Originally posted by @wycombe-alAl, what you say makes sense to a point.
but then in the situation that was happening easy riders would still win as they would make sure they had enough games scoring to win but would also reap the benefits of those games that were rigged as they get still win overall and get the points
I still say that my point is that the pot is established.
If we replace the 20 points with $20.
That is the prize.
It goes to one clan or the other or is spilt $10 per clan.
There is no partial payout because some games didn't meet the standard.
The prize is the prize. The reward is on the table.
In your example, if Easy Riders still had enough points to win without the antics of a couple of bad actors,
then they deserve to win the challenge points as long as the tossed games didn't alter the outcome.
But the prize is the prize.
Easy Riders still had players who conducted themselves with integrity.
Edit - I will say that I do not exactly know what method Russ used to correct the 2016 standings
so that Easy Riders finished only 5 points behind Metallica.
I have always maintained that they shouldn't have been in the top 5 in 2016.
But that is over and done with now.
30 Mar 18
1 edit
Honestly, how hard can it be to amend the formula so that 11 / 2 = 5.5 ?
It cannot be that difficult!
I understand the checkmate rule may be harder to implement,
but I still maintain there should be scope for appeal for specific results like this.
However, there currently isn't ANY scope for appeal.
I have asked Russ in the past, these were his exact words:
"Unfortunately, we cannot make exceptions for specific games.
If this becomes a new trend though, we will of course investigate and attempt to put further measures in to disincentive this behaviour."
EDIT: mghrn55 I believe the method Russ used was discount only McTayto's games,
which was enough to drop them just below Metallica.