Female Fighters and C-Box Frustrations

[xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club]

Jul 8, 2016 16:05:36 GMT -5 xx - Former Bulldozers said:

Who kicked who's ass again? D'Alelio hasn't beaten Murphy yet and never will pal.

LMAO Yah, that maybe.... But that pales in comparison to the fact you don't know any other women on my roster except D'Alelio. That's fucking hilarious.

[The Sandmen]

Maybe he could have a chance to get to know them if you would trade some.

You mentioned about people wanting to make your team worse. The opposite, mate. Hence why I offered you Carano for some losing-record fighters about a year ago, and offered you Tate for Kedzie earlier this season. No one is trying to make your team worse. And I'll I'm trying to un-stagnate the division with names that actually deserve the heavy upgrading. I mean, I CAN work on someone like Aisling Daly, but I think it's better for ManMMA and MMA in general if that work went into a pioneer like Kedzie, or a current legit contender IRL like Zingano.

My problem now is I have 6 points now (and had 10 more when we talked about Kedzie before) that I would have been putting into Kedzie (or Zingano), but now they are all going into Markos. So instead of your core of deserving fighters going elsewhere and getting those ugprades, they are in line on your team, AND my secondary fighters are getting the upgrades instead. It just means it's going to be that much harder, and that much longer before someone like Kedzie gets to where she SHOULD be.

[xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club]

Jul 8, 2016 16:18:19 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

Maybe he could have a chance to get to know them if you would trade some.

You mentioned about people wanting to make your team worse. The opposite, mate. Hence why I offered you Carano for some losing-record fighters about a year ago, and offered you Tate for Kedzie earlier this season. No one is trying to make your team worse. And I'll I'm trying to un-stagnate the division with names that actually deserve the heavy upgrading. I mean, I CAN work on someone like Aisling Daly, but I think it's better for ManMMA and MMA in general if that work went into a pioneer like Kedzie, or a current legit contender IRL like Zingano.

My problem now is I have 6 points now (and had 10 more when we talked about Kedzie before) that I would have been putting into Kedzie (or Zingano), but now they are all going into Markos. So instead of your core of deserving fighters going elsewhere and getting those ugprades, they are in line on your team, AND my secondary fighters are getting the upgrades instead. It just means it's going to be that much harder, and that much longer before someone like Kedzie gets to where she SHOULD be.

What you've ALWAYS failed to realize is that I really don't care what YOU would do. lol Others may bow down at your feet, I don't. Maybe that's the reason why you do all this shit that you do all the time... But my fighters are simply getting their their upgrades in a different way now since we've changed point formats. That's it. It's doing what it was designed to do... keep me down. And that's fine... I expected that. It's still not going to force me to trade away my entire team because YOU THINK I should, and you're trying to pressure me to do so with all your little antics, guilt trip attempts, ultimatums and BS restrictions. If you wanna continue making my ManMMA existence as miserable as possible because I won't do what you want and you get some sort of kick out of it... fill your boots... I should be used to it by now. It's nothing new. The only one making things difficult on me right now is YOU. Period. Whether it's your way of booking now or it's these little tirades trying to tell me I HAVE TO trade all my good fighters away... or else. Whether they're at where you think they SHOULD be or not... It doesn't matter. I don't always have 10 points stockpiled away like you do anymore. I have to be more mindful of where my points are going now because they aren't as plentiful as the used be under the old PPP system. That's how I've had to adapt... So I really don't give a shit if you like it or not. That's currently where I'm at with my team.

[xx - Former Bulldozers]

How is it designed to keep you down? It's designed to give everybody the same amount of points so there's no fighting over "well fuckface got 20 points while cockmouth only got 10 this month, we should double fuckface's PPP so that it's more equal, blah blah blah." Now it's everybody gets 8 point a month which is fair for everybody. Not our fault that you want to have half the league on your team lol. That was your decision.

[The Sandmen]

Jul 8, 2016 17:44:43 GMT -5 xx - Former Bulldozers said:

How is it designed to keep you down? It's designed to give everybody the same amount of points so there's no fighting over "well fuckface got 20 points while cockmouth only got 10 this month, we should double fuckface's PPP so that it's more equal, blah blah blah." Now it's everybody gets 8 point a month which is fair for everybody.

This. Same with the "3 fighters per card" thing as well. It has nothing to do with you personally, Kruze. It's about giving everyone an equal opportunity. Equal points now combined with equal fights, I think we're doing really damned good now.

[xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club]

Jul 8, 2016 17:44:43 GMT -5 xx - Former Bulldozers said:

How is it designed to keep you down? It's designed to give everybody the same amount of points so there's no fighting over "well fuckface got 20 points while cockmouth only got 10 this month, we should double fuckface's PPP so that it's more equal, blah blah blah." Now it's everybody gets 8 point a month which is fair for everybody. Not our fault that you want to have half the league on your team lol. That was your decision.

