Why was this meta question deleted? There's no comment explaining, and it was mod deleted so no ability to nominate for re-opening. I can't see any other meta questions explaining it (including the other two posts in the series).

The original post in the series says that the concept was approved by moderators (as unnecessary as that seems) so it seems rather odd for this silent kill, particularly for an event promoted on the blog.

  • 1
    Sorry (again) for the confusion about this. I hadn't realised it could come across as mod suppression rather than the OP's own decision.
    – Rand al'Thor Mod
    Commented May 15, 2016 at 2:02
  • youtu.be/f8JMOAXamqY?t=11s
    – Valorum
    Commented May 15, 2016 at 9:57
  • 2
    Round 3 will come back today.
    – Rogue Jedi
    Commented May 15, 2016 at 22:49

1 Answer 1


Rogue Jedi, the event organiser, asked for the question to be deleted due to community disapproval of the chosen pairing for Round 3:

Due to general opinion, I'm going to scrub Round 3 and start it over later today.

-- Rogue Jedi, 10 May

After posting the above in chat, he flagged the question and asked the moderators to delete it. He also made an announcement in Mos Eisley, which was pinned for a while:

Round Three of the Showdown event is going to redone. Sorry for the confusion. Sorry for messing it up the first time.

-- Rogue Jedi, 11 May

I'm not sure exactly when the new Round 3 is to be expected, but hopefully within the next couple of days if all is going well with Rogue Jedi, whose latest announcement was:

I'll have to do it this weekend. I've got a lot of stressful work to do in my real life right now.

-- Rogue Jedi, 12 May

Apologies for the confusion; I or Rogue Jedi should probably have edited a cancellation/postponement notice into the top of the meta post before deletion. I've now rectified this oversight by putting a bold title at the top to make clear what's happening with Round 3.

  • +1 for OP cancelling it rather than just ploughing ahead. I'm still convinced a randomised pairing would be the best way to go.
    – Valorum
    Commented May 15, 2016 at 9:58
  • 2
    @Richard: the real way to go would have been to determine the full bracket ahead of time, adding the necessary "byes" as early as possible, and letting people voting on the final outcome have a better chance at guessing intelligently. But there is some argument to be made for adjusting the pairings as we go along: it certainly prevents apples-and-Ferraris pairings, at least in the early rounds.
    – Martha
    Commented May 15, 2016 at 17:49
  • 1
    @Martha - The real problem here is that you're trying to run a race between Usain Bolt and Jack Black and pretending that there's any possibility that the result will be anything other than it is. The alternative is to pair shows with similar characteristics, in which case it's always gonna end up with a donkey against a thoroughbred.
    – Valorum
    Commented May 15, 2016 at 17:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .