zygote
08-04-2013, 09:13 PM
WRITING CHALLENGE TOURNAMENT WEEK 3 REVIEW.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ods0n0cM0I
General Writers Review.
(1) TYSON: DNC.
(2) Nigma: Has one of the most distinct writer’s voices. Nearly everything he has written has a unique quality to it. Not really in terms of a distinctive style, but more in terms of word and rhyme choice, they are always atypical and interesting. It keeps you on your feet as a reader. Also glad to read that you enjoyed your specific task, your enthusiasm was shown through your writing this week. Awarded 2 points in another good showing.
(3) Innovator: A good title this week “The lost temple of placidity” coupled with the italicized section at the beginning gave your writing a strong beginning. Perhaps this was disadvantageous for you, you wrote quite concisely, and in weeks where this has worked for you, you had a strong conceptual theme (e.g., the grapefruit verse, and week 1’s contest). This week your concept was maybe too straightforward to mesh with this style of writing. I feel you’re at your strongest when you’re at your most creative. Awarded 1 point.
(4) Adonis: I feel your writing was just as complex and as deep as Flo Real’s if not more, but the way you presented it did not compare well to Flo Reals ultra-direct approach. The verbose/abstract style can be effective but the meaning and themes can often be lost to the readers. Perhaps this week there was a slight problem of too many references to the outside material in a short space. It makes sense why you did it (writing to show the hyperactive mind state of the conspiracy theorist) but the effect was a little disorganized. Maybe a short introduction could have made things clearer? Awarded 1 point.
(5) NYCSPITZ: DNC. Signed back in for week 3.
(6) Storyteller: It’s easy to see why you were frustrated. You wrote a great piece of writing, don’t be disheartened that the voters didn’t vote, if you see the feedback in the votes, every single individual commented with some aspects of praise. Again, it is just some minor things that cost you this week, nothing related to strength of writing, more just the direction of writing you chose. Unlucky this week, but you can still take a lot of positives from it. Awarded 1 point.
(7) Objective: Nice lighter style of writing, refreshing when compared to the more serious subject-matter discussions that are usually written about. I feel Objective has been at the same level of improvement since the AOWL finals. I think he’s figuring out some writing mechanics better at the moment, and it’s only a matter of time until he incorporates them better. Clever use of image at the end, always good to end with humor. Awarded 1 point.
(8) Pent uP: Won by DQ but was also ahead in votes when the contest was closed. A couple of voters, myself included commented that the second part where the description moved to more internal characterization was stronger, rather than the symptom-based describing parts. It was an off-putting topic must admit, but Pent uP wrote well on it. Awarded 2 points.
(9) oats: My personal favorite submission for the week. Using the topic but not using it in a surface level way. Strong characterization assisted greatly by deliberate language choices (The details like the book name and the “carnivores” part). It was clarity of thought and creativity of language. Awarded 2 points for winning. Voluntarily signed out.
(10) Boredom: Was victorious in one of the closest contests of the week, not only in terms of votes, but also submissions. With such similar approaches towards the topics, it was difficult for voters to agree on a winner. The voters did agree that Boredom wrote well, commenting praise for his writing mechanics. Awarded 2 points for the tight win.
(11) Figurative: No showed, signed out. Awarded 0 points.
(12) Flo Real: Some may think Flo Real created an “upset” this week, but read the week 1 writers overview for Flo Real, and you’ll see I’ve predicted Flo Real to cause some of these so-called “upset” victories. This kind of strong display won’t be the last one, he seems to do better when he concentrates on writing about interesting content. Awarded 2 points.
(13)Coup: I enjoyed reading your science-fiction genre writing. It was interesting to see how you extrapolated the futuristic world from a bland topic in comparison to the others (I chose your topic quickly because of the sign-in difficulties). A short verse, no major criticisms, it would have been interesting for voters, but it’s a shame your opponent didn’t show. Awarded 2 points.
(14) nO gOod!: DNC.
(15) PancakeBrah: At the risk of sounding like a fanboy, I have enjoyed Pancake’s submissions a lot. His week 1 submission was my favorite from the round, and this week’s was a close second/third. The short submissions are deliberate, powerful and a good technique. It often gives voters an easy ‘out’ to find some criticism if they want to, but honestly, why write a 40 line effort when 10-15 can do as much? It needs skill to make it work, and PancakeBrah so far is doing it well. Awarded 2 points.
