› ›

The Battle Of The Bonds Elimination Game. Post game discussion.

1…4041434546…52

Comments

  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,507
    Sean Connery: 47 (+1)
    Roger Moore: 21 (-1)

    Eliminated:
    3) Daniel Craig
    4) Timothy Dalton
    5) Pierce Brosnan
    6) George Lazenby
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Sean Connery: 48 (+1)
    Roger Moore: 20 (-1)

    Eliminated:
    3) Daniel Craig
    4) Timothy Dalton
    5) Pierce Brosnan
    6) George Lazenby [/quote]

  • sirseanisbondsirseanisbond
    Posts: 2,189
    Sean Connery: 49 (+1)
    Roger Moore: 19 (-1)

    Eliminated:
    3) Daniel Craig
    4) Timothy Dalton
    5) Pierce Brosnan
    6) George Lazenby
  • SlyFox007SlyFox007
    Posts: 414
    Wednesday

    Sean Connery: 50 (+1)
    Roger Moore: 18 (-1)

    Eliminated:
    3) Daniel Craig
    4) Timothy Dalton
    5) Pierce Brosnan
    6) George Lazenby
  • JohnBarryFanJohnBarryFan
    Posts: 1,405
    Wednesday

    Sean Connery: 49 -1
    Roger Moore: 19 +1

    Eliminated:
    3) Daniel Craig
    4) Timothy Dalton
    5) Pierce Brosnan
    6) George Lazenby
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    Sean Connery: 50 (+1)
    Roger Moore: 18 (-1)
  • Crazysoul95Crazysoul95
    Posts: 3,336
    Sean Connery: 51 (+1)
    Roger Moore: 17 (-1)
  • CarstoneCarstone
    Posts: 118
    Sean Connery: 52 (+1)
    Roger Moore: 16(-1)
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Sean Connery: 51 (-1)
    Roger Moore: 17 (+1)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Wednesday Vote:

    Sean Connery: 50 (-1)
    Roger Moore: 18 (+1)
  • timmertimmer
    edited June 2014 Posts: 4,622
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Firstly, I want to thank @Murdock for being such a good host. Any threads that can run their course so peacefully, are good threads. ;-)

    One small remark though, more as a suggestion for future games: when the scores are cut to smaller numbers, just so we can speed things up, perhaps we should cut both remaining choices proportionally. E.g. both get cut in half. Now, an arbitrary number of votes was cut from Sean and a different albeit equally arbitrary number was cut from Roger. In principle, there's nothing wrong with that: it's just a game after all. But it could invite a debate over whether this was correct or not. Some mathematical logic would be advisable.

    Meanwhile, let’s all continue to enjoy this game, and I put my faith in @Murdock to lead us to its conclusion.
    Thank you @DarthDimi for pointing out the flaw in @murdocks "math logic". Namely it is entirely arbitrary. Yes it's only a game, but games have rules. In Murdocks world he makes the rules up as he goes along, depending on his bias.
    I don't know why we would thank Murdoch for "running" the game. There probably isn't anyone on the board less qualified to run a game. Anyone else would have the sense to reduce points proportionately or by the same number. Murdock alas, probably doesn't even understand what I am saying here.
    I dont' care who wins as long as the voting is fair, which it no longer is. I'm pulling for Sean but I unreasonably assumed it would be a fair vote.
    What is amazing is that we blasted @murdock once already for pulling numbers out of his arse, he wimpered about having a bad day, blah blah blah. We eased off, made our peace and now he pulls the same crap all over again. Obviously he learned nothing. The tough love approach was correct all along.

    The voting numbers are now meaningless. Maybe @murdock can knock both names down to say 25 for Sean and 20 for Rog and we can have a close battle to the finish or flip the votes and see if Sean can catch up...the possibilites are endless....sarcasm intended......but these ideas make about as much sense as what @murdoch has come up with recently.....I can't vote anymore because I have no idea what the next set of arbitrary calculations might bring. Whats the point? The game has no rules.
    Just give it to Rog, that's what @murdock wants. It's his game after all.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited June 2014 Posts: 16,359
    At least you weren't insulting me this time @timmer. I explained my reasons. Play the game or not, I don't care nor do I owe you a thing. I sped the game up, Made it fair. You act like I gave all the points to Moore. The game is over and Connery is bound to win. I don't see how anything of value was lost. No use crying over split milk. And you wanna know why I had a bad day? I buried my dad's ashes the day before all this hatred brewed, So excuse me sir.
  • Sammm04Sammm04
    Posts: 479
    Just wait, someone will mention Hitler soon... oh, wait.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    I thought we were finished with the petty name-calling and trashing of other members, but apparently not. What's happened with the forums lately? This is getting ridiculous. We've lost one member, another one went through dark times and has disappeared, and a few of us have had some deeply troubling/upsetting times in our lives. This is a place to escape all of that and enjoy the company of one another by talking all things Bond, but some of us want to continue to burn one another at the stake over a game?

