[TPA1] Tournament Players Association

[barterer2002]

Well the first two were both 1 at a time. HA allowed freemiums keiths did not
the third was triples-4 games at a time and freemiums allowed
4 was 1v1 triples 3 games per week with freemiums allowed
5 required 8 games at once clearly can't do freemiums

There are some that allow freemiums and some that based on the game load can not. This is reflective of the way a cross section of CC would look I think

[Davie.K]

cheers,i'll keep an eye out for it.

[Davie.K]

I know some allowed freemium officially but were impossible in the real world for the freemos to enter.The first 2 i won't count as if i remember rightly they were full before being advertised (although as you say 1 didn't allow freemiums anyway).the 3rd...4 games at a time,is very tricky when we only have 4 spots.4th...3 games a week,again very tricky and to find someone who'll risk teaming up with you and not in the end being able to play is nigh on impossible...and the 5th of course 8 spots needed.
But alls cool i've got a date now to aim for to keep a spot open thanks amazzony

[denominator]

That is the nature of being a freemium player on this site though. There are always going to be tournaments that require you to cough up the $25, and even if all the TPA tournaments were 1 game at a time, freemiums probably could not join them all because of the overlap.

[barterer2002]

The first 2 i won't count as if i remember rightly they were full before being advertised

No tournament has filled before being advertised. All were open to everyone in the community. There are and will be some that will fill before they get listed under the tournaments tab that that isn't the same as unadvertised. All community members can go to the create join forum on Monday and sign up before the tournament gets moved over and there will always be at least 30 open slots at the start.

viewforum.php?f=90

Unadvertised tournaments are not allowed in CC and the TPA does not sanction them.

[drunkmonkey]

I believe all of the tourneys so far have been advertised in here as soon as they go up. So, if you keep an eye on this thread on Mondays, you should be good.

[Jace22]

my tourny just went up, here:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=119171&view=unread#unread
Get your team together

[ViperOverLord]

Check This Out!

show: Proposed TPA Circuit

Hey TPA'ers. I'd like to qualify my comments by saying that I have limited knowledge about the TPA. I've seen some banners and yesterday was the first time I came to the link. I came up with some changes that I think would make a great idea in theory to become a great reality.

What I like:

- I like the modeling it after golf/tennis events and rankings. As such it not only rewards winning a tournament but placing in a tournament.

- I assume that players register for the TPA. I like it assuming that has happened.

- I like the diversity of tournament organizers. That keeps it fresh.

What I would improve:

- I would get CC's approval to make TPA Tournaments only available to TPA Members. I'm not saying that so that the TPA can be an exclusive membership. I'm saying that it creates order. I"m fine with any premium member that wants to be a part of the TPA being admitted. Then when its only TPA members competing that makes every single game of a TPA Tournament have extra meaning and the consequences of wins and losses are much more clear before and after matches.

- I would get rid of assassin, terminator and standard group games in TPA tournaments. Those aspects are cool for other tournaments. But for the TPA they just muddy the waters. It should come down to are the best 1 v 1 players and team players (which brings me to the next point).

- I would use standard settings for all TPA matches (Auto, Seq., No Spoils, Chained, Sunny)

- There should be two point scales (rankings). One for 1 v 1 play and one for team play. Then for instance a player could be the 5th rated individual player and yet be ranked 27th as a team player.

- All tournaments would be 1 v 1. Some tournaments would have an ancillary doubles, triples, or quads tourney (for the sake of team play rankings). But the winner of the Cup (Tournament) would always be the winner of the 1 v 1 bracket.

- The TPA is modeled after the golf/tennis associations. I think it's fitting that just like in golf/tennis that you have recurring tournaments that take place at the same time each year. And just like in tennis/golf there would be four grand slam tournaments that have more participants/maps/points (possibly) than the other tournaments.

- Weighted Scoring System: Make minimums and maximums on tournaments that TPA players would play in. But since it would be near impossible to get everyone in the same amount of tournaments, then weight the outcomes. Efficiency should count.

- Lastly, the recurring tournaments need to be more dignified/prestigious. I don't like seeing James Bond or So and So's Tournament in the TPA. It's fine for regular tournaments, but we want these tournament cups to sound prestigious and be something that people brag about. E.G. I've got three fox cups or I got four green jackets, etc.

