Trance Tournament Battle Ideas

[Vernski]

Hey everyone,
I'm aware that we are in the middle of the DJF Trance Tournament at the moment and we could let the dust settle before thinking about the next one. However I have a couple of comments and ideas regarding the current tourney and future ones as well. Firstly I must say that it has been a very enjoyable experience for me already, having been the first one I've ever entered. There are many positives to come out of something like this, such as getting to know other users with a common interest in music, learning and improving skills and bench marking against some of the real accomplished guys in the group.

I like the format as a whole, but I do have some questions and ideas regarding future tourneys....

I know that guys can randomly battle each other whenever they choose, but is 1 tournament per year enough. Do our own commitments not allow more than one per year eg. twice a year or one for each season. I'm not suggesting more, I'm only inquiring why there is only one.

I am interested in hosting one in future, but is there a lot to manage? Does it take a lot of time? Are there others out there that help out the tournament host?

Enough questions, I have some ideas and observations to put forward...

Before any comments I'm about to make, I really want to be clear that my intentions are not to rubbish current or previous tournament hosts. I really respect the fact that guys like ChrisHynds and JackStalk make the time and effort to put these things together. I have "fresh eyes" and I feel that it is important to put these things forward while they are still fresh in my mind.

NON VOTING:This has been the stand out issue for me as newcomer, personally the whole thing is so exciting for me that I can't wait to check out other people's work and make a concerted effort to rationally and logically work out who has a better mix. I'm sure that those who do vote would agree that analyzing someone else's mix actually allows yourself to learn something as well. I've spoken to a couple of people about the issue and they have told me of a penalty system whereby users who don't vote incur a penalty for each battle they don't vote in. Well if you happen to be in a landslide loss and you couldn't be bothered to vote, penalties won't change your mind. You will only venture into negative figures, which is pointless really. I'm of the opinion of barring such participants for the following tournament, unless they were to actively vote in individual battles they are not part of. If they did demonstrate a genuine interest in other user's battles then they would have earned the right to participate in another comp. Additionally I really think that even if someone is knocked out, they should still be expected to vote and perhaps a non vote suspension should be considered.

NO SHOWS It was disappointing to see that quite a lot of us didn't submit a mix by the due date, we all live busy lives and I don't intend on judging folk on no shows. The only solution in my mind is 1st and 2nd round consolation entries, where users can get a second crack if we don't get the numbers.

LOPSIDED BATTLES:What I have witnessed so far is that the first round has been an unfortunate place for many users and for different reasons. Some instances have two very strong mixes against each other and unfortunately someone has to lose, yet they had much more to offer the comp. Another situation is where someone with a decent mix is blown away by a weapon in the first round, yes the loser learns something, but wouldn't it be better for that guy to scrape though that battle against a similar opponent. They then can learn from the critique of that round and carry it through to the second round and who knows what happens then. Let's be honest, ideally you want rookies and decent dj's honing their skills and improving from round to round. We also want to see the big guns meeting towards the end of the tournament (round 3 and 4). i'm sure they will be mixing into some good form and it makes excellent listening for the rest of us who didn't get that far.

So what I'm suggesting is that the top four entrants are decided from previous comps primarily and reputation if required. These big guns are kept separate from each other until the business end of the comp and are given a 1st round bye, while the rest of us mix and fight our way into the second round and take our chances. Users (That have actively voted) that have been knocked out in the first or second round should be eligible to get a second chance draw with withdrawals or abandoned battles. I believe by providing the bye, it allows the remainder of entrants to have a potentially more balanced first round, but still providing opportunity for dark horses and upsets to occur later in the tournament.

Well that is pretty much it, I hope this allows others to have a think about the tournament format and I look forward to the responses.

Cheers Guys and thanks for taking the time to read this lengthy post :ussmug:(pretend it's an Aussie flag):D

[tekno_violet]

Man Vernski, you sure do like to nit pick and call everything out.

If I face you in round 2 you better be ready sir.....and don't cry when I beat you.
















































I kiiiiiid, I kiiiiiid.

[Vernski]

My first table was retarded :badpc:

See below,

Here's a pretend draw, please don't be offended by my crystal ball :P

The top four guys skip the first round and the rest battle it out.....

