Forum

by **DiM** on Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:57 am

changing the settings once the tournament has started?
not cool.

by **lostatlimbo** on Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:27 am

DiM wrote:changing the settings once the tournament has started?
not cool.

The final 4 (or 6) candidates would just play fewer times on US Senate & City Mogul and more times on the maps they chose at sign-up. I didn't think this would offend anyone since that stage of the tournament is still far off.

It is no big deal to me which way it goes, I just thought (in hindsight) that it would be more fun for the finalists.

If anyone does not agree with the change, I will revert it back to the original plan (3 times on US Senate, 3 times on City Mogul).

by **morleyjoe** on Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:38 am

DiM wrote:changing the settings once the tournament has started?
not cool.

Sorry Dim, but I do like the change proposed and would support this revision to the finals.

by **lostatlimbo** on Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:27 am

To avoid any fuss over this, I'll just offer the option to the finalists to vote on.

by **lostatlimbo** on Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:29 am

THE BUCK STOPS HERE
The fundraising round has finished and after many back-room deals, empty promises, and compromises... we have our primary candidates! Congratulations to those that suckered and swindled their way to a financial edge.

The finish was very close in several regions - each of which were triple checked.

In the Democrat races, Kkelly swept the Super PAC money to surge ahead in New England Dem race.
Meanwhile, lawz21 did the same to tie with denominator and move forward in the Rockies.
There was plenty of drama for the Republicans as well, when Serreski swept to pull ahead in the Great Lakes.
After a close, hard fought battle (12 rounds), I was finally able to take a win over Jimmy V to tie for the West Coast nomination.
Also sweeping in the Republican Southwest was scottp, who leads both parties with $9 million dollars. However....

...to put it to good use, he'll need to continue winning as members in each party will face each other on the TOP ISSUES facing Americans (and the world) today. Yes, it is now time to put your mouth where your money is and sweet talk your way to Presidential candidacy.

Look for your invite next week!

by **lostatlimbo** on Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:15 pm

The first batch of games have been sent for the Republican & Democratic debates. However, I have a bit of a conundrum...

A lot more players made it through to this round than I anticipated. I knew there could be a tie, but did not expect 5 ties (2 in the GOP, 3 in the Dems). I also did not expect so many independents to make the cut.

The GOPs and Dems will just have to play a few more games each week, but having every one of the independents (21) play each other once on each of their 2 issues would take far too long.

To remediate this, I propose having each member of the Independent party play half of their opponents on one issue and the other half on the second issue. This remains fairly true to the original plan, but cuts the # of Independent games in half (from 40 per player to 20 per player).

I know that it is bad form to change rules mid-tournament, but there needs to be some modification to keep the tournament running and participants game loads at reasonable levels.

I welcome other suggestions and debate and will consider all options before continuing.

by **scottp** on Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:30 pm

works for me, but i guess the independents' opinions should be weighed more heavily, since they're the ones affected. (I'm a Republican, thus unaffected by the proposal.)

by **denominator** on Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:17 pm

We all knew (or at least, should have known had we all read the first post) that it was possible to have a heavy gameload at certain points of the tournament. I'd be happy to leave it as it was originally laid out.

by **Dukasaur** on Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:43 am

denominator wrote:We all knew (or at least, should have known had we all read the first post) that it was possible to have a heavy gameload at certain points of the tournament. I'd be happy to leave it as it was originally laid out.

That's not true. While I didn't crunch the numbers myself, I trusted the figures given in Post 1, which say things like:

(3-4 games per week for 6 weeks)

I'm totally in favour of any change needed to keep the game load reasonable.

by **kizkiz** on Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:50 am

I have no problem with a large game load.

by **lostatlimbo** on Thu May 03, 2012 4:46 am

lostatlimbo wrote:...cuts the # of Independent games in half (from 40 per player to 20 per player).

Der, math is hard. Actually it works out to 40 games per player or 80 if every independent played each other once on each issue. We'll need 8-12 games per player for 4 weeks just to get to 40 and keep pace with the other parties.

I set expectations for game load and pace during sign up and even if all were willing to quadruple that, it is still too much for me to manage. I currently have four active tournaments and much less time for conquer club than I anticipated when I started them. I really planned this one poorly and I apologize for that, but my choices now are to modify it or abandon it.

by **kizkiz** on Sun May 13, 2012 1:14 pm

3 of my opponents are running scared!
What's the score with people who decline/miss invites?

by **lostatlimbo** on Tue May 15, 2012 2:33 am

I'll have to be somewhat lenient since the game load is larger than originally advertised, but repeat missed invites - or a declined invite - without notice will be removed from the tournament. I will not be seeking reserves since the player pool is already too large.

Please PM me if you won't be able to join your games right away and I will hold them for a reasonable time.