To illustrate my point I am posting a list of proposed cups. The exact formats and dates could be determined at another time. But the names of the cups and maps are listed:

show: Proposed TPA Circuit

Addendum: Decided to put this list at the top also, since people don't often notice important items at the bottom of a message.

[amazzony]

Hey, Viper, I think you are missing the whole point of TPA and your suggestion go against everything that Bart wants to achieve with this. I admit, I didn't read through all your post but your first few suggestions already indicate it strongly. I suggest you searching up some articles about TPA in the CC Newsletter and perhaps read this topic through more carefully I'm sure Bart or somebody else will explain it in more detail but currently I don't have time for that.

On its own or in a different concept you could build something different from TPA but I think your ideas are not meant for Bart's TPA.

[sonicsteve]

a great idea in theory to become a great reality.

It is already a great reality.

[ViperOverLord]

Hey, Viper, I think you are missing the whole point of TPA and your suggestion go against everything that Bart wants to achieve with this. I admit, I didn't read through all your post but your first few suggestions already indicate it strongly. I suggest you searching up some articles about TPA in the CC Newsletter and perhaps read this topic through more carefully I'm sure Bart or somebody else will explain it in more detail but currently I don't have time for that.

On its own or in a different concept you could build something different from TPA but I think your ideas are not meant for Bart's TPA.

I don't see anything here that refutes my ideas to make it better. I could be wrong. But I'd love to hear something more than a call to go rifling through threads.

And in the two responses, I'm just getting back static that it's great. That's fine, but I clearly gave a lot of thought on how I think it'd be better and I'd love to see someone defy that. Tell me what is so important about the current way of doing things as to not warrant the change. That's what I want to know. Because I wrote from my own personal perspective how it'd be awesome. As it is, I think it's just OK how it is now.

[drunkmonkey]

Hey, Viper, I think you are missing the whole point of TPA and your suggestion go against everything that Bart wants to achieve with this. I admit, I didn't read through all your post but your first few suggestions already indicate it strongly. I suggest you searching up some articles about TPA in the CC Newsletter and perhaps read this topic through more carefully I'm sure Bart or somebody else will explain it in more detail but currently I don't have time for that.

On its own or in a different concept you could build something different from TPA but I think your ideas are not meant for Bart's TPA.

I don't see anything here that refutes my ideas to make it better. I could be wrong. But I'd love to hear something more than a call to go rifling through threads.

And in the two responses, I'm just getting back static that it's great. That's fine, but I clearly gave a lot of thought on how I think it'd be better and I'd love to see someone defy that. Tell me what is so important about the current way of doing things as to not warrant the change. That's what I want to know. Because I wrote from my own personal perspective how it'd be awesome. As it is, I think it's just OK how it is now.

For starters, you want to standardize everything, making it all 1v1 Auto, Seq, No Spoils, Chained, Sunny. This goes against what the TPA stands for, which is a large variation of play styles.

[ViperOverLord]

Hey, Viper, I think you are missing the whole point of TPA and your suggestion go against everything that Bart wants to achieve with this. I admit, I didn't read through all your post but your first few suggestions already indicate it strongly. I suggest you searching up some articles about TPA in the CC Newsletter and perhaps read this topic through more carefully I'm sure Bart or somebody else will explain it in more detail but currently I don't have time for that.

On its own or in a different concept you could build something different from TPA but I think your ideas are not meant for Bart's TPA.

I don't see anything here that refutes my ideas to make it better. I could be wrong. But I'd love to hear something more than a call to go rifling through threads.

And in the two responses, I'm just getting back static that it's great. That's fine, but I clearly gave a lot of thought on how I think it'd be better and I'd love to see someone defy that. Tell me what is so important about the current way of doing things as to not warrant the change. That's what I want to know. Because I wrote from my own personal perspective how it'd be awesome. As it is, I think it's just OK how it is now.

For starters, you want to standardize everything, making it all 1v1 Auto, Seq, No Spoils, Chained, Sunny. This goes against what the TPA stands for, which is a large variation of play styles.

Yes because that is a more accurate testament to a mono y mono season competition like the tennis/golf associations that he professed to model the season after. I also believe that it leaves the matter up to a player's individual capacities more. It's very easy to pick on the guys that you know are in the lead.