[Vernski]

ROUND 1 User 1
ROUND 2 #1 Ignotus (Bye)
SEMI FINAL
FINAL
DJ FORUM TRANCE CHAMPION


User 2
User 1
Ignotus

























User 3
#3 ChrisHynds (Bye)
User 3 (Sorry Mate :))
Ignotus



User 4
User 3



















User 5
User 5


JackStalk (Revenge):lol:


User 6
#4 JackStalk (Bye)
JackStalk
JackStalk
























User 7
User 8
Sedna




User 8
#2 Sedna (Bye)

[Vernski]

Man Vernski, you sure do like to nit pick and call everything out.

If I face you in round 2 you better be ready sir.....and don't cry when I beat you.

I kiiiiiid, I kiiiiiid.

Ha ha, I reckon I'll cry if I win too.....:lol:

[Vernski]

In light of the recent issues concerning the voting process voiced by a few of us, I have a few thoughts on this....

#1. Whoever is hosting the tournament should send a blanket Private Message to all contestants reminding them that voting closes in x amount of days. This way everyone will be equally informed and avoiding any confusion or missed voting.

#2. All contestants that vote less than 75% of all battles are disqualified and banned from the following tournament (Too Harsh??:shrug:)

#3. If someone can't vote for some reason e.g. Gone to live in an Amish community or going camping for 2 weeks, they need to inform the Tournament host in order to avoid any penalties.


With regards to a standardised voting structure, we would all have to agree on the criteria. As far as I know it is set programming and technical execution that should govern how we all should vote.


You guys might do something similar, but here is the way I worked out the voting in the previous round for a 30 minute mix. I assumed that there would be 6 transitions on average for such a mix....

Transition 1: 1 point
Transition 2: 1 point
Transition 3: 1 point
Transition 4: 1 point
Transition 5: 1 point
Transition 6: 1 point

Programming: 2 points
Overall Execution: 2 points
Possible Score of 10 points


I just dug up my notes from the last round for this battle------------>http://www.djforums.com/forums/showthread.php?32233-DJF-Trance-Tourney-2013-Delta-V-vs-DJ-Difficult

Here's how I scored it at home....

Mix 2

Transition 1: 0 - 6:37 (slight hiccup and at 7:00 transition was a bit messy)
Transition 2: 1 - 11:00 (all good)
Transition 3: 1 - 15:00 (all good)
Transition 4: 0.5 - 16:20 (Transition too short, could have extended it some more)
Transition 5: 0.5 - 23:00 ( Ok but could be better)
Transition 6: 0.5 - 29:00 (Some leftovers from the previous track, could have masked it a little more)

Programming: 2
Overall Execution: 1.5
TOTAL SCORE: 7/10

Mix 1

Transition 1: 0.5 - 7:00 (Beat matching out a bit)
Transition 2: 0.5 - 13:10 (Sound levels out)
Transition 3: 1 - (All good)
Transition 4: 0.5 - (Sorry no notes here)
Transition 5: 1 - (All good)
Transition 6: 1 - (All good)

Programming: 1
Overall Execution: 1
TOTAL SCORE: 6.5


I'll leave it there for now.......

[ChrisHynds]

^^^ I'm with stupid ^^^

[JackStalk]

The real problem is getting a bunch of people who are passionate about trance and dedicated enough to participate in a tournament. There's like 10 of us on the whole forum that really enjoy the tournament and we always push for an extra 6 people to make 16. It's a for-fun thing too, so without having something to win, people aren't really inclined to abide by strict rules or hasty deadlines. I rarely record actual mixes anymore (other than the weekly podcast), after I've been in the game for years I value a live set more than a single structured hour.

[SlvrDragon50]

I'd love to participate but I'm nowhere near as good as you guys :P

[Vernski]

The real problem is getting a bunch of people who are passionate about trance and dedicated enough to participate in a tournament. There's like 10 of us on the whole forum that really enjoy the tournament and we always push for an extra 6 people to make 16. It's a for-fun thing too, so without having something to win, people aren't really inclined to abide by strict rules or hasty deadlines. I rarely record actual mixes anymore (other than the weekly podcast), after I've been in the game for years I value a live set more than a single structured hour.

Fair enough,

If that's the case, maybe we should make It a Little more exclusive and make a round robin format. 2 groups, a few battles each, group champs battle out a final. Less entrants but everyone is devoted to the comp.

There's a few pluses to this format, a couple of upsets won't matter so much as it's not a knockout comp. It also gives greener dj's a chance to square off against some level competition as well as stronger match ups without being knocked out immediately.

It could also be possible not to set a cracking pace with submissions and voting. A little more relaxed pace to it, giving us all a bit of breathing space throughout the year...

[Vernski]

@ Slvrdragon - I felt as you did when Jackstalk was gathering guys up for this comp. I entered and surprised myself.....

