Page 2 of 3

Re: DIVISIONS FOR BATTLE???

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:50 pm
by Kuhlerblynd
How are belts vacant? Scott James has defended his belt several times, the Topical title is being decided right now, and a Wordplay tournament should be coming soon...

Re: DIVISIONS FOR BATTLE???

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:14 pm
by leeroi green
um im talking

the lightweight belt vacant
middleweight belt vacant
heavyweight belt vacant

Scott retains his title becoming lbs 4 lbs champ
topical belt wtf anyway they retain it as well and well word play "no way man" but if so then these belts would not be class specific

Re: DIVISIONS FOR BATTLE???

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:47 pm
by Kuhlerblynd
So, what you are saying is, when someone moves up from being the lightweight class to middleweight class, they lose the lightweight belt if they have it, and it automatically becomes vacant?

Re: DIVISIONS FOR BATTLE???

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:46 pm
by leeroi green
no as with boxing you may hold all the belts however you'd also have to defend each title monthly

and even if you or i had no chance at the belt i would still strive to maintain heavyweight status or to climb up because shit fuck that no way man

and i also suggest deterioration in class due to inactivity on the boards

Re: DIVISIONS FOR BATTLE???

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:50 pm
by Kuhlerblynd
Okay, so you could have multiple belts being held by one person...

Idk man, I see that as basically the point of the title Scott James has. I don't see a point of having more 'titles' to prove we basically have more battlers.

What you're saying is, you have a lightweight division for the newer cats, or the not as skilled cats, but the person holding the title in the lightweight division would probably be a heavyweight, a very good one, and no one in the lightweight division would probably even have a CHANCE of winning the belt. Makes things to be kinda silly when you look at it like that, huh?

Re: DIVISIONS FOR BATTLE???

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:48 pm
by Slicka
^ agreed would be really silly to put someone thats a heavy weight contender n the light weight division, if its based on skill level then the katts that not so good at it yet can battle each other to elevate while the heavy weights do their thing. as far as belts for everything thats a little to much.

Re: DIVISIONS FOR BATTLE???

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:34 pm
by leeroi green
yeah well me personally i think a wordplay belt is ridiculous but do think that if there is a topical belt there may need to be one in each weight class the idea is to get user activity up

meant to say earlier i was thinking that all ranked battles should have a standard bar set short like 4 bars as not to get burnt out

and i think as with title holders you will need to remain active(min 1 IMO 2 battles/month) or you lose weight

if you dont vote battles once a week(4/mo)you lose weight

if you become anorexic due to inactivity you lose entire div. rank and must begin from the bottom

Re: DIVISIONS FOR BATTLE???

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:39 pm
by Slicka
i thnk scott has to defend his belt once a month as it is.......idk i think their needs input from otha ppl to......based just off our conversation theirs not very many people participating in this so if you set some shit like that up it could also do the opposite and kill the site 2.......

Re: DIVISIONS FOR BATTLE???

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:41 pm
by Kause mc
I dono about everyone else that 'fairly new' to this site but wen i first started on illest which wasnt that long ago i was so confused i mean i no u hav information to help new comers but i think its hard enough to set up a battle or even post my 2 links b4 each battle/written. I get it now and the site is great but adding another complication to the site in the eyes of new users mite not b such a good idea. I no its not god dam jigsaw puzzle lol but if sumthings too hard to do or understand i think it mite scare new users off. I dono. I think mc's should just peep the site out carefully and callout opponents that they think they are at the same level with. Sounds more practical to me.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Re: DIVISIONS FOR BATTLE???

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:20 am
by Kuhlerblynd
^^Agreed


Setting up weight classes can help new people and everyone as a group see what level they're on/who is considered to be on their level, but all this other stuff is only going to confuse shit to the extreme. That's definitely not needed.

Re: DIVISIONS FOR BATTLE???

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:51 am
by JDR
wats good wit this? Are we gon' do this?

Re: DIVISIONS FOR BATTLE???

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:53 am
by JDR
IMO, 3 or 4 mods (top illest kids) should decide this. Like a comittee. The Illest Congress haha. Site feedback is always whack cos ppl dont wanna hurt ppls feelins ya dig?

Re: DIVISIONS FOR BATTLE???

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:47 am
by Orfadox
Im with Jack on that there only a few on here who tell it how it is

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Re: DIVISIONS FOR BATTLE???

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:57 am
by Kuhlerblynd
Well, Im one of those people...

The only way I can do it properly is if people tell me where they think others should be at, whether the mods do it or the members of the site. If I base it off my opinion alone, people will say its biased and shit, and you know how that goes.

I think its a great idea though. It would be easy to establish the Heavyweights, then work ourselves down, IMO. Either that, or I can get a committee of five of Illest's regular site battlers, and the five of us can go thru and do a numbers system to see where we think everyone is at.

Here's my biggest thing... Five 'weight' classes? Is having five classes too many? And if we dropped it to three, it seems like it would be too few... Anyone have an opinion on that???

Re: DIVISIONS FOR BATTLE???

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:09 am
by Orfadox
IMO we have 3 classes for now...not nearly enough active battlers for 5 classes...as for the top 5 battlers deciding I think it should be those who dont battle who decide which class they belong in

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image