How to get easy tournament medals

[Qwert]

what new rule?
You tell me that minimum requirement are 16 players,and that winner need to have minimum 3 games. I just want to show that these is nonsence, and that rules need to change, I dont understand how you alove that? You need to have responsibile that people dont create tournaments who dont look like real tournament,and instead that you alove that people get medal for nothing. These mine attempt will(i hope) draw atention,that rules need to change,otherwise all these talk abouth high quality standard of tournaments, will be ruin. Many people all ready have these things ( i can not call these tournament), and they can give to other new people advice how to get tournament medal,whit almost no work.
I dont understand why its so hard to increase number of games required for winner to have.

[Qwert]

Now im a bad person, when i want to help you to fix these mistake, and instead to say " Yea you right, its look that people use bad requirement to get medals for nothing, we need to change these mistakes", you close eyes,and pretend that these not hepend???

[Night Strike]

qwert, do you not read what I post???

I DO NOT LIKE WHEN PEOPLE USE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO MAKE A TOURNAMENT.

When we changed those requirements last year, my initial rules were much stricter than what we currently have. However, many people fought hard against that and I had to tone them down to what we have now. No matter how strict the rules are, there will always be people who choose to run the smallest tournament possible just to medal hunt. There's nothing I can do to stop that, so perhaps you should just take pride that you believe your tournaments are better than that and that you will not stoop down to their level.

[jrh_cardinal]

qwert, please don't. You were around when all this happened last year, no one wants to start it again. A lot of people like to play 16 player 1v1 bracket tourneys, that's why 16 player tourneys was kept. NS raised it to a minimum 3 games played to try to raise the bar, so that people went beyond the absolute easiest tourneys they could possibly come up with.
In my mind the rules are in place to make the smallest tourneys 16 player 1v1 brackets or 8 team brackets. Since there are so many different game types on CC which these rules were not specifically made for, yes, there are loopholes. However, the only thing you will accomplish by exposing the loopholes publicly like you are suggesting is forcing NS and the other TD's to make the rules stricter to close the loopholes. This makes NS look like the bad guy, again, and more importantly takes away a very popular, very legal brand of tournament and quite possibly makes CC lose some tourney players who like tourneys like that, all because you can't follow the "spirit" of the law.

[Kinnison]

So, let me get this straight...

I just realised that tournament requirement for organisin valid tournament its so low,that you can create very fast 10 to 100 tournament in almost one month.

Organiser get medal for creating 7 tournament games,and winner get medal for play 3 tournament games- these is what i call circus of Tournament,and i dont know how its these aloved to hepend-where its real rules here- ridiculos.

In these way( who its look that its acepted by tournament mods),everybody can get medal,very easy,and very fast.

good that TD notice that,its abouth time to bring some real tournament minimum requirement ,so that any future tournament,look to real tournament, not some kind of joke.

So, you think the minimums are too low. I certainly wouldn't want to play many built to the minimums, or run ANY built to the minimums... I'd go mad with boredom.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0&t=138620

And yet, here you go, running a "ridiculos", "joke", "circus of Tournament" one built in that exact manner... to "let the TD's know it's a problem." This despite NS *asking* you not to do so, and both he and jp telling you they were quite aware of the situation.

Oh, and the threads from last year...
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=106109
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=110782
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=110797
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=106110
...for just some of the vitriol and warfare that came about because the minimums were raised to where they are now, and THAT damn near caused a revolt!

Enjoy your medal for running your unimaginative... THING..., qwert. I won't be playing in it. I prefer a tournament that requires at least a little thought to come up with... and a bit of effort to win. And I hope the thought that you informed everyone of a known issue helps you sleep well at night.

Oh, and knowing how you usually respond to your critics (wherever they happen to be criticizing you from), I'll expect a comfy place on your foe list shortly. Ta!

[Qwert]

by jrh_cardinal » Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:03 am

qwert, please don't. You were around when all this happened last year, no one wants to start it again. A lot of people like to play 16 player 1v1 bracket tourneys, that's why 16 player tourneys was kept. NS raised it to a minimum 3 games played to try to raise the bar, so that people went beyond the absolute easiest tourneys they could possibly come up with.
In my mind the rules are in place to make the smallest tourneys 16 player 1v1 brackets or 8 team brackets. Since there are so many different game types on CC which these rules were not specifically made for, yes, there are loopholes. However, the only thing you will accomplish by exposing the loopholes publicly like you are suggesting is forcing NS and the other TD's to make the rules stricter to close the loopholes. This makes NS look like the bad guy, again, and more importantly takes away a very popular, very legal brand of tournament and quite possibly makes CC lose some tourney players who like tourneys like that, all because you can't follow the "spirit" of the law.

Jrh_cardinal, i dont say nothing abouth player minimum requirement,16 players are OK, but game minimum are not OK. 1vs1 Tournament are OK, i dont have nothing against these.
Minimum requirement game per one tournament need to change,because i belive that tournament medal need to have some value,and not to be awarded for creating total 7 games in all tournament. I only want to show what its wrong with rules,and nothing else, maybe after that many people will see where is loophole,and that rules are very weak.
I repeat minimum number of players are OK.
Minimum numbers of games are serious problem.

[Qwert]

kinnison, im want to be help im not a enemy of TD, and i belive that TD need to do best, that Tournament have value. If something are wrong they need to change, to be fair for everybody. I can not imagine that someone can be against that.
All Tournament rules are ok, but only these one are bad
16 player-these is OK
3 game -these is not OK
I just not understand what people made pressure to TD to lowered this to apsolutly zero minimum- almost that minimum for games not exist.

