I forgot who got mad about it.

Bren and steve argued about it the most I think? Sitsteve steve. I was opposed to it at first too.

This post was edited by dark-soul on Mar 9 2011 12:26am

SitSteve? but ya we should revote it maybe since we got new admin team and stuff (:

This post was edited by Neko on Mar 9 2011 12:35am

it was a sir-steve thing he liked on ladder ladder and just helps #1 and #2 stay at their spots ezer imo and im saying this from someone that was at #1 and #2 alot id rather open it up its not worth alot of rage etc etc but if people are droping from top 10 out of frustration with geting locked up and not being able to challenge, we should try to change that.

this ladder needs to do more dueling less extending and w8ing 4 days for duels imo i know people have real life things that come first, but that shouldnt take priority over others that want to do 4-5 sets a week. untill tonight i never got in more than 3 sets in a week for the past 2 months thats not good ladders are for fun dueling imo let people who want to be active be active.

if your only able to do 1-2 ladder duel sets a week mabi its not right for you to hold up everyone else

im speaking from what i hear others on the ladder want not just my personal experiences its our job to listen to what they want and make it happen so im trying to represent them

This post was edited by scorpxxxx on Mar 9 2011 03:28am

http://forums.d2jsp.org/events.php?e=118113

Coming soon Second annual UGML Tourney........

You make a good point that it would help the ladder move faster, but I personally like it the way it is. #1 should be hard to get and by going through the toughest guys on the ladder proves that you deserve to be there. By skipping over potentially 2 of the best guys on the ladder could leave more room for the fluke sets and duels that we sometimes see in melee. If this were taken to a vote I would definetly say no.

This post was edited by Biglouy on Mar 9 2011 02:42pm

i made this argument before and everyone ignored me what if #1 > #2 and #2<#3 but #3>#1 sooo.... #1>#2>#3>#1>#2>#3>#1.................. but #3 signed up recently and #1 has been there for the begging of time... BUT!!! #2 is defending #1's spot even though #1 IS NOT the strongest...

kthx change rule now...

Have you guys ever seen Afrosamurai? I think its best like that aka how it is currently for top 3 xD

just my 2 cents xD

i understand that you could potentaly skip over someone to get #2 or #1 but trust me you will be dueling those guys alot top 5 will be challenging each other on a regular basis it makes #1 and #2 ezer to get but alot harder to hold onto

also would like to discuss the reduction of challenge time by 1 day

day of challenge + 3 day ending midnight + 24 hr extension could mean 5 days.... thats 2 long 2 w8 imo

i would propose day of challenge + 2 days ending midnight + 24 hr extension (if needed and time is set to complete) =3 to 4 days tops should be plenty of time and help the ladder roal a little more.

the reason im proposing these are im hearing alot of people get frustrated at getting stuck unable to make a challenge for 5-10 days at a time i know of at least 4 top 15 ugml ladder people that have removed themselves from ladder becase of this.

This post was edited by scorpxxxx on Mar 9 2011 06:39pm

was fixin to post this also :

i removed myself from the ladder due to the fact: it was taking the full 5 days to complete my challenge vs others * my challenger usually posted for extension* ( 3days + 48 hour extension )...

im propsing the same , day of challenge + 2 days ending midnight + 24 hr extension (if needed and time is set to complete) =3 to 4 days tops or cut the extension time down to 12hours ( 3days + 12hour extenion )

i remember awhile back you would hardly every see anybody posting for extension

This post was edited by PopDizzel on Mar 9 2011 06:45pm