Give it a go next time around.

[SlvrDragon50]

@ Slvrdragon - I felt as you did when Jackstalk was gathering guys up for this comp. I entered and surprised myself.....

Give it a go next time around.
Will do. It's hard to get critiques from people otherwise. I like how you're critiquing every transition and whatnot.

[deathsupport]

Transition 1: 1 point
Transition 2: 1 point
Transition 3: 1 point
Transition 4: 1 point
Transition 5: 1 point
Transition 6: 1 point

Programming: 2 points
Overall Execution: 2 points
Possible Score of 10 points


I just dug up my notes from the last round for this battle------------>http://www.djforums.com/forums/showthread.php?32233-DJF-Trance-Tourney-2013-Delta-V-vs-DJ-Difficult

Here's how I scored it at home....

Mix 2

Transition 1: 0 - 6:37 (slight hiccup and at 7:00 transition was a bit messy)
Transition 2: 1 - 11:00 (all good)
Transition 3: 1 - 15:00 (all good)
Transition 4: 0.5 - 16:20 (Transition too short, could have extended it some more)
Transition 5: 0.5 - 23:00 ( Ok but could be better)
Transition 6: 0.5 - 29:00 (Some leftovers from the previous track, could have masked it a little more)

Programming: 2
Overall Execution: 1.5
TOTAL SCORE: 7/10

Mix 1

Transition 1: 0.5 - 7:00 (Beat matching out a bit)
Transition 2: 0.5 - 13:10 (Sound levels out)
Transition 3: 1 - (All good)
Transition 4: 0.5 - (Sorry no notes here)
Transition 5: 1 - (All good)
Transition 6: 1 - (All good)

Programming: 1
Overall Execution: 1
TOTAL SCORE: 6.5


I'm all for a structured way to score the mixes.

I don't completely agree with handing out a point for every transition or something like that, mostly because we don't know how many transitions there will be and (my belief is) a mix is the sum of its parts and we're trying to judge to set in its entirety. I agree with the Programming and Execution categories... well, maybe those should be broken down into Flow/Style, Technique, and Execution (can be argued that execution is very similar to technique... this can be changed), and they should be out of a total of 10. With the possibility to deduct points for any transitions with glaring faults.

Re-reading this, I realize my voting system is more opinionated whereas yours is more mechanical, Vernski. :lol: goes to show that everyone has different criteria when judging!

[Vernski]

I'm all for a structured way to score the mixes.

I don't completely agree with handing out a point for every transition or something like that, mostly because we don't know how many transitions there will be and (my belief is) a mix is the sum of its parts and we're trying to judge to set in its entirety. I agree with the Programming and Execution categories... well, maybe those should be broken down into Flow/Style, Technique, and Execution (can be argued that execution is very similar to technique... this can be changed), and they should be out of a total of 10. With the possibility to deduct points for any transitions with glaring faults.

Re-reading this, I realize my voting system is more opinionated whereas yours is more mechanical, Vernski. :lol: goes to show that everyone has different criteria when judging!

Ha ha, I agree with your disagreement and in the case of a mix containing more transitions than the estimated quantity, I rate each transition as I find them and they may end up with the max total overall due to completing more transitions. Of course if they screw one up then it's deducted, it's kind of like degree of difficulty in Olympic diving, harder routines are rewarded greater than a simpler one. Every transition in a mix is a potential weak spot that has to done very well and guys should be rewarded for taking that extra risk. That being said though, if you were judging a mix that was crammed with tracks and all done technically well, but you felt that it was way too busy and didn't leave you in a trance-like state then they would be penalized. This of course goes under programming and execution and to quote you again "and (my belief is) a mix is the sum of its parts" Just because each transition was executed perfectly doesn't mean that the mix in it's entirety was executed properly.

Doing vinyl mixes would also earn some bonuses as it's trickier to execute than a MP3 mix (IMHO)

Also with longer mixes containing greater numbers of transitions, it may be the case where we take the total points based on individual transition scores plus programming & execution. For example 17 Transitions (17 potential Points) + 2 programming + 2 Execution (Greater points for longer mixes). That's a total max score of 21 points. Say someone got 13 points for transitions and a point each for PRG and EXEC that gives us 15 out of 21, that would be about 8.1 out of 10.

Yes, I'm very mechanical ;) but I think it's important to incorporate different methods of judging and provide some weighting to it. It is worth considering adding opinion based scoring in conjunction with structured voting, this way we get the best of both worlds. It would be a good idea for everyone to bring forward what is important to them in the voting department, this way we can construct a hybrid scoring system that has different elements and covers all bases.