[greenoaks]

what qwert is doing is setting up a tournament where the players still need to win the minimum 3 games but the TO only needs to create 4 games (5 max). the tournament seems to be about him getting an easy medal, not the players.

put a minimum numbers of games created for the TO to get a medal and these shenanigans will cease.

[Night Strike]

what qwert is doing is setting up a tournament where the players still need to win the minimum 3 games but the TO only needs to create 4 games (5 max). the tournament seems to be about him getting an easy medal, not the players.

put a minimum numbers of games created for the TO to get a medal and these shenanigans will cease.

There wasn't a problem until qwert decided to make it a problem. If he wasn't trying to make these types of tournaments, no one would be doing it. He's the one creating a problem that no one else had tried to exploit before.

[greenoaks]

what qwert is doing is setting up a tournament where the players still need to win the minimum 3 games but the TO only needs to create 4 games (5 max). the tournament seems to be about him getting an easy medal, not the players.

put a minimum numbers of games created for the TO to get a medal and these shenanigans will cease.

There wasn't a problem until qwert decided to make it a problem. If he wasn't trying to make these types of tournaments, no one would be doing it. He's the one creating a problem that no one else had tried to exploit before.

i have always had a problem with it.

in a 16 player single elimination tourney the TO creates 15 games and gets a medal but if it is a dubs, trips or quads single elimination only 7 games are required.

so far i have run 2 doubles tournaments but i did so with 32 players so that the workload for me would match a 16 player single elimination bracket tourney.

qwert is merely pointing out that TO medals are given for very little effort. i am sure he wouldn't mind going without a medal in his current tourney if the minimum was set to that of a 16 player single elimination.

[Qwert]

"There wasn't a problem until qwert decided to make it a problem. If he wasn't trying to make these types of tournaments, no one would be doing it. He's the one creating a problem that no one else had tried to exploit before."
I make problem?
No one would be doing?
no one else had tried to exploit before?
Man you are TD,and you dont know what kind of tournament are ongoing-these all ready hepend,and im not start these-im only point these to you.
DJ Teflon Know for these tournaments, and you dont?

[jrh_cardinal]

qwert, first of all there are a ton of tournaments run, NS can't pay personal attention to every single one. Also, I think everyone in this thread besides you says this hasn't happened before, no one has tried to exploit the rules to this extreme. If it's happened before since the rule change, show us.

The 3 game minimum is for team tournaments. In an 8 team single elimination bracket, the winner only needs to play 3 games.
For minimum players- Think about it, if the minimum number of teams were 16, that's 64 players minimum for a quads tourney, certainly not easy to fill especially for a newer organizer running a slightly abnormal format.
For minimum games- If you don't like the 3 games in the 8 team single elimination bracket, that's a legitimate thing to complain about. It would be appreciated if you complained in this thread, civilly, rather than trying to cause problems by running the smallest legal tournaments you can think of. I know NS would be happy to raise the minimum games played to 4 (16 player 1v1 bracket), and I don't think many players would have a problem with that either, 8 team brackets are very uncommon, and those that are run could just have a best of 3 championship.

Anything beyond complaining about an 8 player bracket is just causing problems. Again, the ONLY thing you can accomplish is forcing NS to raise the minimums and take away a very popular type of tournament, one which you seem to have no problem with. If you have a solution that: 1) takes away the loophole tournaments like the one you just started, 2) keeps 16 player 1v1 brackets, and 3) (most importantly) doesn't add a significant workload to the TD's, then please share.
Otherwise, just live with the fact that there are loopholes, ignore them, and hope that others continue to ignore them as well, so that everyone can enjoy the fun, popular, legal tournaments that would be taken away if the loophole was closed.

[HighlanderAttack]

I think too much is made about the virtual medals actually meaning a lot. Yes they have meaning, but many players and organizers do this for fun and competition. I would say most do it for the fun and competition and not the medal.

If anyone knows about competition tourneys in foosball, pool, and darts. They have your nightly, city, state, national, and world tournaments.

The smaller nightly tourneys would be like the 16 player and the world would be like your 256 player tourneys.

Nothing should be taken away from winning a small tourney. You still have a 1 in 16 chance of winning the tourney which makes it about a 6% chance of winning. That being said would winning a world title be more important than a local nightly tourney--Heck yes it would be. Each tourney someone wins will have meaning to it. The competition and fun will be there. The larger tourneys will just mean more in the long run.

It is about having fun and enjoying the CC experience (praying for good dice). This is my thoughts on the subject. No one will ever agree 100% on any subject. God and Night Strike would agree that I can complain and give my views as much as anyone else .

Have fun--run what you want to and play in what you want to and just enjoy it .

[Dukasaur]

I took the advice that HA gave me and made my first tournament a simple 16-player bracket tournament. However, my next tournament is going to be a lot more sophisticated. To me it's just a matter of pride, in anything I do, to always be improving and setting the bar higher each time.

I think for someone to do ONLY simple 16-player brackets betrays a lack of ambition. But that's just my opinion. Although I wasn't around for the debates last year, I understand the difficulty in trying to enforce a standard on people who really don't want it. I would like to see people set higher standards for themselves, but trying to impose them would be a nightmare. It's impossible to guarantee good work even when you have paid employees, and trying to demand good work from people who are strictly volunteer and doing it mainly for fun is absolutely ridiculous.

If anything would help, I don't think it would be more rules, but perhaps a rating system for TOs might do the job. Just as you get a menu allowing you to rate players after a game, maybe something could be set up where after a tournament you get a chance to rate TOs in categories like: clearly understandable rules, interesting theme, fair dispute resolution, speed of updates, and so on. That might go a long way towards raising the bar for many people.