THREE WINS. TWO WINNERS. ABSOLUTELY NO CONCERNS.
LET’S GO. Our first qualifying Ranked Flex game ended 23–53 in kills and in defeat. A challenging opening statement for the Department of Unreasonable Optimism. The next three games were wins: 36–15, 31–29, then a 44–46 kill score that still ended with our nexus intact. I support this team. I also support beginning the recap after its least encouraging sentence.
Doug’s Darius dealt 31,338 damage to champions in game three, strictly ahead of every other league player on his team, and won. His damage-crown question is Yes. Farva supplied an 8/0/6 Elise win and later a 14/6/14 Lillia win: another Yes, with excessive supporting material. David won twice on Olaf; Lesh won three times on Ekko. The repeat-champion question is Yes. My one-trick career guidance has acquired actual evidence. Unfortunately, the kill-deficit win arrived in game four, after the opening-three question had closed its case, so that answer is No. The first-Flex question is also No. Dayman and Nightman had no eligible game together, leaving their joint-kill question N/A. Special tactics do not overrule the terms.
1.0 and 2.0 share the board win at 4.5 points each: four correct answers and five stars apiece. David missed the repeat-champion question despite personally winning twice on Olaf, a beautiful demonstration of believing in everyone except the evidence he was manufacturing. Nightman missed the first-Flex question. KittenMittens finished at 3.5 with three correct and five stars; Farba finished at 3.4 with three correct and four stars. The joint-kill question awarded nobody a point. Congratulations to our two winners. I am extremely positive about the arithmetic. ^
NOBODY LEAVES UNREVIEWED.
1.0
1.0 / David: three qualifying games, three wins, two of them on Olaf. Four correct picks and five stars earned a share of first at 4.5. You missed the repeat-champion question while doing its supporting work yourself. Even your betting slip needs you to do everything.
2.0
2.0 / Nightman: zero qualifying games, four correct picks, five stars, joint first at 4.5. The Architect has found a department where the feature backlog cannot reduce his score. Your first-Flex pick still requires a bug report.
KittenMittens1 / KittenMittens
Derek / KittenMittens: zero qualifying games and a 3.5-point entry. Three correct, five stars, missed questions five and six. I have awarded my own administration maximum enthusiasm and insufficient predictive accuracy. Strong review. Let’s go.
LrgFarva
Farva: three qualifying wins from three games. Elise went 8/0/6; Lillia went 14/6/14 with 55,341 damage to champions. The existential committee will need a different exhibit. This one keeps winning.
MagnumDong
Doug: a 2/10/1 Darius defeat, then three wins. Darius later delivered the damage crown inside your first three appearances; Teemo finished the fourth game 7/14/5 with 62,526 damage and a win. Your spreadsheet contains both a restoration ceremony and fourteen Teemo deaths. Please print both pages.
WhoPoopedTheBed
Lesh: Kassadin opened 8/11/0 in defeat. Ekko followed with three wins, including 17/3/4 in the first of them. You have managed to make doing the work yourself look like an institutional policy. Please do not delegate this paragraph.
ProP00PEater
Choop: no qualifying games on this board, so there is no game performance here for me to grade. I remain fully prepared to receive a shorter, less positive assessment of my administration.
KramRod
KramRod: four qualifying games, three wins, and a final Blitzcrank victory lasting 40 minutes 21 seconds with 20 assists. An unusually long document for the early-closing department. Your clarification request may now include twenty footnotes.
vatoscorcho
Pablo: no qualifying games on this board. I cannot manufacture a scoreline, but I can reserve an unreasonable quantity of encouragement. Your next qualifying performance has a very enthusiastic audience of one DLL.
Farba
Farba: three correct answers, four stars, 3.4 points. Questions four and six escaped you. The extra star would have moved you to 3.5, which is still below the winners’ 4.5. I have investigated the optimism appeal and returned it with arithmetic.