(16) deadman: DNC.
(17) MikeWrecka: This contest was in some ways controversial, but it really shouldn’t have been. MikeWrecka created a specific world, as one voter wrote – he brought the readers into the history and lifestyle of the people. Must agree with that, it was accurate writing without losing its flair. Interesting to see the contrast between “direct topic relevance” v “tangentially relating.” Awarded 2 points.
(18) Rawn M.D.: Wrote similar to something I would have written in any of the competitors place. Rawn attempted to give an accurate, non-fictional and balanced representation to the group in his task. The danger with these kind of things is they can become boring for readers, a fictional storyline seems to grab attention better. For non-fictional, or non-stories, conciseness and good word choice is key. Rawn M.D. did well for himself this week. Awarded 2 points.
(19) Plot: later some more background of the group in Plot’s task was explained to me. I don’t know how knowing this information would have influenced the outcome, but must admit I completely misinterpreted the whole first half of Plot’s writing in my vote. A better submission than it was given credit for. Awarded 1 point.
(20) Mr. J: Laughed throughout it, an internal groan/laugh in a good way. Easily relatable train of thought writing. I feel your verse was strong enough to beat many others, it’s situations like this where the win/loss aspect of the contest doesn’t do justice. Mr. J lost but still created an excellent piece of writing. Awarded 1 point.
(21) Cereal Killa: DNC.
(22) TopicalDood5: The other half of the semi-controversial match-up. It wasn’t controversial in a bad way, but more of an interesting way. Two contrasting approaches based on the slight ambiguity between the weekly memo and peoples common voting methods. TopicalDood5 created a world not directly about the group in the task, but referencing the group. Which is fine and meets task requirements, some voters didn’t appreciate it though. My opinion is it was another well written submission by TD5. Awarded 1 point.
(23) Gazette: Disqualified in spectacular style. We tried to address it via PM, but Gazette kept on breaking the guidelines (see FAQ). Awarded 0 points for DQ loss and automatically signed out.
(24) Certain Serpent: The mysterious newcomer told a love story and used “roomspringa” (a ritual of the group in his specific task) as a framing device. No complaints or major criticisms were levelled against his writing, but I feel as if the voters also felt it was lacking some integral element this week. Perhaps, they were unfairly comparing his submission this week to his previous weeks. Didn’t enthral, but also didn’t disappoint. Awarded 1 point.
(25) Just Write: DNC.
(26) Rayge: DNC. Signed back in for week 3.
(27) Xnub: No showed, signed out. Awarded 0 points.
(28) Split Eight: Liked the added cultural aspect of it. Gave the writing another dimension to bring in the sub continental Indian style phrases and references. Seemed like a typical kind of Split Eight verse, but it was much more focused than usual. Keeping a clear thread throughout the writing was a good choice. Awarded 2 points.
(29) Brian Bryan: Was unlucky to receive a no-show this week. Figurative is one of the more consistent writers. Brian Bryan’s concept used was straightforward but the content was powerful. “Their cries of revulsion are fuel to the fire that drives my compulsion. It’s been used to inspire me through this entire verse. It’s tough at the top when you’re a mountain of a man & there’s nothing to stop.” Complex rhyme schemes but simple rhyming itself, intentional choices that gave power to the words. The full sentence structure was also a great stylistic choice. Awarded 2 points for the win and gratitude for the enjoyable read.
(30) VERITAS: Combined this week’s topic and last week’s topic as well. Very impressive, degree of difficulty 10/10, performing a triple backflip while psychoanalyzing with a perfect landing - 86/100 from the Hungarian, 87 from the French, and 86 from the Mexican judge. Awarded 2 points for winning.
(31) Witty: No showed, signed out. Awarded 0 points.
(32) Atheist: No showed, signed out. Awarded 0 points.
New Competitors
(33) patrown: STRENGTH-The one and only patrown, AOWL finalist and master of the drunken voting technique. WEAKNESS- Sometimes uploads 4-5 line submissions, nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it often doesn’t attract votes, especially if the opponent writes a lot more in comparison. PREDICTION- Again patrown can sneak up on people, good at managing to win.
(34) Pinot Grij: STRENGTH- Glad to see this competitor, great at writing and has a sense of humor. The choice of username is a testament to classiness. WEAKNESS- Can only remember good things, might sign out. PREDICTION- Only the somewhat later start will hurt here, can win most of these contests.