I don't have half the league on my team, that's just it... but just as you're saying it's not your fault that I carry 22 fighters (down from 27 or something before), it's also not my fault people didn't take many women before either.

As for the points, yes it's even for everyone, which is great... All I was saying about that is that we have the new system in place and many of us, including you, that were high volume posters under the old system have had to adjust to not having a surplus of points all the time, which hasn't seemed to have struck the Sandman at all since he's always constantly in a surplus. Not to mention he's somehow trying to make a case for me moving fighters off my team like Zingano, Davis & Kedzie, citing some sort of "neglect" bullshit, when Zingano's the current #1 Contender for the BW title, Davis is in the finals against your girl Murphy in the next round of the current BW tournament, which could literally go either way making that fun, and Kedzie won her first fight of the season, albeit against Julianna Pena, but she won. I'm perfectly happy with where my roster and fighters are right now given the new point system. None of my fighters are suffering or getting upgrades any differently than how I was giving them out before... the totals are just different.

[xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club]

Jul 8, 2016 18:01:59 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

Jul 8, 2016 17:44:43 GMT -5 xx - Former Bulldozers said:

How is it designed to keep you down? It's designed to give everybody the same amount of points so there's no fighting over "well fuckface got 20 points while cockmouth only got 10 this month, we should double fuckface's PPP so that it's more equal, blah blah blah." Now it's everybody gets 8 point a month which is fair for everybody.

This. Same with the "3 fighters per card" thing as well. It has nothing to do with you personally, Kruze. It's about giving everyone an equal opportunity. Equal points now combined with equal fights, I think we're doing really damned good now.

Great. If we're doing really damned good right now, then why is my roster coming under question again after I already downsized it? All because I don't want to trade fighters that you want to see elsewhere, that are currently on an upswing right now? Really? That's interesting... lol

[The Sandmen]

Do you really not see that half your roster is not getting fights while other teams are on their second fight dude? You have 3 fights per card, guy, so a lot of your fighters are pretty far down the "due for a fight" list. They keep getting bumped by the rest of your team. Not sure how you don't see that.

From the outside, it just looks selfish. You would rather hoard people who won't fight than give them to other teams who would upgrade them and get them into tournaments. So yes, I do find that interesting in deed. It not only hurts you, but it hurts ManMMA too.

As I said, if you are having legends like Kedzie as your 5th-string fighters, it just means flash in the pan scrubs are going to be better than she is. If you like her, I don't see why you would be okay with that. Half the reason I gave you Letourneau is because I thought you would do more with her than I would. I care more about the fighters than the team they are on. This just comes down to the simple fact that with 3 fights per card, your women are not getting the number of fights they would on someone elses team. Case in point. Raquel Pennington. Fought twice just this season because of Ferocity's female team numbers. Julia Budd, hasn't fought since 313. That is 100% because of your team make-up - lots of women compared to everyone else, and, to a lesser extent, the larger roster size as a whole.

[xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club]

Jul 8, 2016 19:19:32 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

Do you really not see that half your roster is not getting fights while other teams are on their second fight dude? You have 3 fights per card, guy, so a lot of your fighters are pretty far down the "due for a fight" list. They keep getting bumped by the rest of your team. Not sure how you don't see that.

From the outside, it just looks selfish. You would rather hoard people who won't fight than give them to other teams who would upgrade them and get them into tournaments. So yes, I do find that interesting in deed. It not only hurts you, but it hurts ManMMA too.

As I said, if you are having legends like Kedzie as your 5th-string fighters, it just means flash in the pan scrubs are going to be better than she is. If you like her, I don't see why you would be okay with that. Half the reason I gave you Letourneau is because I thought you would do more with her than I would. I care more about the fighters than the team they are on. This just comes down to the simple fact that with 3 fights per card, your women are not getting the number of fights they would on someone elses team. Case in point. Raquel Pennington. Fought twice just this season because of Ferocity's female team numbers. Julia Budd, hasn't fought since 313. That is 100% because of your team make-up - lots of women compared to everyone else, and, to a lesser extent, the larger roster size as a whole.

Your fictitious reasoning doesn't hurt anything but your own pride and teams that have what you're now deeming as unacceptable numbers of certain fighters. lol So, if it's 3 fighters per team that get fights, period, that comes down to how YOU'RE deciding to book the cards, not how anyone has their rosters made up. And if you look at last season's fighter totals, the only 2 teams that you're penalizing are myself & Cannon... and the shit part is that it's not only the female fighters, you're penalizing... you're penalizing our entire teams, not just our female fighters. Which is another thing that you're doing wrong, in and of itself. You're still lumping all the women together in one group. There is 2 distinctly separate divisions now, not one. You can't really be lumping them together anymore. Just like HW, MW & LW are separate, so too are BW & FW. So the reality here is that my numbers aren't that outlandish compared to the rest of the league when you actually separate the divisions instead of lumping them together. You're penalizing us because you can, and because you feel like it at this point, not because you should... atleast in my case, because atleast I did cut down my roster size. Do I still have the largest roster in the league? Sure... But I don't have gawdy numbers of fighters in each separate division now that we have the division separation for the women and I downsized my my divisional rosters by one apiece too.

