tournament organizer rating

[Night Strike]

what i'd rather see than a rating system (since the current system is of almost no value imho) is more of an informational listing of TO's. a listing that would give all their stats such as tournaments started and finished. whether the have any abandoned tournaments. types of tournaments run, size of tournament, length of time to complete, and so on.
i think seeing this type of information would help a person determine if they want to participate in a particular TO's tournament, better than any rating system would do. think of it as CC's version of the Better Business Bureau, without the grading. my 2 cents.

The first half of those things are already in the Tournament Database and the second half are already suggestions for future updates of the database.

[ubcman64]

what i'd rather see than a rating system (since the current system is of almost no value imho) is more of an informational listing of TO's. a listing that would give all their stats such as tournaments started and finished. whether the have any abandoned tournaments. types of tournaments run, size of tournament, length of time to complete, and so on.
i think seeing this type of information would help a person determine if they want to participate in a particular TO's tournament, better than any rating system would do. think of it as CC's version of the Better Business Bureau, without the grading. my 2 cents.

The first half of those things are already in the Tournament Database and the second half are already suggestions for future updates of the database.

excellent!....then my work here is done

[GoranZ]

Add rating for tournaments organized by TO's

Concise description:
After finishing of a tournament every participant can rate how well was a tournament organized with 1 to 5 stars, same as we rate players.

Specifics/Details:

• less then 2 stars: TO organized the tournament very poorly, so he will not get a medal for it and if he organize another consecutive tournament with less then 3 stars he should not organize tournaments in the next 3 months(time for learning how tournament should be organized)
• from 2 to 3 stars: TO organized the tournament poorly, so he will not get a medal for it.
• over 3 stars: TO organized the tournament properly, so he will get a medal for it.
• players that leave rating for the tournament could also receive a medal(similar medal as rating player) Edit: Added after initial proposal

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
TO's that organize their tournaments properly will get well deserved medals and everyone can see if TO is good or bad Tournament Organizer so we can avoid bad TO's
The proposal is about quality control, nothing else. Less work for Tournament Directors(the general public will influence the quality of the tournaments), higher quality tournaments and ultimately better game experience.
Question for those that do not support this suggestion: How do you know if some TO makes quality tournaments, you bring that conclusion based on what?

[happyfeet]

awesome idea GoranZ

[agentcom]

Is there a big problem with users being consistently poor tourney organizers? If so, I fully support. Sounds like a great idea. If not, then it's just a question of whether this is worth it. I think the system needs tweaking though. Just like the 5-star system we have for ratings, your idea should probably be reduced to a Poor, Satisfactory, Excellent system or something similar. 5-star ratings systems don't really work well.

[GoranZ]

Is there a big problem with users being consistently poor tourney organizers? If so, I fully support. Sounds like a great idea. If not, then it's just a question of whether this is worth it. I think the system needs tweaking though. Just like the 5-star system we have for ratings, your idea should probably be reduced to a Poor, Satisfactory, Excellent system or something similar. 5-star ratings systems don't really work well.

The idea is to classify the tournaments by quality of the TO(3 star, 5 star is irrelevant, I will leave that to the person who will implement the proposal)... later on Tournaments will get the rating of the TO organizing it(if there are more organizers more will be listed, but not the average) same as we see for players. Eventually quality TO's tournaments will fill in faster and the perspective of how good CC is will be shifted forward.

[greenoaks]

quality TO's already fill tournaments quickly, poor or new TO's struggle.

this suggestion will not add anything.

[IcePack]

It's interesting but details need to be filled out. People are lazy and won't rate tournaments.
If nobody rates, what happens? The default should still receive medals.
If only one person rates, and rates a 1 or 2 that still shouldn't be enough to lose a medal after putting in work for the tournament. It would need to be a majority of all players involved or something.

[patrickaa317]

Is this a FALLEN only thread?

I agree with both IcePack & greenoaks.

It is a great theory but I don't think it'll really add anything.