(35) Shogun Dinero: STRENGTH- Known aliases are Gamble, Jayysawn Bawwn, Retali8, 8offHitlah, $eizure, dYOpe, Phyre King, Young Moneyz and Herb MastaCheef. He has reformed though. WEAKNESS- Once uploaded an insulting rhyme about himself without reading it. PREDICTION- I like Gamble. He is a good individual. Hopefully, he will do well.
Points record.
NAME: (POINTS) – Win/Loss/Draw/No Show.
TYSON: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
Nigma: (4.0) – 2/0/0/0.
Innovator: (3.0) – 1/1/0/0.
Adonis: (3.0) – 1/1/0/0.
NYCSPITZ: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
Storyteller: (2.0) – 0/2/0/0.
Objective: (3.0) 1/1/0/0.
Pent uP: (4.0) 2/0/0/0.
oats: (4.0) – 2/0/0/0.
Boredom: (2.0) – 1/0/0/1.
Figurative: (1.0) – 0/1/0/1.
Flo Real: (3.0) – 1/1/0/0.
Coup: (3.5) – 1/0/1/0.
nO gOod!: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
PancakeBrah: (3.5) – 1/0/1/0.
deadman: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
MikeWrecka: (4.0) – 2/0/0/0.
Rawn M.D.: (3.0) – 1/1/0/0.
Plot: (3.0) – 1/1/0/0.
Mr. J: (3.0) – 1/1/0/0.
Cereal Killa: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
TopicalDood5: (3.0) – 1/1/0/0.
Gazette: (1.0) – 0/1/0/1.
Certain Serpent: (3.0) – 1/1/0/0.
Just Write: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
Rayge: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
Xnub: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
Split Eight: (2.0) – 1/0/0/0.
Brian Bryan: (2.0) – 1/0/0/0.
VERITAS: (2.0) – 1/0/0/0.
Witty: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
Atheist: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
patrown: N/A
Pinot Grij: N/A
Shogun Dinero: N/A
Memo week 3.
Greetings competitors, we move to the most open-ended challenge of the league. HYPOTHETICAL COLLABORATION WEEK, each contest will be provided with 1 hyperlink to an open mic page. You are required to write in response to your hyperlink. As compensation for the nature of the topics (and the cries of “the voters didn’t understand it!”) you have the option to include a concise explanation along with your submission this week. Find below your match-ups and specific tasks.
Specific contests and tasks.
(15 v 26) PancakeBrah v Rayge. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=3695
(33 v 6) patrown v Storyteller. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=6303
(22 v 10) TopicalDood5 v Boredom. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=3950
(19 v 4) Plot v Adonis. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=7596
(34 v 8) Pinot Grij v Pent uP. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=6914
(20 v 30) Mr. J v VERITAS. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=4186
(24 v 17) Certain Serpent v MikeWrecka. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=7675
(35 v 3) Shogun Dinero v Innovator. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=2250
(7 v 2) Nigma v Objective. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=3612
(5 v 12) NYCSPITZ v Flo Real. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=8246
(29 v 18) Brian Bryan v Rawn M.D. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=5086
(28 v 13) Split Eight v Coup. TASK: http://www.netcees.co/showthread.php?t=9575
General Information and FAQ.
How many weeks will the Tournament go for?
There will be 8 weeks of standard competition, and a special 9nth week tiebreaker week only in the event of tied rankings.
How are rankings and record calculated?
All wins are awarded 2 points. A loss is awarded 1 point. If you “No show” you are awarded 0 points. Tied matches at the end of the voting period are awarded 1.5 points each.
Tied matches at the end of the voting period?
Voting periods will not be extended beyond the deadline, tied outcomes are O.K. Submissions due Wednesday 23:59 PST. Ext due Thursday 23:59 PST. Voting due Sunday 11:59 PST. Weekly Memo uploaded Sunday subject to schedule.
What are the voting regulations?
Standard 3 required votes any less than 3 results in a vote deduction from your contest.
What are the voting guidelines?
Long paragraphs etc are not required, any justification of your vote is sufficient, it can be simple, as long as it is not arbitrary or unexplained. Voting based on your own subjective opinion, basically how much you enjoyed either, there is no requirement for you to vote based on writings compliance to the task. I can’t speak for all voters, but you will never have a submission DQ’d for ‘not conforming’ to the topic.
What will get me banished from the tournament?