[Vernski]

Ok people, I think the dust has settled somewhat since the conclusion of the tourney of 2013. I have a few ideas I'd like to bounce off you all and hopefully we can arrive at a new revitalised format for this year.

I'm going to rattle of some of the obvious negatives related to any tourney and then I'm going to offer my suggestion on how to counter it....

Big Guns Eliminated too early:The elimination aspect has it's merits, but one of the drawbacks is when you get an upset or two strong DJ's facing way too early, one of them has to go. I'm a fan of the world cup format where the DJ's would be in groups and the top DJ's of each group would square off in a couple of elimination rounds. Based on the results on last year's tourney, the following groups could be comprised like this and the contestants in bold are previous winners or finalists. The remaining contestants are randomly allocated to a group.12 entrants and 3 battles per group, so we would end up with 12 preliminary battles followed by 3 elimination battles.....


GROUP A:
M!TCH
DJ Difficult
deathsupport

GROUP B:
Vernski
kyle133
tekno_violet

GROUP C:
Sedna
Delta V
Era 7

GROUP D:
Chris Hynds
JackStalk
Budzak

Running out of time: I would recommend that the next tourney should be started earlier in the year and it's run at a more leisurely pace. This allows a bit more flexibility when we are all a bit busy, we would obviously have to schedule some kind of deadlines, but I bit of extra time would come in handy.

Jumping Ship: Of the twelve contestants listed above, 10 pretty much voted all the way to the end. With that in mind, to me it seems that 12 could be the magic number as it keeps it a bit exclusive and only the most committed guys will join up.

I'll leave it there, please leave your thoughts on any adjustments that could be made to improve the tourney formula. :)

[JackStalk]

I think the tournament thrives on having a chance of anyone being eliminated early in the competition. You can't just group people together based on who you think is the "better" or "more accomplished" DJ. We're all peers, and the tournament should be treated with everyone on an even level. As far as starting early and moving slower, I don't care what we do. Having 12 people is fine, but that doesn't mean only the most committed guys will join, just whoever checks DJF the most often.

[Vernski]

I think the tournament thrives on having a chance of anyone being eliminated early in the competition. You can't just group people together based on who you think is the "better" or "more accomplished" DJ. We're all peers, and the tournament should be treated with everyone on an even level. As far as starting early and moving slower, I don't care what we do. Having 12 people is fine, but that doesn't mean only the most committed guys will join, just whoever checks DJF the most often.

To be clear, I'm not basing any grouping on who I think is better. It's all based on previous results, not opinion. If eliminations is the preferred formula, that's cool. Tennis draws are a good example of structuring the tournament with seeds from 1 to 4 in our case. We all know there are guys on here that are starting out and there are others that are very good at what they do. I appreciate that it's even if all contestants are randomly allocated opponents, for me that's where the evenness stops. Granted it's anonymous, but more often than not, most of us can work out who did what based on track selection and the mix quality.

If not a group thing, the seedings is a consideration because

1) It separates the Dj's that have had success in previous tourneys, allowing them to possibly meet in the business end of the tourney

2) It allows less experienced/unknown dj's to battle early rounds on an even playing field.

3) Less experienced DJ's have the opportunity to learn more from possibly making an extra mix, which they can carry into the next round.

Here's what I'm getting at.....

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/182882876/DJF%20Tourney.pdf

[deathsupport]

Here's an alternative suggestion: have three contestants in a single group for the first round and keep the top two entrants per group. This would eliminate some of the things Vern mentioned, yet avoid any predetermined matchups like Jack said (I guess this is similar to the Group idea Vernski came up with).
After the first round 8 people will be left and then we can arbitrarily match people up.

The same idea can be applied to a group of 4 (keep only the top 3 or 2 entries).

Vernski, I just reread what you wrote and is this what you meant?

[Vernski]

lol, I think so......what you described is pretty much what I drew up here ...I think -------->https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/182882876/DJF%20Tourney.pdf

[deathsupport]

Nope, what I had in mind would look like:

Round 1
Group 1
DJ Difficult
deathsupport ------> DJ Difficult/deathsupport
Kyle133

Group 2
tekno_violet
Delta V -------> tekno_violet/Delta V
Era7

Group 3
JackStalk
Budzak -------> JackStalk/Budzak
ChrisHynds

Group 4
Mitch
Sedna --------> Mitch/Sedna
Vernski


whereas you introduced past winners in Round 2, I included them in Round 1. After Round 1, we have the remaining entrants which can then go up against each other as shown, or be randomly paired into groups of 2.