[agentcom]

Is this a FALLEN only thread?

I agree with both IcePack & greenoaks.

It is a great theory but I don't think it'll really add anything.

What are you doing here patrick?! Stay out of our thread! That's my main concern is that this doesn't have much value-added. I really like the idea, but only if it actually addresses a problem, and I'm not sure it does that.

[happyfeet]

you could also give a medal to those who were in the tournament that leaves ratings for the tournament. i play several tournaments a year if i leave a rating for the tournament what is my incentive to do that. well, after so many rating left i can get a medal. i dont know if this is where Goranz was going with this but it gives people who hunt for medals another incentive to play in more tournaments and maybe even get tournaments to fill quicker.

[Dukasaur]

Is this a FALLEN only thread?

I agree with both IcePack & greenoaks.

It is a great theory but I don't think it'll really add anything.

What are you doing here patrick?! Stay out of our thread! That's my main concern is that this doesn't have much value-added. I really like the idea, but only if it actually addresses a problem, and I'm not sure it does that.

Yeah, it does.

There are a lot of really slovenly TOs out there, who don't update their tournament threads, don't bother describing rules clearly even in the initial write-up, and numerous other acts of laziness and slobbery. Some of those are merely irritating, but some actually functionally destroy the integrity of the tournament.

The absolute worst are TOs who send out invites, but don't bother checking back to see if the invites have been accepted. In many cases the person who didn't accept the invite has quit CC entirely and needs to be replaced, but if the TO isn't checking back he doesn't notice this. In the extreme case, the game might go unfilled the full two weeks and auto-delete, and then people are scratching their heads wondering "what happened to that game?" Then there's a domino effect: having lost players due to inattention, the tourney now starts to lose more players who just don't want to be involved any more. Eventually it gets abandoned, and then some poor sucker ends up volunteering to rescue it and has a big pile of zebra dung on his hands.

You can't prohibit people from running bad tournaments, because A: they are volunteers and needed; and B: policing the policy would be kafka-esque. But a rating system would go a long way to at least providing a warning sign to potential players that they might be entering a bordello.

[GoranZ]

Is this a FALLEN only thread?

I posted it in our clan forum section, asking opinions... that's why majority of the players that replied are from FALLEN, hopefully this will be only in the beginning

It is a great theory but I don't think it'll really add anything.

Look at my proposal this way: I have participated in 1 of your tournaments and your tournament is light years ahead from some others that I currently participate in. And the medal you receive has the same value as the medal that others will receive for tournaments that can not be compared. Reason enough for me to continue to work on my suggestion.

you could also give a medal to those who were in the tournament that leaves ratings for the tournament. i play several tournaments a year if i leave a rating for the tournament what is my incentive to do that. well, after so many rating left i can get a medal.

Great idea

I really like the idea, but only if it actually addresses a problem, and I'm not sure it does that.

Yeah, it does.

There are a lot of really slovenly TOs out there, who don't update their tournament threads, don't bother describing rules clearly even in the initial write-up, and numerous other acts of laziness and slobbery. Some of those are merely irritating, but some actually functionally destroy the integrity of the tournament.

The absolute worst are TOs who send out invites, but don't bother checking back to see if the invites have been accepted. In many cases the person who didn't accept the invite has quit CC entirely and needs to be replaced, but if the TO isn't checking back he doesn't notice this. In the extreme case, the game might go unfilled the full two weeks and auto-delete, and then people are scratching their heads wondering "what happened to that game?" Then there's a domino effect: having lost players due to inattention, the tourney now starts to lose more players who just don't want to be involved any more. Eventually it gets abandoned, and then some poor sucker ends up volunteering to rescue it and has a big pile of zebra dung on his hands.

You can't prohibit people from running bad tournaments, because A: they are volunteers and needed; and B: policing the policy would be kafka-esque. But a rating system would go a long way to at least providing a warning sign to potential players that they might be entering a bordello.

Ty very much for understanding what I wanted to propose, why I propose it and explaining it the best possible way.