    And what's the point? Sean is winning either way, and Murdock stated he won't helm another game, so some still decide it's necessary to write out long paragraphs continuing to bash him? This is petty and childish. I can't believe what I've read on this thread these past few days. I'm disgusted at the levels some people stoop to to knock another person down a peg over something so incredibly irrelevant in the sense of reality. Absolutely disgusted.
  • timmertimmer
    edited June 2014 Posts: 4,622
    sirseanisbond wrote:
    Ok, I may have got a bit mad initially, but there is a simple resolution here. if @Murdock wants to avoid all the claims of bias and being unfair, then he should change it to a fair 50% reduction. That way Sean, who was at 94 would be at 47, and Roger, who was at 44, would be at 22. Since the change, 2 have voted Sean down and 1 has voted Sean up, so this should be the scores:

    Sean: 46
    Roger: 23

    ^^^This is how the scores should be!!!

    Well done @sirseanisbond! An exactly proportional reduction. 50% off each. Genius!
    I am going with the above as the final score ie the last time the scores made sense, and I am saying that as someone pulling for Connery, who also seems to be pulling away in the "twilight zone" scoring. However I would rather the game be run fairly and consistently than have my guy win.
    Again I don't know why this is so tough. There are two perfectly fair ways to expedite an outcome. ie an exactly proportional reduction as @sirsean did or increase the increment from 1 to 5 or whatever.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited June 2014 Posts: 24,254
    @timmer, I see we agree on the lack of mathematical logic, but I don't think that should be too much of a problem. It's not like @Murdock took Connery down to 1 and left Moore at 44. My post was merely a suggestion, not criticism.
    Furthermore, I'm not sure @Murdock deserves the harshness of your post. The way I know @Murdock, and I know him pretty well, he's a great guy, a valid member of the forums and a nice bloke with a good heart.
    I also respect you, @timmer, as another great veteran of the forum. So this isn't me choosing sides.
    I can objectively observe two things though: a) these games tend to cause frustration, even mild forms of frustration, and b) several members have dropped from these games because of the reason I stated in a). This is also the reason why the mod team, all of us veterans from the old days, were initially very reluctant to see them pop up again. They tend to create friction among nice members in the most ridiculous place imaginable. We have seen that happen before...
    So yes, I prefer the 50% cut thing myself, but I'm not going to create a fuss over it. ;-)
    And I think you are all fine folks, so I hope we can stay cool.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Don't get me wrong, I love Murdock, too, he's a fantastic guy with a good heart, and I most certainly agree that if points are reduced at any point, it should be an even 20%, 50%, etc., whatever the percentage point may be. Even if someone still holds a lead, the points should be cut evenly, but perhaps a kind suggestion would do well next time instead of trashing the host of the game and screaming at him. Kindness can go a long way sometimes. Surprising, I know.
  • timmertimmer
    edited June 2014 Posts: 4,622
    @Dimi.
    Thanks for your intervention. Well straddled.
    My only final thought is that I think a mod should spell out the rules at the beginning, including legitimate options for reducing the vote if necessary at the end.
    Then we have order in the universe. Rules are laid out ahead of time and we won't be making fun of fellow members and their monkey puppets. ;)
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    timmer wrote:
    @Dimi.
    Thanks for your intervention. Well straddled.
    My only final though is that I think a mod should spell out the rules at the beginning, including legitimate options for reducing the vote if necessary at the end.
    Then we have order in the universe. Rules are laid out ahead of time and we won't be making fun of fellow members and their monkey puppets. ;)

    What's that supposed to mean?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Murdock wrote:
    timmer wrote:
    @Dimi.
    Thanks for your intervention. Well straddled.
    My only final though is that I think a mod should spell out the rules at the beginning, including legitimate options for reducing the vote if necessary at the end.
    Then we have order in the universe. Rules are laid out ahead of time and we won't be making fun of fellow members and their monkey puppets. ;)

    What's that supposed to mean?

