'm adding this to be completely fair).
- decisions announced during the TC meeting override the written rules (but you warned me you wouldn't print that in PGI, especially if our decision meant a British team didn't make it to the semi finals).
... But you keep saying we changed the rules. So you told me something and are now saying something else.
* You say I took the decision, but you know we took the decision as a committee I'm not the head of, consisting of three persons (I specifiy that I totally agree with the committee's decision).
* You claim to be unbiased and sticking to the letter of the written rules, but when it doesn't suit you anymore, you tell Joern he can stick them up his (poetic stuff removed). You don't mind our "changing the rules" by correcting the mistake that would have obliged the refs to 1x1 evey eliminated player looking at the game. So that one you allowed us to "change".
So you say you go by the letter of the rules, and that's obviously not the case.
Regarding your insulting attitude towards Joern, for instance, and generally speaking, towards all those who disagree with you, I'm sure you have a fancy word to teach me there too.
Discussing with you is pointless : you don't listen, and when proven wrong, you don't react with a valid argument but with a haughtly insult.
Takes us nowhere, doesn't help paintball.
The worst thing is you KNOW if you ever play on a team and there's a tricky situation, whatever happened, I'll do my best to be fair to your team. As the Ultimate in Toulouse in 94 or 95, when I was directly employed by Laurent, I ruled against a Tonton team for the Preds on an unobvious playing on issue. In 97, I threw out a Tonton ref who had repeateadly made bad calls (that player's gone now). In 96, I ruled for an English team according to my conviction and against the spectators' and many teams' pressure, despite the fact I had seen them cheat on the same game (and penalized for that, a light infraction compared to what they were accused of by some refs), because I was convinced on that particular issue they hadn't.
I told you in Bitburg : do what you think is fair, I do what I believe is fair.
Are you?
Jean-Manuel
Jean, you obviously did not want to answer my two simple questions did you ?
I think it's obvious why.
I just got off the phone from Moose, who according to you was party to the decision in reversing the rule book.
Now Jean, you didn't exactly tell the truth did you ?
Moose tells me that the three people responsible as head judges were you, Moose himself and Joern.
Moose tells me that he and Joern were completely against taking off the penalty points awarded to your employer's team, the Ton Tons.
When I asked him, where the pressure to change his mind came from, who do you think he said?
Laurent, Laurent, Laurent.
Laurent as one of the promoters of the Millennium was abusing his position and you abused the trust put in you by all of the teams.
And as for taking credit in all of those decisions you made including the Preds and Co from years back.
WHAT THE FRIKKIN HELL !!!!!!
YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FAIR YOU DUMBASS.
DONT TAKE CREDIT AND USE IT AS SOME SORT OF MORAL REFERENCE POINT FOR SOMETHING YOU ARE PAID, AND ARE SUPPOSED TO DO !!!!!
Answer the two questions Jean and I will leave you alone, all the time you wanna make a fight of it and try to make me look bad when all I did was report what you and Laurent got up to, the longer this will continue.
Robbo
This Moose dude
He said all that stuff just now?
Whooooah.
Fait accompli, as they say in Holland...
He said all that stuff just now?
Whooooah.
Fait accompli, as they say in Holland...
I have a small question concerning the "no coloured stickers on hoppers" rule, or rather, teams not applying this rule.
Why do teams choose to not take notice of this rule? I can understand, that for most of the teams' sponsors it's pretty important for their players to look like a walking bill-boards, but a rule is a rule isn't it? Does it have anything to do with image? Or is it just that they don't care? I know this is gnit(knit?)-picking, but I'd like to know what the deal is.
Cheers!
Eddepet-Buddha Bandits
Why do teams choose to not take notice of this rule? I can understand, that for most of the teams' sponsors it's pretty important for their players to look like a walking bill-boards, but a rule is a rule isn't it? Does it have anything to do with image? Or is it just that they don't care? I know this is gnit(knit?)-picking, but I'd like to know what the deal is.
Cheers!
Eddepet-Buddha Bandits
JM
1) It's "Joern". Read his posts.
2) The fact the decision was taken by a committee of three persons is not a "claim", but a fact. You're getting carried away. Joern expressed his views (Read his posts!). I don't have to tell you if the vote was 2/1 or 3/0.
3) If you read my posts, you'd have seen I'm not "covering up my arse". I've defended our decision at length, I stand by it, I've always done so. If you wish to attack me, at least use valid arguments. There are a few I gave you myself, I can't understand why you have to make up some (???)
