This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!'... and Gon's Balls will whisper 'First... comes... rock!' Hah!  Made you stare at Naruto's Marshmallow!  Pushing the logo off-center to drive TheOcean insane.  
 
HomeEpisodesStoreForumiTunes Chat

Go Back   Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series > Forum Community > Forum Games



Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 03-09-2015
killshot's Avatar
killshot killshot is offline
Whiskey Icarus
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Red Neckington
Blurb: Yet another 5 star post
Posts: 2,439
Default

My summary will be brief as this discussion has already gone on long enough and I have already put forth what I believe to be a convincing case for myself.

Regulations may be beneficial in some hypothetical universe where the government is not plagued by greed and incompetence, but we are talking about the United States government. In response to the question of if regulation by the federal government is beneficial to the economy, the answer has to be no based on what we have observed. Government regulation has crushed the entrepreneurial spirit, prevented small businesses from thriving, and forced businesses to move overseas. Capitalism does not work when the market is artificially manipulated by the government.

To defend my use of the government bailout as a talking point, I bring it up to illustrate how government intervention prevents the free market from regulating itself. Rather than letting banks that employed unethical business practices fail on their own, the government paid the bill for their failure and did not allow more competent banks to fill the gaps in the market. This example illuminates the short-sighted thinking used by the federal government when it tries to intervene with the free market. In this example, and many others, its best if the government just stays out of the way.

While government regulation may seem like a good idea on paper, the reality is that it causes more harm than good. Better to let businesses succeed or fail on their own rather than creating an oppressive atmosphere that discourages anyone from even trying. Regulation in the United States has a proven track record of being toxic to the economy and I don't see how that could possibly change any time soon.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 03-09-2015
Zairak's Avatar
Zairak Zairak is offline
 
Gender: Unknown
Posts: 4,937
Default

Alright, Judges, do your thing.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 03-09-2015
grimfang999's Avatar
grimfang999 grimfang999 is offline
Sex-Administrator
 
Gender: Neither
Location: This is where I live
Blurb: This is a Blurb
Posts: 9,868
Default

Muse 1: 6/10
The first issue raised I feel is reductive rhetoric but it sets out the stance decently. The second part seems reductive as well but ends with a sound conclusion with relevant source. Muse then proceeds to show a decent knowledge of market economics and barriers to entry. The points raised lead to a solid and logical conclusion.

Muse 2: 6/10
The points are strong and she does address the criticisms raised, and does provide examples of how regulation benefits society and the economy. However, she only cites a source for one of the examples.

Muse 3: 6/10
Sourcing disappears altogether here. In her arguments, she does tackle the citizens regulating the business point in one way (invisible and underhand practices), though also missed a vital opportunity to take up the selfishness point on people not buying until they are significantly and noticeably exploited themselves, and that would rarely be a high enough number to make an impact, as well as a couple other possible arguments. She does however point out that bailouts are not regulations, but she could have gone more into why than use an analogy.


Overall: 6/10
Muse overall did fairly well and used sources reasonably well at the start, but they trailed off as the match went on. Her main issue was reductive arguments at some areas and missing out on key points. It was a reasonable first debate in this setting, however.


Killshot 1: 9/10
Killshot starts with a hard hit to Muses main point on selfishness being prevented by government. He provides evidence of the disparity in the views of the government and the people they are supposed to represent. There is one flaw in his argument in that he both condemns the republicans but also seems to agree with their small government ideas, however, but beyond that contradiction his points are solid with plenty of sources.

Killshot 2: 7/10
Like Muse he starts to source less here. In regards to the arguments themselves... fairly good. He brings it back to how the regulations are at present and the doubts over the American Governments capabilities, and the idea of the free market being enough to regulate.

Killshot 3: 6/10
I cant give many points as not much was said, it was very much a closing statement, not much to say except he concluded his points nicely.