So again, it comes down to how you're booking that's creating the problem for yourself, not anyone else, because we don't book the cards.

[xx - Former Bulldozers]

So the weather, eh?

[xx - The Underdog Regime]

As of right now, I've got 3 women for each division, and I kinda do a system where a certain fighter gets a set amount of points before I start on the other. Right now, since I have no 'legit' fighters, it's about building one legit fighter for each division, then the points start evening out.

Bantamweights go Bethe, then Baszler and Couture at the end. Featherweights go Rawlings, Waterson then Gracie.
(Obviously, it's due to favoritism, so it might be better that both Couture and Gracie are moved, because they are two women pioneers).

So, I think, in terms of what the limit of fighters for women, three in each division should be enough. But, I frankly don't care enough about who has how many women, we all play favoritism in terms of what women we get and who we upgrade, so it's either going to take a lot of work or little work depending on how well known she is and her track record.

So, my opinion on all this? Stuck in the middle. I can see why it's fine to keep as many fighters as you want, but I can see why there should be a roster cap.

[xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club]

Jul 8, 2016 21:09:26 GMT -5 xx - The Underdog Regime said:

As of right now, I've got 3 women for each division, and I kinda do a system where a certain fighter gets a set amount of points before I start on the other. Right now, since I have no 'legit' fighters, it's about building one legit fighter for each division, then the points start evening out.

Bantamweights go Bethe, then Baszler and Couture at the end. Featherweights go Rawlings, Waterson then Gracie.
(Obviously, it's due to favoritism, so it might be better that both Couture and Gracie are moved, because they are two women pioneers).

So, I think, in terms of what the limit of fighters for women, three in each division should be enough. But, I frankly don't care enough about who has how many women, we all play favoritism in terms of what women we get and who we upgrade, so it's either going to take a lot of work or little work depending on how well known she is and her track record.

So, my opinion on all this? Stuck in the middle. I can see why it's fine to keep as many fighters as you want, but I can see why there should be a roster cap.

Fair, concise & non-abusive... A++, BK.

See, for me, after I power upgraded D'Alelio as I did when we had the PPP system, I've personally started doing my upgrades first on who's got the next fight coming up, second whether it's a title fight or a tournament fight, then 3rd based on need for upgrade or if they're capped. It's been based a lot less on favoritism since D'Alelio was capped, though if there is a capped fighter that needs tweaking, and I think the other two fighters are okay in their fight, I'll tweak the capped fighter if there's a need for it.

[The Rocketmen]

Jul 8, 2016 19:19:32 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

From the outside, it just looks selfish. You would rather hoard people who won't fight than give them to other teams who would upgrade them and get them into tournaments.

I care more about the fighters than the team they are on.

THIS perfectly explains why I've traded away guys like Franklin and Chandler and Coleman to other teams - they are fighters those teams are interested in who are GOOOOD that I still moved because I knew those teams would tweak or appreciate them while I next moved on to my other project fighters who I also like...

...and guess what? In a season or two, I'll probably trade those guys too.

[The Rocketmen]

I agree with this.

Jul 8, 2016 21:09:26 GMT -5 xx - The Underdog Regime said:

So, my opinion on all this? Stuck in the middle. I can see why it's fine to keep as many fighters as you want, but I can see why there should be a roster cap.

I don't agree with this.

Jul 8, 2016 20:12:27 GMT -5 xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club said:

if it's 3 fighters per team that get fights, period, that comes down to how YOU'RE deciding to book the cards, not how anyone has their rosters made up. You're penalizing us because you can, and because you feel like it at this point, not because you should... So again, it comes down to how you're booking that's creating the problem for yourself, not anyone else, because we don't book the cards.

Here's why:

If we're going by best overall team records for Grand Prix - our Stanley Cup - then there should have always been an equal number of fights per team. The ending standings will reflect the same amount of fights, and thus be similar to the whole 82GP season in the NHL for establishing a final standings. A team with a larger roster otherwise got like 35% more fights, and thus each loss (and win to be fair) was less substantial than it was to a smaller roster.

So being upset that you have an abundantly large roster and you're getting the same amount of fights as folks with rosters more reasonable to manage to me is a bullshit complaint.