[Vernski]

I'm listening, but I don't quite get it yet :shrug:

How does the first round work?

[deathsupport]

It's just like your idea about groups but rather than randomly allocating previous winners to a group, like you suggested, groups of 3 are randomly created from a pool of ALL contestants.
These groups of 3 go up against each other, and two contestants from every group move on to the next round. 3 enter, 2 leave (per group).

Uhmm... it works in my mind but maybe it's a bit complicated. Maybe we're overthinking this in general - maybe 1v1 just works for this.

[Vernski]

Ok, so what you are saying is groups of three and in each group they all battle each other once. The top two of each group move through to elimination stage (8 contestant quarter final) and so on.

I like that 2 contestants get through, so in theory even if you had a loss in the group stage, you've still got a chance in elimination.

I just wrote a short paragraph but I deleted it, regarding separating previous winners. But no need, 2 contestants moving through after the group stage to elimination means that some early mega-battles don't result in immediate elimination like in past tourneys.

I just did another draw with entirely random groups and random 2nd round, followed by the normal semi/final after that. I think it could work, it allows us all equal pegging for two stages, plus the flexibility of a group stage without being eliminated immediately.

Here it is...


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/182882876/random%20draw.pdf

[JackStalk]

I like it the way it has always been. Anyone can win the tournament and anyone can go out in the first round. It doesn't get any more fair than that. If me or Chris (for example) were seeded in either of the last two tournaments, the results would be completely different. The tournament structure is fine the way it is, you can't seed a DJ based on their past performance. It takes the fun out of the competition.

[Vernski]

I like it the way it has always been. Anyone can win the tournament and anyone can go out in the first round. It doesn't get any more fair than that. If me or Chris (for example) were seeded in either of the last two tournaments, the results would be completely different. The tournament structure is fine the way it is, you can't seed a DJ based on their past performance. It takes the fun out of the competition.

I hear you.....I've actually moved away from the seeding idea myself.

I do however think that the group arrangement with random allocation of contestants is a good thing. I've done a dummy tournament and I did the following....

I put everyone's name into a hat and randomly pulled them out and placed them in Group 1, 2, 3, 4.

Each group would then have two battles each (contestant 1 v contestant 2), (contestant 2 v contestant 3) and (contestant 1 v contestant 3)

The top two contestants of each group move through to the next round, but they are allocated random placings. This round is then elimination.

I placed some numbers in a hat from 1 to 4 and then I went through the (pretend) winners from the group stage. For example I pulled a number 3 for DJ Difficult and Chris Hynds and they were allocated position 3 in the quarter finals and so on.

At this stage it would flow through like any knockout tourney.

Please check this dummy tourney----------------> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/182882876/random%20draw.pdf

I do think this is a good idea for a varied format. It keeps the aspect of a level playing field and it allows for some awesome early battles if they happen to pan out that way, but contestants may not be knocked out immediately. It also means newer guys get an extra battle in and get some vital extra experience.

Given what I've described, I'm hoping you might warm to this instead. :)

[deathsupport]

I agree with you JackStalk (that we're messing around with something very simple), but I equally like the way I suggested (3 people in the first round) for one particular reason: I think voting on a 3-way battle is more fun than just 1v1.
What I envisioned was one battle group with three contestants, for example JackStalk vs Vernski vs deathsupport. Each voting user gets 2 votes and picks their two favourite mixes. So, for example, JackStalk and Vernski move on at the end of voting and deathsupport is eliminated.

As I said, I'm of the opinion that it'd be more fun to vote with 3 mixes involved rather than 2.

[Vernski]

OK,
I misunderstood deathsupport's original idea and I like where he's coming from on this.

How do we all feel (this includes more than just me,DS and Jack :lol:) about 3 way format where the best 2 go through to elimination stage. I like it :tup:

[JackStalk]

When I did the drawing, I ripped up pieces of paper and had everyones name written on them and picked two at a time until I was done. Whatever two pieces I picked would go head to head in round one. The other rounds were done with a 6-sided die I think

[deathsupport]

So... does this mean you're saying "no", or that you'd be willing to pick out three pieces of paper at a time?
Better yet, we should finalize ideas and put it up to a vote.