    I'm sure it's another low blow at those of us defending you. Whatever. Doesn't pain my heart in the slightest. If someone wants to talk down to a genuinely nice member like a dog, then I'll have something to say about it, especially when that happens solely because of a game intended for fun.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    timmer wrote:
    @Dimi.
    Thanks for your intervention. Well straddled.
    My only final though is that I think a mod should spell out the rules at the beginning, including legitimate options for reducing the vote if necessary at the end.
    Then we have order in the universe. Rules are laid out ahead of time and we won't be making fun of fellow members and their monkey puppets. ;)

    What's that supposed to mean?

    I'm sure it's another low blow at those of us defending you. Whatever. Doesn't pain my heart in the slightest. If someone wants to talk down to a genuinely nice member like a dog, then I'll have something to say about it, especially when that happens solely because of a game intended for fun.

    Thanks @Creasy47. :)

    Meanwhile this thread has gotten derailed so as the train conductor, I'm putting it back on the rails! CHOOOO CHOOOO!!!

    Current Score.

    Sean Connery: 50
    Roger Moore: 18
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,254
    Allow me:

    Sean Connery: 51 (+1)
    Roger Moore: 17 (-1)
  • timmertimmer
    edited June 2014 Posts: 4,622
    Murdock wrote:
    Then we have order in the universe. Rules are laid out ahead of time and we won't be making fun of fellow members and their monkey puppets. ;)

    What's that supposed to mean?
    I thought it was obvious. Anyway, who cares, but as you asked, I thought maybe the monkey puppet had been spitting out the new tabulations for us.
    That's my last word on the matter. @Dimi wants peace. I am going to respect that. Choo! Choo!

  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade
    Posts: 4,347
    zebrafish wrote:
    My prediction: Connery, Craig, Dalton, Moore, Brosnan, Lazenby
    …how wrong I was, 4 weeks ago! To be sure, this was an interesting game. Congrats to @Murdock, for throwing this surprise party!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    zebrafish wrote:
    zebrafish wrote:
    My prediction: Connery, Craig, Dalton, Moore, Brosnan, Lazenby
    …how wrong I was, 4 weeks ago! To be sure, this was an interesting game. Congrats to @Murdock, for throwing this surprise party!

    If I had to guess now, I would figure it'd be: Connery, Craig, Moore, Dalton, Lazenby, Brosnan. Definite surprise, indeed.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    zebrafish wrote:
    zebrafish wrote:
    My prediction: Connery, Craig, Dalton, Moore, Brosnan, Lazenby
    …how wrong I was, 4 weeks ago! To be sure, this was an interesting game. Congrats to @Murdock, for throwing this surprise party!

    Well, I like creating surprises. :)

  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,144
    From my point of view I don't take part in these games I've not got anything against them there just not my sort of thing but it is only a game chaps no ones life depends on the out come.
    So could we please let it now run its course and stop the argument
    And as far as I can see the only use for a Monkey puppet is to advertise a cheep brand of Tea.
    Thanks.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,169
    Thursday vote:

    Sean Connery: 50 -1
    Roger Moore: 18 +1

    And yet another elimination game takes a turn for the worst. Come on peeps, it's just a game.
    Sometimes we need to take a step back and think about what is getting us so worked up.
    I believe all future games will/should be handled by the mod team to stop any bust ups and the like.




  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,858

    Sean Connery: 49 -1
    Roger Moore: 19 +1

    Come on Moore....

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited June 2014 Posts: 45,489
    Sammm04 wrote:
    Just wait, someone will mention Hitler soon... oh, wait.

    Hitler would be more qualified to run a game. No, wait, that was not what I meant to say.

    What I meant to say was:

    Q:A percentagewise cut? Like 100 per cent? Or 1 per cent? At what level is it fair?

    A: If you can figure that one out, you deserve an Abel prize.

    And to Mooreduck: Do whatever you like. It is just a game, cheating is tolerated within limits.
Sign In or Register to comment.