Everyone gets the same amount of points. Everyone has the same opportunity to predict and earn a bonus point. Everyone has the same amount of fights. Everyone has the same opportunity of making the Grand Prix based on fight ratios.

So, as Underdogs said, hoarding fighters you like? Yeah, whatever. But the roster cap is there so that at least your fighters get what they can when you have so many people on your team. So, either play the game and drop the roster so you're also part of the 3 fights per card where your guys see more action OR be fine with having more fighters and thus less appearances for each individual fighter.

This wasn't a "problem" created by The Sandmen, this is your own battle, and you need to decide for yourself what side of the fence you want to be on and then shut the fuck up about it.

[xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club]

Jul 8, 2016 22:43:31 GMT -5 The Rocketmen said:

If we're going by best overall team records for Grand Prix - our Stanley Cup - then there should have always been an equal number of fights per team. The ending standings will reflect the same amount of fights, and thus be similar to the whole 82GP season in the NHL for establishing a final standings. A team with a larger roster otherwise got like 35% more fights, and thus each loss (and win to be fair) was less substantial than it was to a smaller roster.

Not really... It all still depended on what kind of season your fighters had. I only ever had really good or really bad, and mostly really bad. lol There wasn't really much of an in between. The fights were still substantial... the only fights I really find insubstantial are the ones where you fight a fighter on your own team. lol I know they have to happen sometimes, but they basically cancel eachother out, in terms of how we determine seeding.

Jul 8, 2016 22:43:31 GMT -5 The Rocketmen said:

So being upset that you have an abundantly large roster and you're getting the same amount of fights as folks with rosters more reasonable to manage to me is a bullshit complaint.

I'm not upset about having a larger roster. lol I never was.

Jul 8, 2016 22:43:31 GMT -5 The Rocketmen said:

Everyone gets the same amount of points. Everyone has the same opportunity to predict and earn a bonus point. Everyone has the same amount of fights. Everyone has the same opportunity of making the Grand Prix based on fight ratios.

I'd question whether everyone has the same amount of fights. lol We do have the same number of fighters on each card, but champions get more fights than anyone. So if you have a champion, and a good one that mostly wins, you're still getting more fights than everyone else, by volume. You're not going to get too many seasons that everyone has the same number of fights... That's just not going to happen. I mean, you had the most fights last season at 65, and you had a lot of champions that defended a lot. Byron had the least amount of fights at 55, with Ruttan champion twice (SW & HW) and got 1st. But how is that the same number of fights? lol

Jul 8, 2016 22:43:31 GMT -5 The Rocketmen said:

So, as Underdogs said, hoarding fighters you like? Yeah, whatever. But the roster cap is there so that at least your fighters get what they can when you have so many people on your team. So, either play the game and drop the roster so you're also part of the 3 fights per card where your guys see more action OR be fine with having more fighters and thus less appearances for each individual fighter.

This wasn't a "problem" created by The Sandmen, this is your own battle, and you need to decide for yourself what side of the fence you want to be on and then shut the fuck up about it.

It was Sandman that claimed I was hoarding fighters, not Dogs. And that was never an issue with me... I was already fine with the 3 fighters per card. There is no actual roster cap... the only thing is that it should be based on the division you have a slightly overt number of fighters like 5. Which is fine... I chose to have 5 fighters in the BW & FW, and if a couple of my fighters get 2 fights per season in those divisions instead of 3-4, then so be it, but not half my roster getting only 2. lol That's just absurd when most of the folks in the entire league have 3-4 fighters per weight class, generally, with a couple exceptions.

So yeah, that is a bit of a problem Sandman's created for himself if he's cutting fighter's fights from entire teams instead just the division(s) being deemed to have 1-2 fighters over a non-existent roster limit. And the thing is, sure... he's evening out the fight totals a little, but he's undercutting all the rest of the divisions in the process... Not to mention how many seasons in a row he's screaming for people to take women, and now he's penalizing the few people that did take women during the leaner seasons that no one was. And why? Because you two decided to trade away most of yours? That's not fair to us, no matter how you try to twist it around to make it sound like it's our fault for having a bit larger rosters than some teams. Big deal... guys have carried like 6 HWs, 2 MWs and 1 LW before. There's no difference if you look at it on a division by division basis.

So how about you shut the fuck up about everything already since you start this rag-tag bullshit yourself by making this a public dealing instead of just PM-ing only to inquire about trades instead of going "Gee, let's see how big of a shit storm I can start in the chatterbox by asking if Cannon or Kruze will give up their women." I've always said that if you want to talk trade with me, come to me privately and ask me... otherwise just shut the fuck up! Cuz I was, and I'm pretty we all were, actually enjoying a nice start to the season with no bullshit, no arguments... and then you had to open your fucking mouth, and likely because Sandman told you to talk to me about getting one of those fighters because he's had no luck getting any of them out of me. lol