I have nothing against assassin/terminator competitions/tourneys. I do them all of the time. I just don't think they are warranted based on the stated vision or in my opinion what I think would make it ultimately the most fun for a 1 v 1 (and team) series.

[kratos644]

I don't see anything here that refutes my ideas to make it better. I could be wrong. But I'd love to hear something more than a call to go rifling through threads.

And in the two responses, I'm just getting back static that it's great. That's fine, but I clearly gave a lot of thought on how I think it'd be better and I'd love to see someone defy that. Tell me what is so important about the current way of doing things as to not warrant the change. That's what I want to know. Because I wrote from my own personal perspective how it'd be awesome. As it is, I think it's just OK how it is now.

...

What I would improve:

- I would get CC's approval to make TPA Tournaments only available to TPA Members. I'm not saying that so that the TPA can be an exclusive membership. I'm saying that it creates order. I"m fine with any premium member that wants to be a part of the TPA being admitted. Then when its only TPA members competing that makes every single game of a TPA Tournament have extra meaning and the consequences of wins and losses are much more clear before and after matches.

This has been discussed prior where people proposed having a "TPA card" but Bart felt this would still be exclusive and that is not the intention of the TPA

This post of yours bugs me the most and is in fact you saying that the TPA can be an exclusive membership because you aren't allowing the free members to take part in these with your plan which is just plain ridiculous...

- I would get rid of assassin, terminator and standard group games in TPA tournaments. Those aspects are cool for other tournaments. But for the TPA they just muddy the waters. It should come down to are the best 1 v 1 players and team players (which brings me to the next point).

The purpose of the TPA is to represent an encompassing of all the types of tournaments run on CC. If we limit and take out games other than 1v1 and team games it doesn't truly represent the tournament scene and therefore doesn't fit in with the purpose of the TPA and it would also limit us organizers as to what we can do which would, in the end, bore us.

- I would use standard settings for all TPA matches (Auto, Seq., No Spoils, Chained, Sunny)

Same as above. No variety = boring

- There should be two point scales (rankings). One for 1 v 1 play and one for team play. Then for instance a player could be the 5th rated individual player and yet be ranked 27th as a team player.

A split scoreboard wouldn't work as well. As mentioned prior this is meant to cover all the tournaments that are run. If we split the scoreboard it wouldn't feel like that is being adequately done as it's putting more emphasis on one type of game over another and it doesn't require players to be multi-talented

- All tournaments would be 1 v 1. Some tournaments would have an ancillary doubles, triples, or quads tourney (for the sake of team play rankings). But the winner of the Cup (Tournament) would always be the winner of the 1 v 1 bracket.

So why even join team tournaments? It'd just eat up your time and they're technically meaningless. This also has the same problem that a player doesn't need to be multi-talented and can just be a 1v1 specialist to win this whole thing and that isn't right.

- The TPA is modeled after the golf/tennis associations. I think it's fitting that just like in golf/tennis that you have recurring tournaments that take place at the same time each year. And just like in tennis/golf there would be four grand slam tournaments that have more participants/maps/points (possibly) than the other tournaments.

This is just the first year. There is a good chance there will be recurring tournaments come next year. As for the grand slam tournaments... if you had properly read the thread you'd have seen that there will be four grand slams that will be larger tournaments.

- Weighted Scoring System: Make minimums and maximums on tournaments that TPA players would play in. But since it would be near impossible to get everyone in the same amount of tournaments, then weight the outcomes. Efficiency should count.

Same issue. Read before posting... I'm not even going to respond to this one.

- Lastly, the recurring tournaments need to be more dignified/prestigious. I don't like seeing James Bond or So and So's Tournament in the TPA. It's fine for regular tournaments, but we want these tournament cups to sound prestigious and be something that people brag about. E.G. I've got three fox cups or I got four green jackets, etc.

This would again be limiting the creativity of the T.O.'s and the majority of us would most likely be opposed to such a thing.

...

Enjoy, you've got your response

[kratos644]

Hey, Viper, I think you are missing the whole point of TPA and your suggestion go against everything that Bart wants to achieve with this. I admit, I didn't read through all your post but your first few suggestions already indicate it strongly. I suggest you searching up some articles about TPA in the CC Newsletter and perhaps read this topic through more carefully I'm sure Bart or somebody else will explain it in more detail but currently I don't have time for that.