Plagiarism, double accounts, editing your submission after your opponent has also submitted or voting has commenced, any unnecessary comments creating bias (Gazetting) for your contest.
What are the deadlines for writing?
Weekly Magazines containing the Weekly Memo (general theme) will be released, along with the specific pages containing your writing task instructions (specific topics). Then you will have 3 days standard +1 day if required extension period to complete your writing. Voting can begin whenever the contests both have writing submissions, and will stay open for votes until the next Weekly Magazine. The scheduled process will not take more than 7 days.
What should I write?
Whatever you want, the aim of the writing challenge topics is to stimulate not restrict. There are no min or max line limits.
How are contest competitors chosen?
On sign up each competitor will be given a number. Using random.org 2 numbers are paired with each other. Match ups are always randomized rather than based on any system of high-ranking vs high-ranking etc.
What if there is an odd number of competitors for a round?
In the event of an odd number of competitors, the last competitor to sign in will have to compete against Frank’s alternate account. Or it will be a 1v1v1 contest with all standard rules applying,
What are the sign in regulations?
Signing in is open to all for all rounds, 2 required votes for sign in to be effective after week 1 sign ins. If you no-show you are signed-out and must sign-back in to receive a matchup.
No-show repairing?
There will be no no-show repairings, as consideration of your effort if you are no-showed there will be an additional review of your writing in the following magazine.
Are multimedia aids allowed?
Yes. You can use pictures, videos, soundbytes, and other multimedia to aid your weekly submissions.
What do the numbers beside my username mean?
They don’t mean anything, they are not rankings. They are just your original sign-in number used for random assignment to tasks and contests.
Closing Weekly Comment.
Again congratulations to all competitors involved, it is your ongoing contributions both in submissions and voting that keeps the league functional and enjoyable for all. Only a couple of “no-shows” – many good contests. Hopefully you will enjoy writing for the HYPOTHETICAL COLLABORATION WEEK. This week will be the most open-ended topic of the league; you only need to respond to the hyperlink in some way. Thanks to SplitEight for the idea. Week 4 will move on to a more structured type of challenge, unless we see a lot of complaining about votes again, in that case there is a different challenge ready for week 4. Good luck to all competitors for completing your submissions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ods0n0cM0I
General Writers Review.
(1) TYSON: DNC.
(2) Nigma: Has one of the most distinct writer’s voices. Nearly everything he has written has a unique quality to it. Not really in terms of a distinctive style, but more in terms of word and rhyme choice, they are always atypical and interesting. It keeps you on your feet as a reader. Also glad to read that you enjoyed your specific task, your enthusiasm was shown through your writing this week. Awarded 2 points in another good showing.
(3) Innovator: A good title this week “The lost temple of placidity” coupled with the italicized section at the beginning gave your writing a strong beginning. Perhaps this was disadvantageous for you, you wrote quite concisely, and in weeks where this has worked for you, you had a strong conceptual theme (e.g., the grapefruit verse, and week 1’s contest). This week your concept was maybe too straightforward to mesh with this style of writing. I feel you’re at your strongest when you’re at your most creative. Awarded 1 point.
(4) Adonis: I feel your writing was just as complex and as deep as Flo Real’s if not more, but the way you presented it did not compare well to Flo Reals ultra-direct approach. The verbose/abstract style can be effective but the meaning and themes can often be lost to the readers. Perhaps this week there was a slight problem of too many references to the outside material in a short space. It makes sense why you did it (writing to show the hyperactive mind state of the conspiracy theorist) but the effect was a little disorganized. Maybe a short introduction could have made things clearer? Awarded 1 point.
(5) NYCSPITZ: DNC. Signed back in for week 3.
(6) Storyteller: It’s easy to see why you were frustrated. You wrote a great piece of writing, don’t be disheartened that the voters didn’t vote, if you see the feedback in the votes, every single individual commented with some aspects of praise. Again, it is just some minor things that cost you this week, nothing related to strength of writing, more just the direction of writing you chose. Unlucky this week, but you can still take a lot of positives from it. Awarded 1 point.
(7) Objective: Nice lighter style of writing, refreshing when compared to the more serious subject-matter discussions that are usually written about. I feel Objective has been at the same level of improvement since the AOWL finals. I think he’s figuring out some writing mechanics better at the moment, and it’s only a matter of time until he incorporates them better. Clever use of image at the end, always good to end with humor. Awarded 1 point.
