Should GmGirl be allowed to play in 256 Man Tournament ?

onlooker · 12-03-08, 03:39 AM

blittydeuce · 12-03-08, 03:39 AM

,

Attached Files

blittydeuce · 12-03-08, 03:41 AM

Let her play!

Attached Files

RogueJuror · 12-03-08, 03:42 AM

This is totaly ridiculous that both can't play. Come on whoever is calling the shots. This shouldn't even be an issue. It's not like they are trying to pull a fast one on us.

This will be fucking shameful for this forum if they are not allowed.

seaborneq · 12-03-08, 04:52 AM

Neither one of them will win, who cares? Match them against each other in the 1st round and get one of them out of the way, the other should be gone in the round of 128. Let them play themselves out quickly. 256 man/woman contests needs some warm bodies who have account numbers anyway. Hell put them both in my bracket, I will get rid of both of them lickety split. No pun intended GMGirl.

gm2022 · 12-03-08, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by seaborneq

Neither one of them will win, who cares? Match them against each other in the 1st round and get one of them out of the way, the other should be gone in the round of 128. Let them play themselves out quickly. 256 man/woman contests needs some warm bodies who have account numbers anyway. Hell put them both in my bracket, I will get rid of both of them lickety split. No pun intended GMGirl.

I think this is where im suppose to challenge you to a Capping contest or something like that lol! JK man GL in the contest!

seaborneq · 12-03-08, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by gm2022

I think this is where im suppose to challenge you to a Capping contest or something like that lol! JK man GL in the contest!

Oh no, you would probably beat the hell out of me.

jjgold · 12-03-08, 05:33 AM

GM Girl I will give you $50 not to play

Why bother with the hassle??

gm2022girl · 12-03-08, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by jjgold

GM Girl I will give you $50 not to play

Why bother with the hassle??

I'm trying to make my voice heard and stand up for myself. All I want to do is play to have fun is all.

treece · 12-03-08, 06:21 AM

There's no discrimination. Rules are rules.

gm2022girl · 12-03-08, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by treece

There's no discrimination. Rules are rules.

Okay even if we follow the rules, we have 2 living places like I said, one in Santa Cruz, and one in San Jose. So we have one different household each so that is following the rules.

I.R.B · 12-03-08, 06:29 AM

I have no problem with this you should be able to play.. I'd say to make it fair for you and SBR you should play GMguy in the 1st rnd..

I.R.B · 12-03-08, 06:30 AM

I have a feeling all those NO votes are from SBR Mods. Haha!

gm2022girl · 12-03-08, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by I.R.B

I have a feeling all those NO votes are from SBR Mods. Haha!

I.R.B · 12-03-08, 06:35 AM

Would you play GMguy 1st rnd?

gm2022 · 12-03-08, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by treece

There's no discrimination. Rules are rules.

I wont say much on this matter,

But I will say is I totally understand why this rule is in place and why you have to have it to keep the Contest on an even playing field! I personally myself am not someone who thinks anyone is above the rules/law and wouldn't stand for that. But for myself and my wife we like doing these contest for fun, to compete and to kind have bragging rights around the house!

Now I know most will say, just make your own contest Bla Bla. But we look forward to the contest as a compeitive thing more than trying to get money in our account or what not. Like someone has said the money is not worth the time invested, but anyone playing in these contest should understand that its all fun anything u win is an added bonus!

If sbr wont let us both play which I wouldn't be upset about, I would like to propose an idea of letting both of us play but letting one us not be eligible for the prizes! Some how if the un eligible player makes the money distribute all the winnings to contestants that person beat to get to that point! I understand I may get shit for this, but just my effort in one keeping my wife happy, and making the contest equal to anyone who plays! Thanks guys!

gm2022 · 12-03-08, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by I.R.B

I have no problem with this you should be able to play.. I'd say to make it fair for you and SBR you should play GMguy in the 1st rnd..

I wouldnt mind this, only problem is everyone will look at it as a bye/free advance to promise one of us to move on to the 128!

IRB thanks for the idea though

I.R.B · 12-03-08, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by gm2022

I wont say much on this matter,

But I will say is I totally understand why this rule is in place and why you have to have it to keep the Contest on an even playing field! I personally myself am not someone who thinks anyone is above the rules/law and wouldn't stand for that. But for myself and my wife we like doing these contest for fun, to compete and to kind have bragging rights around the house!

Now I know most will say, just make your own contest Bla Bla. But we look forward to the contest as a compeitive thing more than trying to get money in our account or what not. Like someone has said the money is not worth the time invested, but anyone playing in these contest should understand that its all fun anything u win is an added bonus!

If sbr wont let us both play which I wouldn't be upset about, I would like to propose an idea of letting both of us play but letting one us not be eligible for the prizes! Some how if the un eligible player makes the money distribute all the winnings to contestants that person beat to get to that point! I understand I may get shit for this, but just my effort in one keeping my wife happy, and making the contest equal to anyone who plays! Thanks guys!

Great post GM.. I totally agree.. This contests are about challeging you're self to be a better Capper.