Overall: 7.5/10
His arguments were strong but not perfect, he had the same problem with sourcing toward the end Like Muse. His position may have been elevated higher because various contradictions and counterarguments were not raised against him, as well as his opponent conceding to many of the opposing point.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 03-09-2015
Fat1Fared's Avatar
Fat1Fared Fat1Fared is offline
Chumba Wumba
 
Gender: Male
Location: The Ministry of Evil
Blurb: What is a blurb?
Posts: 9,458
Default

First of all: this was a very interesting debate to read - especially as a non-citizen of the USA. It is always interesting to see what the thought structures of other cultures are. It was also really good to see a debater who has not debated in some time and a new debater both make such interesting points - and I can only see both getting stronger from here. :)

However, some headline pointers before I get into the meaty stuff:

1 = Analyse your points = As with the last debate, too many things were just asserted as if they are true and matter just because they are said. You must explain to the judge:
- Why they are true
- Why they are relevant

This is especially so, if you are going hinge your whole debate on a point such as 'humans are greedy'. Whilst both sides ended up agreeing on this point (whether it is true or not), it was the was side which explained why it was true which was much more compelling when they then said why it was relevant to their argument as I understand what they meant by the concept 'humans are greedy'.

2 = Be careful with your concessions = it is important to concede on certain points, as it stops you being forced to defend the indefensible and means you can set the perimeters of where the debate, but be careful not to concede points which may actually be quite important in deciding who won the debate. Before you concede a point, really think to yourself, if the other side wins this point, how much of my argument becomes invalid.

3 = people are NOT homogeneous groups = the worlds best debaters can dissimulate the different groups in society down into their members and explain why the different actors within those groups are likely to act as you say they will act - and why this important/how it affects others within/out of the group, or perspections of the group. This is persuasive because it takes account of the fact people are not mathematical sums and can act in seemingly strange ways. It is very unpersuasive to just say 'all people in government are evil scumbags' or the whole of the human race is just selfish wankers who will fuck on anyone to get what they want. because it is hyperbolic and inherently untrue. Some people in Government probably can be defined as bad people; some probably cannot. Some people are selfish, others are rather giving. You need to identify the stakeholders and actors within your groups and use them to make these points. You do not need to actually prove the whole of the human race is selfish, you just need to prove that a sufficient number of people working in industry would be willing to use their industrial strength for personal gain at the expense of others, if it were not for regulations preventing them (to some extent). This is much easier to prove - and much more compelling because it is more targeted at the acted who matter in the debate and more focused on the harms they can cause.

4 = debate against your beleifs = this can be one of the hardest things to do (I know because I have to debate for using fire and brim-stone religion in schools), but debates are on points where there is no infinitely right answer. If the chair did their job correctly, there should be two sides one can argue for (at least), both roughly equal in strength. That may mean that you find yourself as a free-marketeer arguing the merits of communism; this may seem pointless, but it is actually the most important part of debating in my opinion. First, if you do not do this, then you cannot win because very rarely is the debate one you want to prop or oppose; however, the second point is more important, you can learn much from debating against what you instinctively believe is right. It is not until you are able to understand a position to the point that you can articulate why it is right that you understand it enough to know whether you really believe it is honestly wrong. It felt like both sides in this debate pulled their punches at times, when the judges really want to see you fully flesh out your respective positions.

5 = Answer the question = the debate asks a question much like a degree level coursework or essay question. Your job is to answer that question, so read the wording carefully. This debate is not 'is regulation good', but is regulation good for the economy.

OK, now the good stuff.

Muse 1:

OK, so we get a slightly strange opening assertion that all people are born selfish, and the evidence for this is 'toddlers'. As I am not told why toddlers prove this, I am left feeling slightly that 'even if toddlers are selfish, the world is not made up of toddlers', so your key premise needs really fleshing out to prove why it is true and why I care, especially when you then assert that people are willing harm others to get what they wrong. (This goes back to my point about disseminating groups.)

This becomes further problematic when you made a slightly contradictory statement that people give up their powers to protect themselves from harm (social contact). However, surely if the people with the power are inherently selfish, they would use this power for ill (As Killshot is easily able to point out later. You need to explain why they cannot/will not. This requires you to one not assert people are innately selfish as that is really Killshot's point, if anyone's, and two explain how democratic systems give government their legitimate rights and can take it away if need be, thus preventing them doing evil with it.

In the fourth paragraph, we start to see your argument come out in that we now have some explanation of the problems with the 'Free Market'. The problem is you list examples of potential problems without explaining these problems to me (in debating, anyone should be able to understand your argument; thus terms such as false market signals without explaining a little about what it is and why it is relevant to the debate means it is hard to credit it). What we really needed here is not just a list of problems with the Free Market, but why regulations 'specifically' deal with those problems and how a world with regulations is better than one without.