(8) Pent uP: Won by DQ but was also ahead in votes when the contest was closed. A couple of voters, myself included commented that the second part where the description moved to more internal characterization was stronger, rather than the symptom-based describing parts. It was an off-putting topic must admit, but Pent uP wrote well on it. Awarded 2 points.
(9) oats: My personal favorite submission for the week. Using the topic but not using it in a surface level way. Strong characterization assisted greatly by deliberate language choices (The details like the book name and the “carnivores” part). It was clarity of thought and creativity of language. Awarded 2 points for winning. Voluntarily signed out.
(10) Boredom: Was victorious in one of the closest contests of the week, not only in terms of votes, but also submissions. With such similar approaches towards the topics, it was difficult for voters to agree on a winner. The voters did agree that Boredom wrote well, commenting praise for his writing mechanics. Awarded 2 points for the tight win.
(11) Figurative: No showed, signed out. Awarded 0 points.
(12) Flo Real: Some may think Flo Real created an “upset” this week, but read the week 1 writers overview for Flo Real, and you’ll see I’ve predicted Flo Real to cause some of these so-called “upset” victories. This kind of strong display won’t be the last one, he seems to do better when he concentrates on writing about interesting content. Awarded 2 points.
(13)Coup: I enjoyed reading your science-fiction genre writing. It was interesting to see how you extrapolated the futuristic world from a bland topic in comparison to the others (I chose your topic quickly because of the sign-in difficulties). A short verse, no major criticisms, it would have been interesting for voters, but it’s a shame your opponent didn’t show. Awarded 2 points.
(14) nO gOod!: DNC.
(15) PancakeBrah: At the risk of sounding like a fanboy, I have enjoyed Pancake’s submissions a lot. His week 1 submission was my favorite from the round, and this week’s was a close second/third. The short submissions are deliberate, powerful and a good technique. It often gives voters an easy ‘out’ to find some criticism if they want to, but honestly, why write a 40 line effort when 10-15 can do as much? It needs skill to make it work, and PancakeBrah so far is doing it well. Awarded 2 points.
(16) deadman: DNC.
(17) MikeWrecka: This contest was in some ways controversial, but it really shouldn’t have been. MikeWrecka created a specific world, as one voter wrote – he brought the readers into the history and lifestyle of the people. Must agree with that, it was accurate writing without losing its flair. Interesting to see the contrast between “direct topic relevance” v “tangentially relating.” Awarded 2 points.
(18) Rawn M.D.: Wrote similar to something I would have written in any of the competitors place. Rawn attempted to give an accurate, non-fictional and balanced representation to the group in his task. The danger with these kind of things is they can become boring for readers, a fictional storyline seems to grab attention better. For non-fictional, or non-stories, conciseness and good word choice is key. Rawn M.D. did well for himself this week. Awarded 2 points.
(19) Plot: later some more background of the group in Plot’s task was explained to me. I don’t know how knowing this information would have influenced the outcome, but must admit I completely misinterpreted the whole first half of Plot’s writing in my vote. A better submission than it was given credit for. Awarded 1 point.
(20) Mr. J: Laughed throughout it, an internal groan/laugh in a good way. Easily relatable train of thought writing. I feel your verse was strong enough to beat many others, it’s situations like this where the win/loss aspect of the contest doesn’t do justice. Mr. J lost but still created an excellent piece of writing. Awarded 1 point.
(21) Cereal Killa: DNC.
(22) TopicalDood5: The other half of the semi-controversial match-up. It wasn’t controversial in a bad way, but more of an interesting way. Two contrasting approaches based on the slight ambiguity between the weekly memo and peoples common voting methods. TopicalDood5 created a world not directly about the group in the task, but referencing the group. Which is fine and meets task requirements, some voters didn’t appreciate it though. My opinion is it was another well written submission by TD5. Awarded 1 point.
(23) Gazette: Disqualified in spectacular style. We tried to address it via PM, but Gazette kept on breaking the guidelines (see FAQ). Awarded 0 points for DQ loss and automatically signed out.
(24) Certain Serpent: The mysterious newcomer told a love story and used “roomspringa” (a ritual of the group in his specific task) as a framing device. No complaints or major criticisms were levelled against his writing, but I feel as if the voters also felt it was lacking some integral element this week. Perhaps, they were unfairly comparing his submission this week to his previous weeks. Didn’t enthral, but also didn’t disappoint. Awarded 1 point.
