How The "Mighty" Have Fallen.

@Schematix Yeah that's what the Admin decided.

And LMAO @Dave. I remember giving feed on that verse.

[Murderous Swag]

i feel like there is alot of fuckery going on ...pick a rule and stick to it dont adjust as time passes that shit is not professional and carries a bad image

@Schematix I think @ILLoKWENT said he's going to look in to it, so things might change.

[Murderous Swag]

id hope so i mean nobody enjoys getting a title in such manner but rules are set for a reason.....ijs i mean the only reason another match should even be considered is at your discretion if you decided you wanted to see a battle out for the title

To be fair I'm 100% ducking @Obey so I can't say much.

@Schematix It really doesn't matter to me. The title is mine anyways.

[ILLoKWENT]

Originally Posted by Schematix

but yet they have issued gc titles due to no shows etc?but wont issue you something of lesser value?the battle was set you sent he hasnt replied that is grounds for a dq and the title should be awarded to you...open and shut case

Agree here @NOBLE. If that particular title is interchangeable upon the result of the title match. If lock was to noshow.. then dizz would remain a champion if im not mistaken.. so wit that logic since lock sent and dizz noshowed doesnt that constitute a forfeit of title to the challenger... or is there a rule that everyone needs know that in this type of interchangeable title. If the defending champ noshows, then the title becomes vacant?.which would mean that the challenger just wasted his bars once and would need to write another one in a top contender match?...... or is there simply no title for exclusive text king.. and lock is only entitled to the crown sig....curious on the ruling for this to clarify for lock.

Originally Posted by ILLoKWENT

Agree here @NOBLE. If that particular title is interchangeable upon the result of the title match. If lock was to noshow.. then dizz would remain a champion if im not mistaken.. so wit that logic since lock sent and dizz noshowed doesnt that constitute a forfeit of title to the challenger... or is there a rule that everyone needs know that in this type of interchangeable title. If the defending champ noshows, then the title becomes vacant?.which would mean that the challenger just wasted his bars once and would need to write another one in a top contender match?...... or is there simply no title for exclusive text king.. and lock is only entitled to the crown sig....curious on the ruling for this to clarify for lock.

The thing about it is that Dissizit didn't have the title on him for some reason (he got his "Punchline God" title taken away, too before all of the title overhaul happened). This may be why they're so hesitant to give me the title even though I won by no-show. He was still considered the Exclusive Text King at the time that I sent to him, however, so that makes it even more complicated.

---------- Post added at 10:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 PM ----------

Either way, give this some rates, guys :

[NOBLE]

Yes, GC titles have been issued off no-shows before. In this particular case, it wasn't just the fact that the title match was no-showed. It was the fact that practically Every single battle in the tourney leading up to the title match was no-showed. The decision wasn't entirely in my hands either and you should know this @ILLoKWENT cause we had a discussion about it in the staff lounge. I've explained all this already to Lock and he was allowed to keep the Exclusive King Award for winning the tourney. Not issuing the title was not some action against Lock because it's not his fault that his opponents no-showed. It was more an action against the tournament in general by saying for a tournament to be worthy of a title, it should have at least a certain percentage of battles that actually take place.

[NatsHubby]

Mind fuck sucks

---------- Post added at 05:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 AM ----------

Originally Posted by NOBLE

Yes, GC titles have been issued off no-shows before. In this particular case, it wasn't just the fact that the title match was no-showed. It was the fact that practically Every single battle in the tourney leading up to the title match was no-showed. The decision wasn't entirely in my hands either and you should know this @ILLoKWENT cause we had a discussion about it in the staff lounge. I've explained all this already to Lock and he was allowed to keep the Exclusive King Award for winning the tourney. Not issuing the title was not some action against Lock because it's not his fault that his opponents no-showed. It was more an action against the tournament in general by saying for a tournament to be worthy of a title, it should have at least a certain percentage of battles that actually take place.

Hi dad