On its own or in a different concept you could build something different from TPA but I think your ideas are not meant for Bart's TPA.

I don't see anything here that refutes my ideas to make it better. I could be wrong. But I'd love to hear something more than a call to go rifling through threads.

And in the two responses, I'm just getting back static that it's great. That's fine, but I clearly gave a lot of thought on how I think it'd be better and I'd love to see someone defy that. Tell me what is so important about the current way of doing things as to not warrant the change. That's what I want to know. Because I wrote from my own personal perspective how it'd be awesome. As it is, I think it's just OK how it is now.

For starters, you want to standardize everything, making it all 1v1 Auto, Seq, No Spoils, Chained, Sunny. This goes against what the TPA stands for, which is a large variation of play styles.

Don't worry I've got you covered
I responded to each of his points individually.

[kratos644]

...

Yes because that is a more accurate testament to a mono y mono season competition like the tennis/golf associations that he professed to model the season after. I also believe that it leaves the matter up to a player's individual capacities more. It's very easy to pick on the guys that you know are in the lead.

I have nothing against assassin/terminator competitions/tourneys. I do them all of the time. I just don't think they are warranted based on the stated vision or in my opinion what I think would make it ultimately the most fun for a 1 v 1 (and team) series.

By the way, Bart didn't say he professed to model the season after them. He said he would have them be

...
Loosely following the lead of the PGA and WTA sport tours
...

[jrh_cardinal]

Ya, Viper, I agree with zz and steve. You're idea is very good, but very differerent. The TPA is meant to be a good indication of tournaments as a whole. It is also meant to be easy. As of now people are able to just join the tournaments in order to participate, that is a good thing.

You are talking about more of an exclusive type of specialty competition, this is meant for anyone and everyone just to have fun.

My post is now pointless, I'll jump in the discussion when I get back on my computer if it's still going on

[drunkmonkey]

Viper - I agree you have a good, albeit different idea. Maybe once your large 1v1 tourney is over, this could be a franchised tournament you run.

[ViperOverLord]

I don't see anything here that refutes my ideas to make it better. I could be wrong. But I'd love to hear something more than a call to go rifling through threads.

And in the two responses, I'm just getting back static that it's great. That's fine, but I clearly gave a lot of thought on how I think it'd be better and I'd love to see someone defy that. Tell me what is so important about the current way of doing things as to not warrant the change. That's what I want to know. Because I wrote from my own personal perspective how it'd be awesome. As it is, I think it's just OK how it is now.

...

What I would improve:

- I would get CC's approval to make TPA Tournaments only available to TPA Members. I'm not saying that so that the TPA can be an exclusive membership. I'm saying that it creates order. I"m fine with any premium member that wants to be a part of the TPA being admitted. Then when its only TPA members competing that makes every single game of a TPA Tournament have extra meaning and the consequences of wins and losses are much more clear before and after matches.

This has been discussed prior where people proposed having a "TPA card" but Bart felt this would still be exclusive and that is not the intention of the TPA

This post of yours bugs me the most and is in fact you saying that the TPA can be an exclusive membership because you aren't allowing the free members to take part in these with your plan which is just plain ridiculous...

VOL Response:

1. It's not exclusive. Nor did I propose that it should be. In fact I said the opposite.

2. It's not exclusive because it excludes freemium players. It would not allow freemium players so that tournaments would not have undue game restrictions. I think we all know that CC is reasonably priced and anybody that wants to be a part of that could certainly do so.

- I would get rid of assassin, terminator and standard group games in TPA tournaments. Those aspects are cool for other tournaments. But for the TPA they just muddy the waters. It should come down to are the best 1 v 1 players and team players (which brings me to the next point).

The purpose of the TPA is to represent an encompassing of all the types of tournaments run on CC. If we limit and take out games other than 1v1 and team games it doesn't truly represent the tournament scene and therefore doesn't fit in with the purpose of the TPA and it would also limit us organizers as to what we can do which would, in the end, bore us.

Vol: If that is 'the purpose' than the golf/tennis players analogy that the TPA is professed to be based on is a terrible analogy. There's a reason that skins games do not count when it comes to rankings in golf. Don't get me wrong. I think the TPA is still a solid competition. But if it's goal is truly to crown the best player in a given season then it simply does not do that or at least it does it in a skewed sort of way. I personally think the way it is, it's just more of a bigger version of a mixed tournament than something that crowns a top player.

