WANTED - serious tournament players for V2.0 beta.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:39 am

All players are welcome to sign up for the beta, but can I make a plea for serious tournament players to take a full part in the beta?

During the lifetime of DBM, it was noticeable that serious tournament players tended to avoid beta-testing proposed amendments, because they did not want to confuse themselves for current tournament play.

However, the result of this was that as soon as the amendments were published, they discovered all the loopholes that had not been discovered by the less analytical beta testers.

As one of the purposes of V2.0 is to reduce anomalies, we really want to avoid introducing new anomalies to replace the old ones!

To this end, we need serious analytical tournament players to take part in the beta-testing and report any new cheese before V2.0 is published.

The scope for beta-tournaments is going to limited, if not non-existent, so please can you sign up for the beta now and take the opportunity to make v2.0 a much better set of rules, both for non-tournament and tournament games.

viking123 · Post by **viking123** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:53 pm

Serious question.
What defines a serious tournament players?
Is it those who regularly win or players who regularly take part in tournaments allowed?

Bob

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 1:05 pm

viking123 wrote:Serious question.
What defines a serious tournament players?
Is it those who regularly win or players who regularly take part in tournaments allowed?

All sorts of players are allowed. Lots are already signed up.

The purpose of this thread is just to try and ensure that the "contenders" don't stay out.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 1:18 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:The purpose of this thread is just to try and ensure that the "contenders" don't stay out.

So, just to make this absolutely crystal clear - does this mean we are excluding Americans?

jdm · Post by **jdm** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:31 pm

we most certainly are not excluding American or any other nationality players from taking part in the Beta.

However anyone who suggests we should may well be excluded

Regards
JDM

BillMc · Post by **BillMc** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:37 pm

dave_r wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:The purpose of this thread is just to try and ensure that the "contenders" don't stay out.
So, just to make this absolutely crystal clear - does this mean we are excluding Americans?

Now that was funny.

Bill

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:40 pm

BillMc wrote:
dave_r wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:The purpose of this thread is just to try and ensure that the "contenders" don't stay out.
So, just to make this absolutely crystal clear - does this mean we are excluding Americans?

Now that was funny.

Don't encourage him.

-----------------

Dave is wrong (80% of the time)

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:01 pm

Richard, I think you need a refresher on %ages. The considered opinion of this forum is that Dave is wrong 99.9% of the time. It's only not 100% to take account of the fact that he might have been rght once by accident... :)

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:24 pm

timmy1 wrote:Richard, I think you need a refresher on %ages. The considered opinion of this forum is that Dave is wrong 99.9% of the time. It's only not 100% to take account of the fact that he might have been rght once by accident...

I take umbrage at that. I have five documented instances of being right (see mysignature)

My lawyers will be in touch with you shortly.

rpayne · Post by **rpayne** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:41 pm

dave_r wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:The purpose of this thread is just to try and ensure that the "contenders" don't stay out.
So, just to make this absolutely crystal clear - does this mean we are excluding Americans?

I'm an American and I thought it was funny.

The California group does not really check these forums aside from me, but we do practice games nearly every weekend and would love to help out. I suppose I will sign up on the thingiemagig.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:50 pm

OK, on that basis dave_r is wrong 99.68% of the time. Please accept my apology.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:57 pm

dave_r wrote:
timmy1 wrote:Richard, I think you need a refresher on %ages. The considered opinion of this forum is that Dave is wrong 99.9% of the time. It's only not 100% to take account of the fact that he might have been rght once by accident...
I take umbrage at that. I have five documented instances of being right (see mysignature)

Hmm 5 correct posts out of 1583.

So that would be 99.7% wrong then.

Damn, you beat me to it.

-------------------------

Dave is wrong (99.7% of the time, by his own admission)

shadowdragon · Post by **shadowdragon** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:19 pm

dave_r wrote:
timmy1 wrote:Richard, I think you need a refresher on %ages. The considered opinion of this forum is that Dave is wrong 99.9% of the time. It's only not 100% to take account of the fact that he might have been rght once by accident...
I take umbrage at that. I have five documented instances of being right (see mysignature)

My lawyers will be in touch with you shortly.

Not being wrong isn't the same as being right. You could, for instance, be irrelevant which would be neither right or wrong.

Also, are those four other "instances" all separate instances or four witnesses to the same "instance". If the latter case, then it could be four observers noted that 0.01% time your were right by chance.

shadowdragon · Post by **shadowdragon** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:22 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
dave_r wrote:
timmy1 wrote:Richard, I think you need a refresher on %ages. The considered opinion of this forum is that Dave is wrong 99.9% of the time. It's only not 100% to take account of the fact that he might have been rght once by accident...
I take umbrage at that. I have five documented instances of being right (see mysignature)
Hmm 5 correct posts out of 1583.

So that would be 99.7% wrong then.

Damn, you beat me to it.

-------------------------

Dave is wrong (99.7% of the time, by his own admission)

Also, we need to examine the credibility of the witnesses for these "documented instances" ....or perhaps Dave wore them down - drip by drip - to the point where, in their confusion, they'd admit anything.

countadam · Post by **countadam** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:28 pm

When is this likely to start? I have signed up but cannot access the new forum. I get a message:
"Sorry, but only users granted special access can read topics in this forum."
I thought 31st January was to be the start of the V2 beta testing.

Paul

Mehrunes · Post by **Mehrunes** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:00 pm

I guess the forum was just created and nobody has access yet.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:19 am

countadam wrote:When is this likely to start? I have signed up but cannot access the new forum. I get a message:
"Sorry, but only users granted special access can read topics in this forum."
I thought 31st January was to be the start of the V2 beta testing.

Paul

I would imagine if you have been successful you'll get the draft V2 emailed to you and then recieve access to the forum

Jilu · Post by **Jilu** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:54 am

Well there is Jacques Wilputte and i we both registered for the Beta test

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:59 am

Nothing has gone out yet as far as I am aware. JDM is in charge - but he only received the file yesterday.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:05 pm

Happy to assist Richard. I think I've registered properly; I imagine someone will tell me if not.