Definition: Given a real-life anecdote of a complex ethical situation, generate a suitable title that describes the main event/root cause of the situation. Imagine that the given text is a social media post, and you have to write the title of the post, so the users can decide to read the main text or not.
Input: Okay, so, for a bit of context, my school has a Games Club. It started out to just board games and branched out to include videogames. For the past three months, I have run a Super Smash Bros Tournament every meeting. We usually have an "on week", with a ranked singles tournament, and an "off week," with a different type of tournament. Usually, it's just unranked doubles.
    
This week, I decided that we should play something that isn't smash. No one minded the change. The suggestion of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe came up, and plenty of people loved it. This was great, because I am planning on helping the class above me run a fundraiser with a Super Smash Bros bracket and a Mario Kart 8 Deluxe bracket. This, however, also lead to the problem at hand.
     
I posted my idea on how a tournament should be run, and said that that's how I am going to run it. I got a response from one of the freshman, saying that a tournament was stupid and "why can't we just play 12 player FFA". After explaining my reasonings, mainly how I need practice running a Mario Kart tournament, one of the other freshman say that the concept I came up with had never been done because it was stupid.
      
I've left them an open challenge, saying that I will tell them the resources we will have for the fundraiser, and they can come up with a ruleset and it will be put to a vote. They have yet to respond. Am I the asshole for defending my method of tournament?
     
TL;DR : I'm the school's go to tournament organizer. A few freshmen said that a bracket idea I came up with wouldn't work, but haven't given me a replacement.

wanting things to be run "my way"