- I would use standard settings for all TPA matches (Auto, Seq., No Spoils, Chained, Sunny)

Same as above. No variety = boring

- There should be two point scales (rankings). One for 1 v 1 play and one for team play. Then for instance a player could be the 5th rated individual player and yet be ranked 27th as a team player.

A split scoreboard wouldn't work as well. As mentioned prior this is meant to cover all the tournaments that are run. If we split the scoreboard it wouldn't feel like that is being adequately done as it's putting more emphasis on one type of game over another and it doesn't require players to be multi-talented

VOL: Jibberish. I already mentioned two sets of rankings. One for 1 v 1 and one for team play. Personally, I think many of us are attracted to the individual side, so all tournaments would be 1 v1 and I mentioned the ancillary component for just as in tennis certain tournaments have doubles matches and there are seperate doubles ranking in tennis as well. You are saying the idea is impractical when it is completely practical. And that indicates that you are resistant to change more than it being a matter of the idea being bad.

- All tournaments would be 1 v 1. Some tournaments would have an ancillary doubles, triples, or quads tourney (for the sake of team play rankings). But the winner of the Cup (Tournament) would always be the winner of the 1 v 1 bracket.

So why even join team tournaments? It'd just eat up your time and they're technically meaningless. This also has the same problem that a player doesn't need to be multi-talented and can just be a 1v1 specialist to win this whole thing and that isn't right.

VOL: Your multi-talented argument again is futile. There would be separate scoring for singles play and team play. Nothing would be ignored. If a player is 'multi-talented' then it would be accurately reflected.

- The TPA is modeled after the golf/tennis associations. I think it's fitting that just like in golf/tennis that you have recurring tournaments that take place at the same time each year. And just like in tennis/golf there would be four grand slam tournaments that have more participants/maps/points (possibly) than the other tournaments.

This is just the first year. There is a good chance there will be recurring tournaments come next year. As for the grand slam tournaments... if you had properly read the thread you'd have seen that there will be four grand slams that will be larger tournaments.

I did not presume there would or would not be recurring tournaments in the future. I merely stated that in the model I put forth and in golf/tennis that recurring tournaments are staples in the system. As it currently looks, there is a chance for recurring tournaments, but it certainly looks to have a lot or randomness. Again, I'm not saying that is not fun. I'm saying it does not fit a true versions of a TPA (based on r/l) or what I would consider the most fun for continued seasons. People much enjoy defending their various titles and a lot of the fun is looking forward to defending the titles. Making the Cups standard alleviates undue speculation and allows players the proper opportunities to be prepared.

Also, I did not say there were not grand slams now. In fact I understood there do be differences in the points granted for various tournaments. But I would have been careless not to include the grand slams in my model.


- Weighted Scoring System: Make minimums and maximums on tournaments that TPA players would play in. But since it would be near impossible to get everyone in the same amount of tournaments, then weight the outcomes. Efficiency should count.

Same issue. Read before posting... I'm not even going to respond to this one.

Why? You can't handle the idea of fairness? If anything I'm saying you don't have to be a hawk and waste away all of your time on CC to compete properly.

- Lastly, the recurring tournaments need to be more dignified/prestigious. I don't like seeing James Bond or So and So's Tournament in the TPA. It's fine for regular tournaments, but we want these tournament cups to sound prestigious and be something that people brag about. E.G. I've got three fox cups or I got four green jackets, etc.

This would again be limiting the creativity of the T.O.'s and the majority of us would most likely be opposed to such a thing.

First off there would be a lot of creativity built into the Cups via the rounds, series, etc. Secondly, I'm not going to trump the spirit of 1 v 1 and team rankings in the name of creativity. Mine is the more pure system. I'm not saying the current system is not fun, not without merit and not creative. But I am saying that mine is the more pure system for players that want an ultimate 1 v 1 tour (or team tour). As it is right now. We have to be realistic and call it a hybrid competition and not a pure player ranking tour.

...

Enjoy, you've got your response

[ViperOverLord]

Viper - I agree you have a good, albeit different idea. Maybe once your large 1v1 tourney is over, this could be a franchised tournament you run.

Thank you. And I'd like to thank Barterer for his efforts. I know it takes a lot of work to do what he's doing and I'm not trying to tread lightly on any of that.