(25) Just Write: DNC.
(26) Rayge: DNC. Signed back in for week 3.
(27) Xnub: No showed, signed out. Awarded 0 points.
(28) Split Eight: Liked the added cultural aspect of it. Gave the writing another dimension to bring in the sub continental Indian style phrases and references. Seemed like a typical kind of Split Eight verse, but it was much more focused than usual. Keeping a clear thread throughout the writing was a good choice. Awarded 2 points.
(29) Brian Bryan: Was unlucky to receive a no-show this week. Figurative is one of the more consistent writers. Brian Bryan’s concept used was straightforward but the content was powerful. “Their cries of revulsion are fuel to the fire that drives my compulsion. It’s been used to inspire me through this entire verse. It’s tough at the top when you’re a mountain of a man & there’s nothing to stop.” Complex rhyme schemes but simple rhyming itself, intentional choices that gave power to the words. The full sentence structure was also a great stylistic choice. Awarded 2 points for the win and gratitude for the enjoyable read.
(30) VERITAS: Combined this week’s topic and last week’s topic as well. Very impressive, degree of difficulty 10/10, performing a triple backflip while psychoanalyzing with a perfect landing - 86/100 from the Hungarian, 87 from the French, and 86 from the Mexican judge. Awarded 2 points for winning.
(31) Witty: No showed, signed out. Awarded 0 points.
(32) Atheist: No showed, signed out. Awarded 0 points.
New Competitors
(33) patrown: STRENGTH-The one and only patrown, AOWL finalist and master of the drunken voting technique. WEAKNESS- Sometimes uploads 4-5 line submissions, nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it often doesn’t attract votes, especially if the opponent writes a lot more in comparison. PREDICTION- Again patrown can sneak up on people, good at managing to win.
(34) Pinot Grij: STRENGTH- Glad to see this competitor, great at writing and has a sense of humor. The choice of username is a testament to classiness. WEAKNESS- Can only remember good things, might sign out. PREDICTION- Only the somewhat later start will hurt here, can win most of these contests.
(35) Shogun Dinero: STRENGTH- Known aliases are Gamble, Jayysawn Bawwn, Retali8, 8offHitlah, $eizure, dYOpe, Phyre King, Young Moneyz and Herb MastaCheef. He has reformed though. WEAKNESS- Once uploaded an insulting rhyme about himself without reading it. PREDICTION- I like Gamble. He is a good individual. Hopefully, he will do well.
Points record.
NAME: (POINTS) – Win/Loss/Draw/No Show.
TYSON: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
Nigma: (4.0) – 2/0/0/0.
Innovator: (3.0) – 1/1/0/0.
Adonis: (3.0) – 1/1/0/0.
NYCSPITZ: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
Storyteller: (2.0) – 0/2/0/0.
Objective: (3.0) 1/1/0/0.
Pent uP: (4.0) 2/0/0/0.
oats: (4.0) – 2/0/0/0.
Boredom: (2.0) – 1/0/0/1.
Figurative: (1.0) – 0/1/0/1.
Flo Real: (3.0) – 1/1/0/0.
Coup: (3.5) – 1/0/1/0.
nO gOod!: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
PancakeBrah: (3.5) – 1/0/1/0.
deadman: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
MikeWrecka: (4.0) – 2/0/0/0.
Rawn M.D.: (3.0) – 1/1/0/0.
Plot: (3.0) – 1/1/0/0.
Mr. J: (3.0) – 1/1/0/0.
Cereal Killa: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
TopicalDood5: (3.0) – 1/1/0/0.
Gazette: (1.0) – 0/1/0/1.
Certain Serpent: (3.0) – 1/1/0/0.
Just Write: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
Rayge: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
Xnub: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
Split Eight: (2.0) – 1/0/0/0.
Brian Bryan: (2.0) – 1/0/0/0.
VERITAS: (2.0) – 1/0/0/0.
Witty: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
Atheist: (0.0) – 0/0/0/1.
patrown: N/A
Pinot Grij: N/A
Shogun Dinero: N/A
Memo week 3.
Greetings competitors, we move to the most open-ended challenge of the league. HYPOTHETICAL COLLABORATION WEEK, each contest will be provided with 1 hyperlink to an open mic page. You are required to write in response to your hyperlink. As compensation for the nature of the topics (and the cries of “the voters didn’t understand it!”) you have the option to include a concise explanation along with your submission this week. Find below your match-ups and specific tasks.