This debate is not an attack on the 'Free Market', but supporting 'regulation by a Federal body'.

Muse - 3 (It was interesting, just needed beefing up)

Killshot 1

Killshot cleverly takes the selfish assumption and uses it to then basically bash the Government. Whilst his speech is borderline hyperbolic, it is a fair point to make for his side that if we want a Government to manage (though, Muse rightly says she did not use term mico-manage) the economy in anywhere, we need to trust it - and people are selfish as Muse states, then why is a Government of people any better; especially if that Government seems bit shit.

Kill in para two makes some allegations that I will not comment on (^_^) haha, but may need little more evidence if wishes to state them as his case; however, it is seems to be feeding into his overall point that we cannot trust the state narrative.

Killshot then makes a wonderful plea for the little guys fighting against the big corp suits (PS they may have made 2/3 of jobs - also responsible for 3/4 of redundancies haha). In all seriousness, I could see what he was getting at here, but he left three open nets I really wanted Muse to score with:

1 - Just because small business owners moan (big shock, they always moan), does not mean there is a problem. It may be in their personal interests to have less regulation, but that does not mean it is in the interest of the whole economy.

2 - If there were no regulations, would it REALLY be easier for small businesses to compete against the big boys (and what of consumers)

3 - China and India as examples of wonderful economies - China is one of most regulated markets in mainstream world and India: what about public health issues due to unregulated / children starving due to government not preventing bad business practices.

Anyway, finally, have summary we recaps everything nicely.

Killshot: 6

Muse 2

OK, so with this concession, I could see what you were doing with conceding the status quo and thought on first reading it was clever, but rereading the motion, your NEXT concession and killshot's response, it is problematic to say we can ignore problematic regulations in the status quo of the USA, UNLESS you give a clear and logical narrative of what YOUR REGULATED USA would look like. You are indeed fighting for the principle, rather than just the status quo, but if you do not give the judges a picture of what the world looks like under your model, you leave it open for Killshot to (as he did) dedicate the terms of debate and the regulations we are reviewing.

The only picture you gave us was a 'fundamental regulations'; the key problem here is this is vague and sounds so weak that it means you are just arguing for the most basic and weak of regulation. It is then very easy for Killshot to say 'well that is so soft and flimsy, it will have no real positive impact ON THE ECONOMY weighted against all problems of regulation for the economy I have presented, especially as I show how regulation looks in the real world, which you cannot.'

However, I liked your next three paragraphs, which did some work attempting to show where regulations have been helpful for consumers and why they can be very important for a market to function properly. The problem is that they were undermined by three things:

1 - the problems highlighted in your earlier points and concessions (i.e people are selfish and your lack of definition about what a fundamental regulation is, as Killshot later hits at)

2 - The lack of definition over what a Market is. At the end of the debate, I have decided I like this market thingy, but I have no idea what it is or more importantly what a free market is compared to other markets. (The free market should regulated technically, which could if raised and explained bolster your position and undermine Killshot's love of it.)

3 - I have no link between protecting the basic rights of consumers and strengthening the economy.

Your last paragraph is again one where it has a good point undermined: I like the point that lawmakers should not mico-manage and that is not what regulation is, but the problem is that you then undermine by conceding lots of ground by saying 'law-makers' should do as little as possible. Protecting individuals from harm is different from strengthening the 'Economy. In fact, under your definition, it seems to be that the Government could harm the economy to protect people (i.e. weaken business trading powers so consumer better). You need to not concede so much ground and carefully explain how these regulations protecting consumers IS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY. I cannot imply it for you.

Muse - 4

Killshot 2

Killshot, you fairly points out that it is needs to be shown how these 'good regulations' can exist and work in your first paragraph.

However, in your second paragraph, you ask muse questions and the judge questions about what the free market could do better than the regulations. I actually think it is your job to answer these questions and explain clearly why the free market is better. Why is it consumer will leave a company which uses bad practices; they may not know.