[agentcom]

If there's a desire for this, and it will help, I'm all for it. Seems like the early results are leaning in that direction. If I was a TO, I'd like this just for the feedback. I doubt I'd use it as a tourney player, but I know a lot of people do way more research into their games than I do before they join.

[greenoaks]

if this is implemented i will stop organising tournaments.

i will not put the effort into running any more tourneys, however poorly it may be so some players can decide if my effort was up to their standard.

i put in all the effort, the tournament finished and a winner was declared. if you don't like how i ran it dont join any more.

[agentcom]

if this is implemented i will stop organising tournaments.

i will not put the effort into running any more tourneys, however poorly it may be so some players can decide if my effort was up to their standard.

i put in all the effort, the tournament finished and a winner was declared. if you don't like how i ran it dont join any more.

I would think that part of the point of this would be to draw more people to your tournaments because you are a good TO.

[patrickaa317]

if this is implemented i will stop organising tournaments.

i will not put the effort into running any more tourneys, however poorly it may be so some players can decide if my effort was up to their standard.

i put in all the effort, the tournament finished and a winner was declared. if you don't like how i ran it dont join any more.

I would think that part of the point of this would be to draw more people to your tournaments because you are a good TO.

But you already know that because you've been in his tournaments in the past. I join tournaments if they sound fun, are on maps I like, or just looking for a few extra games. I will likely not look to see the TO's ratings to see whether or not I should join.

[patrickaa317]

Is this a FALLEN only thread?

I posted it in our clan forum section, asking opinions... that's why majority of the players that replied are from FALLEN, hopefully this will be only in the beginning

It is a great theory but I don't think it'll really add anything.

Look at my proposal this way: I have participated in 1 of your tournaments and your tournament is light years ahead from some others that I currently participate in. And the medal you receive has the same value as the medal that others will receive for tournaments that can not be compared. Reason enough for me to continue to work on my suggestion.

I get where you are coming from with this suggestion, I think the theory is really great but if there are TO's that you don't like how they are running the tourney, request they replace you and then you don't have to worry about it. If you don't want to get replaced, then obviously you don't mind playing in a poorly ran tournament which makes the ratings system irrelevant.

[Funkyterrance]

Seems like this would be used/appreciated by a pretty small percentage of players.

[Dukasaur]

if this is implemented i will stop organising tournaments.

i will not put the effort into running any more tourneys, however poorly it may be so some players can decide if my effort was up to their standard.

i put in all the effort, the tournament finished and a winner was declared. if you don't like how i ran it dont join any more.

You've got a good reputation, and you know that and we know that. But someone who is just starting to dip his feet into the tournament world doesn't know that yet. Why shouldn't there be a way for him to find out?

[chapcrap]

I still support something like this.

Here is a very similar suggestion: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=155893

[Dukasaur]

what i'd rather see than a rating system (since the current system is of almost no value imho) is more of an informational listing of TO's. a listing that would give all their stats such as tournaments started and finished. whether the have any abandoned tournaments. types of tournaments run, size of tournament, length of time to complete, and so on.
i think seeing this type of information would help a person determine if they want to participate in a particular TO's tournament, better than any rating system would do. think of it as CC's version of the Better Business Bureau, without the grading. my 2 cents.

The first half of those things are already in the Tournament Database and the second half are already suggestions for future updates of the database.

It's not in an easily searchable form -- at least not for the player. I assume you have better tools for searching the database among the TDs, but that doesn't do anything to help the players evaluate things.

[Dukasaur]

I still support something like this.

Here is a very similar suggestion: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1&t=155893

Considering the poll on that was 29-2, I don't know why that was allowed to die.

And yeah, essentially the same proposal.

[patrickaa317]

Apparently I originally loved the idea. With that kind of flip flop, I should be running for public office!

[koontz1973]

This is not a bad suggestion and should/could be implemented. Why not just have the ratings on the organisers hall of fame page next to completed tournies.