World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc. World Beyblade Organization Discuss worldbeyblade.org

[RULES] [PROPOSAL] Presentation

Poll: Should presentation be added to the ruleset?

Yes, bladers should present their bey to a judge and their opponent.
34.38%
11
Yes, bladers should present their bey to a judge.
46.88%
15
No, the ruleset is fine as is.
18.75%
6
Total: 100% 32 vote(s)
  • You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
  • * You voted for this item.
  • Show Results
Jun. 06, 2013  10:05 PM
 
NOTE: You don't have to be advanced to vote in the poll!

Presentation

* This is a proposal for a new rule, not a rule change

Currently the two bladers in a match have to show their Beyblade to another person only by spinning it in the stadium. "Presentation" is a proposed rule where after both bladers have selected their beys, they would have to either present their blades to a judge or to the other player (or both) before a match starts. A benefit to presenting beys at least to a judge would be a way to ensure illegal parts are not being used. Presenting to the opponent as well would also allow each blader to have an idea of how to launch their bey as early as the first round, which may or may not be a good thing. Presenting to the opponent does remove part of the secrecy aspect of the current ruleset, which may or may not be a good thing.

Should presentation be considered for the ruleset or is the ruleset fine as is (and why)?


PROS/CONS

If presentation was added to the ruleset:

PROS
  • Illegal parts would be detected ahead of time
  • *** See ??? Section ***

CONS
  • **See ??? section***

??? (Could be a pro or a con)
NOTE: This list assumes the bladers present their beys to each other, not just to a judge
  • Allows bladers to launch their bey a certain way as early as round 1
  • Enables bladers to adjust their bey's changeable parts (such as TH170) as early as round 1
  • Removes a layer of secrecy


It's no secret that I am a huge a proponent of presentation, both to a judge and to one's opponent. It would ensure illegal parts are not used, and I like the idea of being able to launch appropriately as early as round 1 rather than losing the first round for (in my opinion) no good reason. It's also not a secret that I despise how much the current ruleset revolves around extreme secrecy (IMO, this creates a huge source of unneeded animosity between bladers and hinders metagame growth). Thus, I would consider all the things in the above "???" section as being pros rather than cons, and I would greatly like to see this implemented in the ruleset.

I acknowledge that some of you would consider the things in the "???" section to be cons rather than pros, and I'm looking forward to hearing everyone's opinions on the matter.
Jun. 07, 2013  2:49 PM
 
I'm very much ambivalent about this, because if you know what to do against a beyblade you're generally going to be able to identify it on a launcher unless the opponent is launching super-jankily. I guess the height change thing is valid, however. It does provide a more consistent time for judges to check parts so that's also good.
Overall, I support this based on the above reasoning, could be swayed by counterarguments however.
Mar. 30, 2014  9:02 PM
 
I'm going to bring this back up and make a more moderate proposal along similar lines based on something I heard happened this weekend. I think it should be mandatory that if a blader has not attached their beyblade to the launcher and is asked whether or not they have, they must answer truthfully. I do not know how much I am able to say about what happened, but especially if a judge asks, this should absolutely be the case. Having this not mandatory can lead to very misleading situations and leave someone at a massive disadvantage. I feel there's a significant difference between this and more standard deception practices in that it allows a blader to lie and then have a guaranteed win off that lie - whether or not that's exactly what happened this weekend (there were certain circumstances involved, and I've only heard one side of the story and I do not want to get drawn into it if there is actually anything there), that's far, far too big an advantage to leave unchecked.

Basic honesty and good sportsmanship, really.

Oh, and while it could be argued that not answering is as good as saying no but various circumstances could cause a misunderstanding there, so I do not think that is sufficient.
Mar. 30, 2014  9:08 PM
 
I already proposed it to the Committee. However, from what I remember, it was thought to be too obvious to be inserted in the rules.
Mar. 30, 2014  9:13 PM
 
There are very few things I'd consider too obvious based on how seriously the game is taken in some areas, to be honest, but in this case I think, assuming you're aware of what I'm talking about, that their minds will probably change on that particular matter if you ask again, haha. Generally it's best to keep in mind that judges seem to err strongly on the side of caution, as we are (probably rightly) pretty tough on judges making incorrect calls - they avoid overstepping the mark without specific grounds to do so. There's not a huge cost to being specific either to be honest, so yeah, I'd argue there is a very small number of things that are legitimately too honest, and this is a good example of that.