In paragraphs 3 and 4 godwin's law number 4 comes out in the form of the financial crash, but this is OK in this debate as it is about finance in part. However, I am not sure if Bailouts are really a form of regulation and Muse did rightly mention this, so I cannot credit it to any great extent. - You are lucky that it was raised that the problems of this crash were caused by a lack of regulation and that if those banks had failed, it would have been the taxpayers who lost their life savings, not the banker managers. Haha

Killshot - 3

Muse 3

Again, we get the reaffirmation that this about the Government protecting citizens, not the economy, which seems as if it should be Killshot's position more than yours. (Sorry.)

I really like this rebuttal in paragraph two explaining how consumers may not be informed enough to know problems with back room deals.

Paragraph 3 seemed a bit circular.

Paragraph 4 is where we finally get some explanation about representative democracy and how this helps ensure governments are better than business at deciding these things. The problem it should have been one of the cornerstones of your position and clearly linked back to the motion. Clearly explain why a government whose survival is based on success of society is better placed to safeguard the economy than a collection of self-interest businesses. The conclusion also helps affirm this though/

Next paragraph rightly points out bailouts are not regulations.

This was your strongest speech by far and really showed you growing into the debate. :)

Muse - 5

Kill 3

Nice little summary re-affirming your key premises of greedy and incompetent government, free-market goooooood, and problems of regulations; however, cannot give much when not much there.

The only other thing I would say is that I can understand your position re-affirming your use of bailouts and credit it to the extent it is fair and feeds into your mains points, but use your words carefully. This was not a debate winning point, but it took up almost 1 third of your debate.

Killshot 4

Final:

Killshot - 13
Muse - 12

Last edited by Fat1Fared; 03-09-2015 at 08:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 03-09-2015
grimfang999's Avatar
grimfang999 grimfang999 is offline
Sex-Administrator
 
Gender: Neither
Location: This is where I live
Blurb: This is a Blurb
Posts: 9,868
Default

Ah yes, and just something I want to add for both participants...

While it was a debate focused around regulation in the USA, you should have expanded out to the rest of the world. Its a problem with most debates Americans seem to have, that they ignore all the evidence sitting right in front of them just outside their doorstep. Libertarian thinkers often argue about having little or even no state at all, but most countries outside the US show that a reasonably big state actually works pretty well. They resort to theory before looking at evidence.

To be fair, Killshot did raise India and China as examples so he did do precisely this, but these were simple points and Muse really could have checked his facts since there was no provided source, and looked at the other effects the lack of regulation had in those countries.



For Kudos and Muse, You guys are doing fine overall especially for new debaters, dont lose heart from this, its good fun and good practice as well as that you may learn a few new things. Keep at it :)
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 03-10-2015
Zairak's Avatar
Zairak Zairak is offline
 
Gender: Unknown
Posts: 4,937
Default

Yeah, kinda gonna need a 3rd person from among the contestants to chime in here.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 03-11-2015
Zairak's Avatar
Zairak Zairak is offline
 
Gender: Unknown
Posts: 4,937
Default

Well.

If one of the other contestants has not put forth a judgment of the debate by tomorrow night, I will go ahead and put my own forth, then.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 03-12-2015
Zairak's Avatar
Zairak Zairak is offline
 
Gender: Unknown
Posts: 4,937
Default

Right.

I rule in favor of killshot as well, for many of the same reasons already stated.

Don't really care to put up a wall o' text reiterating what Fared and grim said, kinda tired at the moment.

Anyway, a few points of announcement.

Losers are going to be put into another bracket, to get a second chance.

Clank4Prez dropped out of the tournament.

Fared will be facing grim instead in the special 'Grimfang999 bracket'.

Losers must face each other, then beat the winner of fared v. grimfang to get a chance at beating the actual winners of the Winner bracket.

If I typo and spell bracket as breacket one more time I'm afraid I'll have to buy a new keyboard.

I'm having grim add a picture of the bracket to the first post for your convenience.

Next match is grim v. fared.

Tell me if you can't go yet, Fared, and I'll arrange for the first loser's bracket match instead, Tormented v. musigal.

Fared won the coin flip and gets to pick the category.

I guess that's about all.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 03-13-2015
Zairak's Avatar
Zairak Zairak is offline
 
Gender: Unknown
Posts: 4,937
Default

Fared v. grimfang is shelved for now.