[Bones2484]

Viper, your ideas are covered in many tournaments that already exist. There'd be no point in having multiple tournaments with your suggestions. Just have one person run a "Cup" with multiple "events" over the course of a year and give the winner to the person who racks up the most points.

If you go search any of the leagues you'll see this has already been done.

The TPA is completely different and would get a much smaller response if it was as rigid as you propose.

[ViperOverLord]

Viper, your ideas are covered in many tournaments that already exist. There'd be no point in having multiple tournaments with your suggestions. Just have one person run a "Cup" with multiple "events" over the course of a year and give the winner to the person who racks up the most points.

If you go search any of the leagues you'll see this has already been done.

The TPA is completely different and would get a much smaller response if it was as rigid as you propose.

1. I'm not claiming to reinvent the wheel. Do the cups resemble other tournaments? Obviously. I'm sure you could make the case for current TPA tournaments. So that is not at all the point.

2. "Just have one person run a "Cup" with multiple "events" over the course of a year and give the winner to the person who racks up the most points." - In other words run a separate TPA. Sure I'll join that separate TPA if someone does it. Personally I don't believe I'll have the time or patience that Barterer would seem to possess. So I'm bringing up my idea to him before I go running off and stepping on his feet and attempting to make a separate TPA or proposing that someone else make a separate TPA. I certainly would want to give Barterer the first shot at this idea in any event.

3. "The TPA is completely different and would get a much smaller response if it was as rigid as you propose." Firstly, I do not know whether that is true or not. But secondly, I am hardly concerned with which idea would draw the biggest response. I would only care about reaching/retaining the critical mass to make the TPA (whichever version) competitive.

[sonicsteve]

Hi Viper,

What barterer has introduced here is a fantastic and varied tournament event. What you are proposing is so fundamentally and radically different that the two can't really be compared.

It's like Barterer has encouraged us to try a different restaurant in town every week for a year with different people, just pick and choose which weeks you want to come along. Then you arrive 5 weeks into the programme and say, "hey, I've got a better idea - let's fix the group of people who can come and we'll only eat chips every single week".

As you can tell, sonic is hungry and it's affecting my similes, but what I'm saying is barterer's TPA is brilliant right now, so let's leave it brilliant. If you want to set up a 50-tourney 1v1 Cup challenge or something similar go for it (I'd help for one) - the one thing I really liked in your post was the thought that had gone into the themed cup titles - it's Gandhi, not Gondi, though.

Cheers,

Sonic

[squishyg]

is it possible for links to be added to the schedule so we can easily sign up for games?

[jrh_cardinal]

Okay, I read it all, that's a lot to read. I'm not gonna respond to everything like you guys have been doing, but here are my thoughts:

The TPA is designed to be a fair representation of tournament playing ability. It was designed to encompass all types of tournaments. We want normal, everyday tournaments to be a part of the TPA because that's what the goal of the TPA is. You (Viper) are trying to recreate the WTA (tennis). That is very structured, all 1v1, in a very set manner. I know you say there is a difference because you can change how it's set up (bracket, round robin, etc.), but you're still basically doing the same thing, playing 1v1 (even on the same settings in your plan). That is a great idea, in fact that could be run in addition to the TPA at some point by you or someone else willing to put in the time.

However, that is not the TPA's goal. The TPA wants to just have normal tournaments and assess everyone based on their ability in all tournament disciplines. In fact, the utopian TPA would score every tournament run by anyone. However, that is not plausible (obviously) so bart's doing it this way.

If you would like help setting up a 1v1PA, or whatever you want to call it, I know I would be more than happy to help, but that is not what bart or any of us want for the TPA.

But I am saying that mine is the more pure system for players that want an ultimate 1 v 1 tour

The TPA is not a 1v1 Tour


One more thing, registering was discussed a ton when bart originally put out the idea of the TPA in the TO forum. Plenty of people agreed with you there. But, half of the spots in a tournament have to be public. TPA carded players, not public. Also, Joe Schmo is supposed to be interested in the TPA, it is supposed to be for the everyday tourney player. Besides, the people that join one tourney then slowly sink to the bottom of the scoreboard aren't hurting anybody.

PS, the tourney with James Bond in it is the one being run by bart himself, the founder of the TPA. Not the smartest guy to piss off