Jean-Manuel
Nick,
1) It's "Joern". Read his posts.
2) The fact the decision was taken by a committee of three persons is not a "claim", but a fact. You're getting carried away. Joern expressed his views (Read his posts!). I don't have to tell you if the vote was 2/1 or 3/0.
3) If you read my posts, you'd have seen I'm not "covering up my arse". I've defended our decision at length, I stand by it, I've always done so. If you wish to attack me, at least use valid arguments. There are a few I gave you myself, I can't understand why you have to make up some (???)
Jean-Manuel
Jean !
Please send me an e-mail. I allow you right now to make public what we will say in that discussion if you feel it should be done, but I would like to have it directly with you first.
Regards
Jean-Manuel
Pete, I was looking for your e-mail to tell you something like that when I saw that message of yours.
Please send me an e-mail. I allow you right now to make public what we will say in that discussion if you feel it should be done, but I would like to have it directly with you first.
Regards
Jean-Manuel
Wow an arguement of monumental proportions !! how this rages on and on.
I have a question....why is the chrono-ing of markers after the game been retired from the rule book?
You chrono all the players on and then you have those handheld yellow boxes to check during a game ,is this is so that you don't have to remember the guy with the blue Angel and the red goggles might be a little hot so you can make sure he is one of the guys you check at the end? It speeds up the game?
Come on !!! you need the markers checked after the game, people will try and take that extra whatever to get the edge during the game. It only seems to have come into force in an effort to speed the games through....did it happen? Nope ! schedules at tournaments don't run to time (Doug Setters not withstanding)
As Buddha 3 said the after game chronoing may catch some people and if it doesn't it will ensure that any team close to that limit will play their next game with a greater margin for error....um sounds like safety to me. Unless I am mistaken it is against "the rules" to discharge your marker until the game is officailly called over.....a basic interpratation of this would be the game is still "live" until the score sheets are filled in and signed.
After game chronoing should never have been removed from any tournament rule book. In answer to the question of a clearing shot being used but the player WHEN playing doesn't take a shot before trying to eliminate another this is because of the time gap between game end and chronoing, in a game situation the gap of time is minimal unless you don't shoot atall until the end of the game (lots of you do that don't you????).
I have a question....why is the chrono-ing of markers after the game been retired from the rule book?
You chrono all the players on and then you have those handheld yellow boxes to check during a game ,is this is so that you don't have to remember the guy with the blue Angel and the red goggles might be a little hot so you can make sure he is one of the guys you check at the end? It speeds up the game?
Come on !!! you need the markers checked after the game, people will try and take that extra whatever to get the edge during the game. It only seems to have come into force in an effort to speed the games through....did it happen? Nope ! schedules at tournaments don't run to time (Doug Setters not withstanding)
As Buddha 3 said the after game chronoing may catch some people and if it doesn't it will ensure that any team close to that limit will play their next game with a greater margin for error....um sounds like safety to me. Unless I am mistaken it is against "the rules" to discharge your marker until the game is officailly called over.....a basic interpratation of this would be the game is still "live" until the score sheets are filled in and signed.
After game chronoing should never have been removed from any tournament rule book. In answer to the question of a clearing shot being used but the player WHEN playing doesn't take a shot before trying to eliminate another this is because of the time gap between game end and chronoing, in a game situation the gap of time is minimal unless you don't shoot atall until the end of the game (lots of you do that don't you????).
Mark,
I can't answer that question regarding the Millennium Series, but it was retired by the NPPL Rules Committee for two reasons. First, to further legitimize paintball as a true sport, games must be won or lost on the playing field within the game's time frame. To assess penalties after the game, and hence, after the fact, flies in the face of that concept. Second, it is too easy to take actions to frustrate the intent of chronoing to insure safe limits of firepower after the game when you know that you will be chronoed. It is much better to aggressively chrono during a game when there is less likelyhood of chicanery. I believe that it has worked well thus far, but only if the marshals are not lax in their duties, but I guess that's always the case.
I can't answer that question regarding the Millennium Series, but it was retired by the NPPL Rules Committee for two reasons. First, to further legitimize paintball as a true sport, games must be won or lost on the playing field within the game's time frame. To assess penalties after the game, and hence, after the fact, flies in the face of that concept. Second, it is too easy to take actions to frustrate the intent of chronoing to insure safe limits of firepower after the game when you know that you will be chronoed. It is much better to aggressively chrono during a game when there is less likelyhood of chicanery. I believe that it has worked well thus far, but only if the marshals are not lax in their duties, but I guess that's always the case.