Proceeding with Tormented v. musigal for now.

Tormented won the coin flip.

Please pick a category, Tormented.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 03-15-2015
Tormented's Avatar
Tormented Tormented is offline
 
Gender: Male
Blurb: Your cries are all in vain.
Posts: 6,213
Default

Culture/Social Issues
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 03-15-2015
Zairak's Avatar
Zairak Zairak is offline
 
Gender: Unknown
Posts: 4,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tormented View Post
Culture/Social Issues
Alrighty.

Musigal, please pick a sub-category from among these:

Culture/Social issues
Media
Crime and Justice
Rights and Discrimination
Ethics
Social relations (relations, relationships, community)
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 03-15-2015
musigal's Avatar
musigal musigal is offline
Golden-Circle Lurker
 
Gender: Female
Location: with my panda
Blurb: My kitties are doopy and floopy, and I love them!
Posts: 7,884
Send a message via AIM to musigal Send a message via MSN to musigal Send a message via Yahoo to musigal Send a message via Skype™ to musigal
Default

Crime and Justice
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 03-15-2015
Zairak's Avatar
Zairak Zairak is offline
 
Gender: Unknown
Posts: 4,937
Default

>Pointedly ignores the obvious topic of racial discrimination amongst the police force

Okay... Here's your question, uh, statement:

Quote:
The purpose of exacting justice upon criminals is primarily to ensure stability among society as opposed to adhering to an absolute moral code for its own sake.
Please PM me which side you'd prefer to take.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 03-15-2015
Zairak's Avatar
Zairak Zairak is offline
 
Gender: Unknown
Posts: 4,937
Default

Both sides have opted to support the statement.

It seems there was some confusion regarding the wording, though, so if you require further clarification, please request it here.

For the time being, musigal has won the coin flip and gets to support the statement, as well as open the debate.

Go go go.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 03-17-2015
musigal's Avatar
musigal musigal is offline
Golden-Circle Lurker
 
Gender: Female
Location: with my panda
Blurb: My kitties are doopy and floopy, and I love them!
Posts: 7,884
Send a message via AIM to musigal Send a message via MSN to musigal Send a message via Yahoo to musigal Send a message via Skype™ to musigal
Default

I am seriously sick. I've had to stay home from work yesterday and today. My brain is frazzled. Can we postpone in some way? This sucks.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 03-17-2015
Zairak's Avatar
Zairak Zairak is offline
 
Gender: Unknown
Posts: 4,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by musigal View Post
I am seriously sick. I've had to stay home from work yesterday and today. My brain is frazzled. Can we postpone in some way? This sucks.
Sure. Hope you feel better soon.

Taking a brief pause, I'll be posting the next match and question in the next few hours.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 03-17-2015
Zairak's Avatar
Zairak Zairak is offline
 
Gender: Unknown
Posts: 4,937
Default

Okay.

Next match is killshot vs. kudos.

Kudos won the coin flip and gets to pick the category.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 03-19-2015
kudos's Avatar
kudos kudos is offline
Draw all the things!
 
Gender: Female
Location: The wind under my wings has carried me to where the sun sails and the moon walks
Blurb: Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy
Posts: 5,549
Send a message via MSN to kudos
Default

Philosophy!
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 03-19-2015
Zairak's Avatar
Zairak Zairak is offline
 
Gender: Unknown
Posts: 4,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kudos View Post
Philosophy!
Philosophy
Metaphysics
Ethics
Political Ideologies
Religion
Social relations

Killshot,


Last edited by Zairak; 03-20-2015 at 09:49 AM. Reason: For reasons.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 03-20-2015
killshot's Avatar
killshot killshot is offline
Whiskey Icarus
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Red Neckington
Blurb: Yet another 5 star post
Posts: 2,439
Default

I choose ethics.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 03-20-2015
Zairak's Avatar
Zairak Zairak is offline
 
Gender: Unknown
Posts: 4,937
Default

Okay. The statement is...