I would generally suggest, in addition to the more explicit/specific thing above (and this is more along the lines of what I was planning on proposing when I started my post - I'm a little groggy from oversleeping haha): if a judge makes an incorrect call during selection that selection be restarted for both participants - I honestly had hoped that other places would be more like Perth where we were always very focussed on fairness even if it cost us an advantage so we'd naturally all agree to that if a competitor had a concern, but apparently that's not the case in some places haha (which I guess is understandable, some places really take this game very seriously, and there's a lot more at stake - but IMO as a community and ruling body we should do what we can to fix things when they happen.)

By the way, I'd also like to make it very clear that I don't have any opinion on any of the things I heard that motivated me to make this post, I don't have the information or standing to hold an opinion on them or the accuracy of what I heard (and for anyone guessing what I am talking about, I'd also like to state that these things were not said to me in a way that accused another player of intentional foul play or anything along those lines, so you know, no reason for any friction there basically), I'm just aiming to address the possibilities that have been raised by them, even if I perhaps sounded like I was saying it had or had not occurred (as I said, I'm groggy, please forgive me).
To further clarify:
The first post/proposal I made today was aimed at providing a specifically stated avenue of protection against a particularly powerful piece of deception - it would have the added effect of enshrining a competitors right to ask and receive an answer on whether their opponent is attached, which might require more discussion though in reality it's not much further than the power a participant has to force stalling clause anyway - it just means they don't have to make sure they wait out the entire time before turning around.
The second, the thing in this post, which is what I was actually intending to do when I clicked the advanced forum, is aimed at providing a specific avenue to protect/address Judge error during the selection phase on the spot in a fairly simple, equitable manner, and I'd think this is a pretty broadly acceptable proposal in general, as long as it is only applied to errors during the selection phase and not afterward (because having a battle completely restarted at 2-0 is most definitely not something I'd consider fair).
Mar. 31, 2014  1:35 AM
 
With the willingness of competitors to find 'loopholes' in such rules, it's best to not leave technical matters like this to good judgement.
A decent amount of Beyblade comes in choosing and predicting your opponent, which means that we might as well be as specific as necessary when it comes to rules on these matters.

$.02
Apr. 01, 2014  7:50 PM
 
Technically though, a judge may only ask a Blader if they are "attached" during Stalling Clause. Outside of that, they may ask if they are "ready", but not "attached" because Bladers are not bound by the rules of Stalling Clause in that situation. A Blader should absolutely never lie to a judge, but the judge needs to be aware of what he/she has the right to ask at any given point in time as well.
Apr. 02, 2014  7:15 AM
 
(Apr. 01, 2014  7:50 PM)Kei Wrote: Technically though, a judge may only ask a Blader if they are "attached" during Stalling Clause. Outside of that, they may ask if they are "ready", but not "attached" because Bladers are not bound by the rules of Stalling Clause in that situation. A Blader should absolutely never lie to a judge, but the judge needs to be aware of what he/she has the right to ask at any given point in time as well.

Attached is part of ready anyway, no?

But personally speaking - to me even compared to the other deception stuff which I am not comfortable with, faking attachment seems like it is far too 'powerful' to me - successfully done (and it is not one of the harder deception tactics to pull off, especially against opponents who are younger etc (whether or not that's just "not being as good a blader" or whatever, personally it strikes me as too harsh given the disadvantages they're already at)) it basically affords the user a near-guaranteed win. It can be worked around by forcing stalling clause yes, but on the other hand with the length of stalling clause being so long (and if someone is faking attachment then it's not too big a leap to consider them dragging out stalling clause for a psychological advantage/to 'punish' the opponent for invoking it) that's an annoying way to have to handle it - simpler to just let a blader ask if they are attached IMO (which of course means the opponent can ask the same back). There are still plenty of deception tactics aside from this, so it's not removing that entire aspect like I previously proposed and assume (especially from your response) that it was dismissed, but it removes an excessively powerful one from the game - not to mention one that has caused quite some fuss in the past (implementing that largely removes the need for the right spin wheel on left spin prongs rule that to be honest still baffles me (don't get me wrong - the way I acted over it was completely unacceptable and I sincerely apologise for and regret that, but I haven't changed my mind about the fact the ruling just doesn't make sense to me)). This could also come as some compromise for the as I recall it significant number of people who felt that deception tactics were a mite too strong back when these proposals were initially made, which would be nice, though obviously I'm very much partisan on this issue.

I would like to keep this separate from my proposal about implementing and specifically stating that if a judge makes the wrong call during selection that a restart is required, though, and I am curious for your thoughts on that.