Specific contests and tasks.
(15 v 26) PancakeBrah v Rayge. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=3695
(33 v 6) patrown v Storyteller. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=6303
(22 v 10) TopicalDood5 v Boredom. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=3950
(19 v 4) Plot v Adonis. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=7596
(34 v 8) Pinot Grij v Pent uP. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=6914
(20 v 30) Mr. J v VERITAS. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=4186
(24 v 17) Certain Serpent v MikeWrecka. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=7675
(35 v 3) Shogun Dinero v Innovator. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=2250
(7 v 2) Nigma v Objective. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=3612
(5 v 12) NYCSPITZ v Flo Real. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=8246
(29 v 18) Brian Bryan v Rawn M.D. TASK: http://netcees.co/showthread.php?t=5086
(28 v 13) Split Eight v Coup. TASK: http://www.netcees.co/showthread.php?t=9575
General Information and FAQ.
How many weeks will the Tournament go for?
There will be 8 weeks of standard competition, and a special 9nth week tiebreaker week only in the event of tied rankings.
How are rankings and record calculated?
All wins are awarded 2 points. A loss is awarded 1 point. If you “No show” you are awarded 0 points. Tied matches at the end of the voting period are awarded 1.5 points each.
Tied matches at the end of the voting period?
Voting periods will not be extended beyond the deadline, tied outcomes are O.K. Submissions due Wednesday 23:59 PST. Ext due Thursday 23:59 PST. Voting due Sunday 11:59 PST. Weekly Memo uploaded Sunday subject to schedule.
What are the voting regulations?
Standard 3 required votes any less than 3 results in a vote deduction from your contest.
What are the voting guidelines?
Long paragraphs etc are not required, any justification of your vote is sufficient, it can be simple, as long as it is not arbitrary or unexplained. Voting based on your own subjective opinion, basically how much you enjoyed either, there is no requirement for you to vote based on writings compliance to the task. I can’t speak for all voters, but you will never have a submission DQ’d for ‘not conforming’ to the topic.
What will get me banished from the tournament?
Plagiarism, double accounts, editing your submission after your opponent has also submitted or voting has commenced, any unnecessary comments creating bias (Gazetting) for your contest.
What are the deadlines for writing?
Weekly Magazines containing the Weekly Memo (general theme) will be released, along with the specific pages containing your writing task instructions (specific topics). Then you will have 3 days standard +1 day if required extension period to complete your writing. Voting can begin whenever the contests both have writing submissions, and will stay open for votes until the next Weekly Magazine. The scheduled process will not take more than 7 days.
What should I write?
Whatever you want, the aim of the writing challenge topics is to stimulate not restrict. There are no min or max line limits.
How are contest competitors chosen?
On sign up each competitor will be given a number. Using random.org 2 numbers are paired with each other. Match ups are always randomized rather than based on any system of high-ranking vs high-ranking etc.
What if there is an odd number of competitors for a round?
In the event of an odd number of competitors, the last competitor to sign in will have to compete against Frank’s alternate account. Or it will be a 1v1v1 contest with all standard rules applying,
What are the sign in regulations?
Signing in is open to all for all rounds, 2 required votes for sign in to be effective after week 1 sign ins. If you no-show you are signed-out and must sign-back in to receive a matchup.
No-show repairing?
There will be no no-show repairings, as consideration of your effort if you are no-showed there will be an additional review of your writing in the following magazine.
Are multimedia aids allowed?
Yes. You can use pictures, videos, soundbytes, and other multimedia to aid your weekly submissions.
What do the numbers beside my username mean?
They don’t mean anything, they are not rankings. They are just your original sign-in number used for random assignment to tasks and contests.
Closing Weekly Comment.
Again congratulations to all competitors involved, it is your ongoing contributions both in submissions and voting that keeps the league functional and enjoyable for all. Only a couple of “no-shows” – many good contests. Hopefully you will enjoy writing for the HYPOTHETICAL COLLABORATION WEEK. This week will be the most open-ended topic of the league; you only need to respond to the hyperlink in some way. Thanks to SplitEight for the idea. Week 4 will move on to a more structured type of challenge, unless we see a lot of complaining about votes again, in that case there is a different challenge ready for week 4. Good luck to all competitors for completing your submissions.