Quote:
Ethics should be applied in the short-term (a single person's lifetime) rather than the long-term (humanity's future as a whole).
PM me as to whether you wish to support or oppose this.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 03-23-2015
grimfang999's Avatar
grimfang999 grimfang999 is offline
Sex-Administrator
 
Gender: Neither
Location: This is where I live
Blurb: This is a Blurb
Posts: 9,868
Default

So, uh, bump?
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 03-23-2015
Zairak's Avatar
Zairak Zairak is offline
 
Gender: Unknown
Posts: 4,937
Default

Grim, everybody's busy, sick, or not responding.

It's just a waiting game now.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 03-23-2015
grimfang999's Avatar
grimfang999 grimfang999 is offline
Sex-Administrator
 
Gender: Neither
Location: This is where I live
Blurb: This is a Blurb
Posts: 9,868
Default

Welp in that case...

Anyone up for a friendly?
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 03-23-2015
Zairak's Avatar
Zairak Zairak is offline
 
Gender: Unknown
Posts: 4,937
Default

Well, both sides have opted to support.

RNG says 2, so going in alphabetical order, kudos was chosen to support.

So, make your opening argument, kudos.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 03-28-2015
kudos's Avatar
kudos kudos is offline
Draw all the things!
 
Gender: Female
Location: The wind under my wings has carried me to where the sun sails and the moon walks
Blurb: Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy
Posts: 5,549
Send a message via MSN to kudos
Default

The term "Ethics" is defined by the dictionary as a "system of moral principles" that act as the "rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics). This definition begs the question, what should be (and is) considered moral. Without an agreed upon definition of morality, one cannot discuss properly whether ethics should be applied in the short or long-term. Is it that of Western Society? Of a specific religion? Of a specific philosophy?

Two major views about what makes an action moral or immoral are Teleological/Consequential views and Deontological views.

Teleological Philosophy believs that an act is considered moral or immoral (good/bad) based upon the consequences of the action. (Whether it creates good outcomes/avoids bad outcomes, etc).

Deontological views, on the other hand, consider an act to be moral or immoral as an inherent quality of the act itself. This is partly influenced by the acting person's purpose and motivation to act in such a way (See Kant).

A Teleological view is impossible to follow through to it's end; the consequences of an action reach far beyond what can easily be predicted or thought of, especially since we are relegated to a linear timeline and cannot see how our actions will affect "humanity's future as a whole." (For example, if a man slams on his brakes to avoid hitting a pedestrian, he may well cause a collision with the driver behind him [a repercussion he did not expect] but further, he may miss the next green light, causing him to miss his dinner date, marry a different woman, and birth the next Hitler). This concept is similar to the butterfly effect.

Deontological views make more sense to apply practically in society, helping individuals and societies by encouraging self-reflection (on one's motivations and intents) and adherence to a code of conduct that is others-centered. Morality in the present should not be compromised to serve some far-distant, hypothetical "greater good" for humanity.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 04-03-2015
kudos's Avatar
kudos kudos is offline
Draw all the things!
 
Gender: Female
Location: The wind under my wings has carried me to where the sun sails and the moon walks
Blurb: Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy
Posts: 5,549
Send a message via MSN to kudos
Default

Bump?
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 04-03-2015
killshot's Avatar
killshot killshot is offline
Whiskey Icarus
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Red Neckington
Blurb: Yet another 5 star post
Posts: 2,439
Default

Were we still doing this?

I don't care enough about this topic to formulate an actual response. I forfeit.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 04-03-2015
Zairak's Avatar
Zairak Zairak is offline
 
Gender: Unknown
Posts: 4,937
Default

Well. Let's just make this easy.

If there is a single participant besides kudos that isn't either sick, or busy, or not paying attention, or whatever, speak up now.

Otherwise, I'm just gonna call it now with kudos winning.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 04-03-2015
grimfang999's Avatar
grimfang999 grimfang999 is offline
Sex-Administrator
 
Gender: Neither
Location: This is where I live
Blurb: This is a Blurb
Posts: 9,868
Default

*raises hand*

Yeah, I thin lets postpone thee tournament for the time being, start one in June when people will be actually able to play.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


Yu-Gi-Oh is the property of Konami and Kazuki Takahashi. We are only a parody, we are not breaking any laws nor intend to. See our disclaimer and terms of use. You can also contact us. Maybe you even want to read our about us page. Smileys by David Lanham. Hosted by Cthulhu.... Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.