Boner_18 · 12-03-08, 07:21 AM

I am totally for both members of a couple playing in a tournament if that is made to be the rule. The problem (as I see it) is that it opens the door and sets a president that is almost completely nebulous and unworkable for the mods.

Clearly, the "household" requirement is not one of physical locality but interconnected relationship. While it is abundantly clear that GM and GMGirl are in fact two individual and distinct people, members of other households may be more difficult to verify. What if five adult but live in children and their two parents want to play, letting GM and GMGirl but not this fictional group would truly lead to discrimination. It is not as though GMGirl cannot play, she can if GM bows out.

In short, I understand the fairness and administribility concerns that the rule is founded on... but cmon, just let them play.

Willie Bee · 12-03-08, 07:45 AM

Damn Boner, you were doing such a good job explaining things there for a while, I didn't think I was going to have to toss in my 2¢. But then you sort of caved in at the end there.

Trust me, this issue has been discussed and bandied about in the office, it's not some arbitrary rule we just tossed out their frivolously. We know for a fact that we have two distinct individuals in this case and it's not an instance of someone ghosting or wanting to enter the contest with two IDs to improve their chances.

We have also discussed the notion of matching GM and GMgirl up in the first round, an idea that might make even more sense considering we're trying to double the participants in this one. But the drawback we settled on there is that it guarantees the 'household' passage to the next round; no other 'household' has such a guarantee.

I also feel that the rule might be lifted, or we'd be prone to consider making an exception, if GMgirl was really active in discussing sports, chiming in with her picks in threads, etc. But unless I've missed those picks, it's not the case. If we were having a 'just for fun' contest with the prizes being some SBR promotional items or gift certs like we've done before, I'd say no problem. But again, that's not the case here.

Ultimately it's the problem of enforcing a rule without any gray areas. When five posting accounts using the same IP tell us they are just friends who work together or college students sharing a residence, how do we determine that they are indeed what they say they are?

Bread · 12-03-08, 07:59 AM

I'm bowing out of this one so Robyn can play in it.

I can never make it past the first 2 rounds anyway, so we'll see if she can do better.

For the record, I have no problem with the rules.

Robyn · 12-03-08, 08:09 AM

I completely agree with the rules, especially since I do not regularly participate in the sports threads...but if I did, I would be singing a different tune.

Figures Bread would bow out this time around right when I am smack dab in the middle of a bunch of craziness at work.

Go me!

seaborneq · 12-03-08, 08:41 AM

I thought you and Bread were divorced.

Bread · 12-03-08, 08:44 AM

We are. We just stay together for the sex.

seaborneq · 12-03-08, 08:54 AM

I should do the opposite at my place. We live together, no sex.

picantel · 12-03-08, 08:55 AM

I was adamantly against it in the smaller tourney but have no problem with it in the larger one.

wtf · 12-03-08, 09:00 AM

Richkas · 12-03-08, 09:19 AM

GMGirl, sorry, I know your real and all but these contests have been around the forums for years. They have to have that rule, otherwise from the late 90's to early 2000's my ex-wife would have won alot of contest.

My son lives with me and he is 21. He wants to enter the contest and cant and is willing to make a video to prove he is real.

Dark Horse · 12-03-08, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by treece

There's no discrimination. Rules are rules.

Agreed. Unfortunately for any couples you can't open that door. Because others could start making the same argument, and for every contest. It would double the chances at winning, which may not matter much here, but would matter in BTP.

Gmgirl, your argument should be with your husband. Didn't he play in the last one? I know, because I kicked his a**.

Shark79 · 12-03-08, 10:04 AM

Free Willy!!

Yes, I say give her a shot ... its not like both of them will be in the finals.

Mudcat · 12-03-08, 10:26 AM

Either she is in or not. The idea of having them play each other in the first round, unless it comes up organically, is silly. The fact that the 256 man tourney needs a lot of people is irrelevant. The fact that someone does or doesn't discuss sports is irrelevant. Posting videos is irrelevant. The fact that they aren't expected to go far is irrelevant.

Either it fits in with the rules or it doesn't.

The fact this thread started out as an accusation of discrimination and not being treated equally was annoying, and I want to vote no just on principle.

But I can't vote. I would need to see the specific rule causing the controversy. The separate households may get around it. I'd need to see the exact wording.

daggerkobe · 12-03-08, 11:02 AM

Let them play!
Let them play!
Let them play!

durito · 12-03-08, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by treece

There's no discrimination. Rules are rules.

That's rich coming from you.

Bill Dozer · 12-03-08, 11:14 AM

I'd like to see both posters in the contest. We get these going to keep the forum growing and to keep it fun for our valued posters, which both certainly are. But, due to the nature of the contest the rules have to decide. The rule is there for obvious reasons and we can't get around it.

Hopefully you guys can work it out and find that even if you split contests in this format or made your picks together it's still a good time. I think SBR can even toss in a small prize for you guys to capp-off in a play-in round.

There is also the issue of the sportsbook rules. Most books will only allow one account per household so there is a matter of being ineligible for the three needed accounts before you start.

We have two households, one is San Jose and one in Santa Cruz, so fine I will make my picks from one household and Gm will do it from the other.

If that's the address you use with the sportsbooks and they say you are eligible, and you make your picks there, that should be fine.