Page 2 of 3
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:36 pm
by spikemesq
I signed up for the beta. I play in tournaments, albeit badly.
I am super analytical though, so I am keen to hunt down loopholes.
Is the beta forum open yet? I see it on the list, but it rejects me as a plebe. Wasn't sure if that meant "No Beta For You!" or what.
Spike
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:43 pm
by GHGAustin
I don't get a chance to play in many tournaments, since I am usually on the organizing side. I hope our group offered some useful input for FOG-R. Several from Austin are signed up for FOG 2.0. The more we can get in a local area, the better, I think.
Thanks,
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:11 pm
by Lionelc62
Hi,
I think that most of the french 'serious tournament players' have signed up for FOG 2.0 playtests (including Olivier J and Olivier D). ?
Regards
Lionel
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:59 pm
by iversonjm
I've signed up. I daresay I'm a serious tournament player under any definition except Dave's.
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:39 pm
by timmy1
Matt, I think that the earlier evidence in this thread suggests that statistically if you don't meet dave_r's definition you probably are...
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:03 pm
by hazelbark
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?
This American thumped you in a tournament. So we should exclude you too!
PS I did sign up for the beta
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:16 pm
by dave_r
hazelbark 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?
This American thumped you in a tournament. So we should exclude you too!
PS I did sign up for the beta
I presume you are referring to the match that ended 6-3 to the Brits?
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:33 pm
by ethan
dave_r wrote:
I presume you are referring to the match that ended 6-3 to the Brits?
He said the tournament in which you did finish behind us.
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:58 pm
by dave_r
ethan wrote:dave_r wrote:
I presume you are referring to the match that ended 6-3 to the Brits?
He said the tournament in which you did finish behind us.
I think you'll find he didn't
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:29 am
by hazelbark
dave_r wrote:
I presume you are referring to the match that ended 6-3 to the Brits?
I see you are hoping your time in the witness protection program will erase your Dublin loss to me. Alas I have witnesses.
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:32 am
by hazelbark
dave_r wrote:ethan wrote:dave_r wrote:
I presume you are referring to the match that ended 6-3 to the Brits?
He said the tournament in which you did finish behind us.
I think you'll find he didn't
Sorry ethan, the WHOLE GB team finished behind us in that team event, but that was not my specific case. Where Dave lost but was gentleman enough to buy me a beer afterwards. He lives in shame ever since and tries to make excuses. Wait for it one is coming now...
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:09 am
by petedalby
I've signed up.....although based upon recent perfornmances I may not meet the criteria - when will we hear what happens next?
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:31 am
by rbodleyscott
petedalby wrote:I've signed up.....although based upon recent perfornmances I may not meet the criteria - when will we hear what happens next?
It is in the hands of JD.
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:49 am
by stenic
Are we doomed?
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:35 pm
by kevinj
I think I signed up correctly. Are we still waiting, or have I been excluded for having found Dave to be correct once?
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:01 pm
by MatthewP
If there is any justice, the latter
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:38 pm
by pezhetairoi
I'm still not sure what a "serious tournament player" is.
Is it someone who's too serious to be playing in tournaments?
Or someone who plays in tournaments that are too serious?
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:23 pm
by bahdahbum
I do not know .
Either it is a player that uses "winning armies" - yes that exist. Or someone as myself who do not care and uses an army for fun ...( Champa/Khmerr with 8 BG of elephants ) and do not always get to the top
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:38 am
by philqw78
bahdahbum wrote:I do not know .
Either it is a player that uses "winning armies" - yes that exist. Or someone as myself who do not care and uses an army for fun ...( Champa/Khmerr with 8 BG of elephants ) and do not always get to the top
Its not you and me Jacq, though they may want our opinion occassionally.
And I always give mine freely
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:43 am
by shadowdragon
philqw78 wrote:bahdahbum wrote:I do not know .
Either it is a player that uses "winning armies" - yes that exist. Or someone as myself who do not care and uses an army for fun ...( Champa/Khmerr with 8 BG of elephants ) and do not always get to the top
Its not you and me Jacq, though they may want our opinion occassionally.
And I always give mine freely
Phil, is this a question of you get what you pay for????