Well, how do you like Bulk ... LAO?
:disappoin

I heart markslack. He tells it like it is.

If I were him I would never get back on realms , When you get owned by stubarnes then its time to never come back to realms.

And who goes and edits all your posts to WHOOPS .

... I mean other than the bribery and ####ty site owning, I know he did something else to piss everyone off because even before this 10k people disliked him...

In the DJL Sneak Peak he got the door prize mat, and everyone boo'ed him, even the announcer. So whats that about?

well how many of you were there thought so well as i understand it from the horses mouth and other people that were around is bulk said hey whoever wins the match between us will split winnings with the other one there was no offer for a consession so i sugggest since none of us has all the facts we should all shut the _ _ ck up until we know for sure and there is always two sides to every story if. also he may have handeld his web site wrong thats fine but talking all big like u want to give him a beatting handle it in the right manner it does suck but to say your going to harm a guy who only weights in at 127 pounds is dumb if you want to do some harm to someone come see me im not hard to find tough guys my name is jerry i play in so cal see ya here.

He'll be the guy beating up on the English language in the corner.
:devious:

Eh, it's a natural reaction. If you're ripped off you're gonna want some payback. The fact that the guy is small makes it easier to take the physical route.:ermm:

As for the DQ, it would appear that his reputation cost him more than anything else. I mean, everyone but two people so far are laughing and saying the guy basically deserved it. This basically is telling me that it's probably not too hard to get a guy like this DQ'd.

agree. again!

damn stu, thats twice in one day! are we finally coming to that "meeting of the minds"?

It's always bad to speculate unless you were there and knew the people involved.

From what I've been told... and knowing the parties involved... it was talking without thinking that caused this unfortunate event. Bottom line... be careful who you trust and abide by the rules.

Even if 2 team members face each other and agree on a "split"... the wrong phrase or sentence can warrant a judge issuing a DQ on you.

And that's just as meaningless to me (and everyone else) as me saying I understand it from people who witnessed it.

If you don't believe me, why should I believe you?

Bottom line, he was DQed, and that means he did something wrong.

Everytime someone cheats, there's a small group that rushes to his defense.

"He'll be the guy beating up on the English language in the corner."

best ... line... evar....

I am a fan of anyone who plays fair, and is a decent human being. There is no line between pro and schmoe. But rules are rules. Play by them or get the #### out. And it is every players responsibility to indeed watch for even play mistakes in games around them. Even as a spectator, if you understand the rules, and see a mis-play... you tell a judge at your earliest convenince.

And as long as we can all stay civil about it, it helps make things run much more smoothly, and keep more people honest.

There are 3 types of people really. There are those who will cheat or do anything to gain advantage. They are the minority, but they are there. There are also those beyond reproach. They will even point out an opponents mistake and let them re-evaluate things rather than let their poor play stand. Very few people will stop a player and suggest to attack their more vuilnerable character first, because it is the best move for their opponent. We do this in testing, but in a tourney this is just stupid.

But in the middle, the vast majority of people are basicaly honest. They will let their opponent make poor choices, but will not cheat for a win. These are the people that the general policing rule keeps in line. If there were no penalties, or no system for watching over each others shoulders, then how well you could get away woudl something would basically be an accepted part of the play of the game.

Don't cheat.... simple as that.

And for the record, slow playing a deck for time is indeed some crapy half-assed weak strategy that should be stopped. A Doom deck, or the Arkham, anything... stalling for time ios crap. It takes little skill when you just play your own moves slow, and let the time dwindle on.

Glock is a bit differrent, and youc an play full speed and still have way more life than your opponent at time. Life gain without slow play takes far more skill than specific attacks and stalling every other play.

Who's it? what's it? Something about a horse named Jerry? Horse on Jerry Springer? What is it Lassy? Did Timmy fall down the well and get a fracture of the lower mandible?

i like the theory of the person next to the match "rating" on bulk.

these are the table assignments for the last round of day one:
http://metagame.com/vs.aspx?tabid=46...ArticleId=5926

and these are the standings after bulk had been dq'ed:
http://metagame.com/vs.aspx?tabid=46...ArticleId=5928

note the cut for day two is 24.

oh man...thats just f*ed up.

OK people. I was a judge at the 10K this weekend. Just to clairify a few things. I was not involved or had any knowlege of what was going on during the discussion about Bulk until after it was decided.
Here is what the myself and other judges were told.
Bulk made an illegal (in the rules) offer to his opponent. I don't know if it was accepted or not (I assume not cause his opponent is still listed in the standings). After the round a judge heard the opponent talking to a friend about the offer and brought it to the head judges attention. Bulk and the opponent were interviewed and both made statements. The final ruling was against Bulk and he was DQ'd. I know a little more about the interviews but not much and I wont repeat those bits cause I think I am toeing the line of what I can say anyway.
Bottom line is that judges are asked/trained to listen for any sign of wrongdoing on the players part, either first hand or not and investigate it to find validity. In this case they did.