[Delta V]

Getting that time of year again tranceheads, I'm liking the different formats and the seeding chart that Vernski put together. Just please don't go back to the required track, I don't want to go through the hassle of cutting dubplates ;). Not sure what kind of tricks I'll have up my sleeve this year but I really enjoy getting all the feedback. I think last year we kicked off at the beginning of fall but what about having the comp over the summer. I know I'll have a little (okay a lot, I'm a teacher) more free time and longer days. I remember years before it was also over the summer.

[Vernski]

I'm glad Delta has picked up this thread again.....

As D.S suggested, I will run a poll on different elements of the tourney that could be tinkered with without harming the overall experience. This thread has gone quiet for a while and I'll have to read through again in order to refresh my memory.

There are plenty of new guys on DJF right now and I'm looking forward to seeing what they can come up with.

I'm happy to run this years tourney, but if there are others that would like to do it, that's cool too.

[Vernski]

MULTIPLE CHOICE POLL

I've added the poll with what stood out from this thread.

It's multiple choice and I've put a 30 day time out on it. So there is plenty of time to consider things.

I've also left the last 4 options empty with suggestions from you guys.

If you do think something up, just post it here and assign the option number and we can all vote accordingly.

[JackStalk]

I think it's good the way it is. It's an optional tournament, if you can't put in the time to make mixes and vote on all the battles, then you shouldn't participate. It's supposed to be for fun. I still think you should have one vote subtracted from your own battle for each other battle you don't vote on. There should be some implementation for people who don't vote after they get eliminated. It's hard to enforce though, unless we just have everybody else neg rep them.

[Vernski]

Option 7 = Video Battle for final


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Maxey]

I think it would be nice if there was a way for people to post tracklists with their mixes. Just because when I listen to mixes I like to know what a track is if I like it.

[JackStalk]

We usually post tracklists at the end of the battle. That way, you're more likely to listen to the entire mix and feel it out versus skipping over a track you don't like.

[Maxey]

Wow people actually do that? Well that sounds good anyway.

[M!TCH]

Maybe I am not remembering correctly, but I was under the impression that the DJF trance tourney was supposed to be done without sync or post production equipment? The thread over the in the general forum appears as though it's going to be sync mashing to the max. I think I'll be excluding myself from this tourney.

Not to mention, it used to comment on this not being a tourney for people who have never mixed trance before or don't love it. I guess the old trance tourneys are gone. :(

[Vernski]

M!TCH, I believe you remember correctly with regards to sync and post production. I think that last year's tourney was an oversight or exclusion in the rules.

I was upfront and honest about using sync. I have not used it since the early rounds of last year. Wish I never touched the fucking thing these days :argh:

I believe that the rules this year should stipulate no use of sync and post production.

With regards to who should enter a tourney, it's a bit of a conundrum....Believing in the traditional pure trance approach will leave us with the same situation of scratching around to find 6 to 8 committed contestants. Personally I would really miss your presence in this year's tourney if you choose to avoid it. Opening it to any and all is not ideal either, as it will dilute what makes trance so great.

Please consider that the other thread is just an open question, nothing is set in concrete.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Maxey]

Seriously, I mention sync once and then agree to not use it and people are still going on about it.

[JackStalk]

Seriously, I mention sync once and then agree to not use it and people are still going on about it.

That's because it was a big issue in the last tournament.

[Delta V]

Soooo uh, what's up?

[JackStalk]

We chillen brah, whatup with you?

[Vernski]

Hey Delts....wuzzup?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sedna]

wait, people actually use sync?

wut

[JackStalk]

yeah man, it's the latest new craze

[M!TCH]

Tranztourney4lyfe

[Delta V]

I can run this thing this year if we need someone to facilitate it. I'm pretty good at making posts and stuff. But seriously, I have the time, solid internet, and organizational skills to do it if you want to get this rolling. Don't think I'll be in the running though unless we need to fill a spot.

[JackStalk]

Go for it!

[Delta V]

K, I'll set a thread up this week with call for entries and such. Give about 2 weeks to gather people, get a random draw since that won the above vote and 1st mixes due sometime in mid/late sept.

[Delta V]

Alright kids, anyone still out there? Any interest this year? Want to wait till summer? Have a mini tourney? A mix showcase? Or maybe a special challenge?

[Vernski]

I'm still floating around, but a tourney isn't what I'm looking for anymore.

To be brutally honest, this forum has really stagnated over the last 12 months or so.

General voting interest was quite low last tourney and battles in general are not getting much attention either.


On a side note, I have worked all the bugs out on mixify and I have really enjoyed doing a live video feed/music via streaming.

I would really like to see so d of us support each other on such a platform and create a live community.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bnr]

I'm in whatever it is!