Page 1 of 2

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:25 pm
by barterer2002
Again we seem to have part of a discussion no medals here. I really really really think that this is an irrelevant factor. Lets be clear, the players who want to run a 16 player 1v1 tournament just to get a medal can. I've got no problem with that. They can't do it 30 times for 30 medals because they become franchised so either they have to evolve into new ideas or run tournaments for reasons other than medals. Thus for me its a non issue and I would say that if we add some new TOs simply because they run their first one for the medal and then stay around then isn't that a good thing on the site?

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:35 pm
by Bones2484
I dont think the medal discussion was about creating the tournament, it was about winning the tournament. But you're right, medals aren't important to the best tournament players.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 9:30 pm
by HighlanderAttack
max is gr8 wrote:I think the people who run the longer tournaments as in the year long or 6-month long or 100s of games ones will generally not care about the medals. For if you cared about the medals you'd just run smaller tournaments


Again you type and the crap comes out-you have no idea what motivates people to run or play in a tourney.

Some of the people on this site think a virtual medal is the greatest thing ever while some could care less.

I am maxed out on medal yet I run a lot of small tourneys for nothing -so what is your wise analysis on the oh great one.

Heck, when I started running and playing in tourneys for that fact I didn't even know you received a medal by running or winning a tourney.

I love competition and that is my motivation. Does not matter the size, I just love to compete and I have brought enjoyment to hundreds of players. I have the list of players that have competed in my tourney if you want that so you can find a way in your world to degrade them.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:06 pm
by Bones2484
There was nothing insulting about max's comment. If you can't act like an adult and place nice, please stay out of this thread.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:15 pm
by HighlanderAttack
Bones2484 wrote:There was nothing insulting about max's comment. If you can't act like an adult and place nice, please stay out of this thread.



What another opinion from the great bones telling me to act like an adult. You opinion on how I can act and your opinion on anything really mean nothing to me. Max has degraded my work and I will say and do what I want to and what you, him, or anyone else say means nada to me.

(See Spanish jricart--another Spanish word I know)

To me you are lazy that you can't sift through a couple extra posts in a 2 page thread. Then you act high and mighty like you are trying to make a difference.

If I want to punch back at someone who I feel is a very ignorant person I will do so and if I want to do it here I will.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:47 pm
by Peter Gibbons
This is an interesting topic.

I run tournaments because A) I enjoy doing it and B) no one else runs tournaments with the settings I use (flat/chained/foggy). So I fill a void and get to have fun doing it--because it's the setting I enjoy playing.

Now, the nature of those settings cause my tournaments to last awhile. Further, I like complication--I think a tournament should have some substance to it, rather than just a couple exhibition games--so I always have multiple round-robins. Even my team tournaments, which I just expanded to, involve series. In other words, I don't run any single-elimination tournaments. So far I have 16 tournaments either complete, running or recruiting; the largest had 97 games, the smallest had 35 games (and none involve 1v1 matches, aside from tiebreakers).

I give this background because you would think I might be a little irritated that someone who runs a 4-game tournament gets the same "recognition" that I do (or that a person who wins 2 games gets the same award that a winner of one of my tournaments gets). Well, I'm not. Because here's the thing (aside from the obvious that little medal icons on a website don't matter at all)... I usually have 20-36 slots in my tournaments and I'd venture to say that 50% are almost always filled by the same players. In other words, the larger, more complicated tournaments seem to attract the same pool of players. In the one tournament where I expanded to 48 players, I struggled to recruit because everyone knows that tournament is going to last a year or so.

I suspect a lot of the more casual players are reticent to commit to big endeavors like my tournaments. And that's quite frankly a good thing... if you put in more stringent policies where only massive tournaments were allowed, you'd get a lot of deadbeats because there'd only be one type of option for new tournament players. So far, in 16 tournaments involving about 600 entries, I think I've had a total of 4 deadbeats. I think the smaller tournaments provide for a communal competitive environment for the more casual players; and if someone deadbeats in one of those, big deal. Sure, some people sign up for every tournament in the hopes of getting as many medals as possible (the mentality behind this I will never understand, but that's irrelevant right now). So what?

At the most, maybe you divide the "create tournament" forum into two sections... one for single-elimination tournaments and one for all others, so that people can more easily find the type of tournament they are looking for. Aside from that, I don't think there's a real need to fix anything.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:28 pm
by denominator
jpcloet wrote:Why can't we class/tag them based on size? Small, Medium, Large and Epic......


Because it's too vague. I've played in tournaments that were supposed to be large or epic but downgraded due to lack of interest, and I've played in small tournaments that turned large because of too much interest.

Are you defining their size based on the number of players or the length of the tournament? Some small tournaments go on for months while some large tournaments end in a couple of weeks.

And your boundaries would be very vague as well. 16 player 1v1 single elimination would be small, and 32 player 1v1 single elimination would be medium, but what about a 16 player 1v1 double elimination. Now you have a tournament that has the same number of players as a small tournament, but the same number of games as a medium tournament.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 4:33 am
by Dako
HighlanderAttack wrote:
Bones2484 wrote:There was nothing insulting about max's comment. If you can't act like an adult and place nice, please stay out of this thread.



What another opinion from the great bones telling me to act like an adult. You opinion on how I can act and your opinion on anything really mean nothing to me. Max has degraded my work and I will say and do what I want to and what you, him, or anyone else say means nada to me.

(See Spanish jricart--another Spanish word I know)

To me you are lazy that you can't sift through a couple extra posts in a 2 page thread. Then you act high and mighty like you are trying to make a difference.

If I want to punch back at someone who I feel is a very ignorant person I will do so and if I want to do it here I will.

You might be an adult, but you can't take words as words and not an insult towards you. Really, if you don't stand critics (even when everyone says it is not about only you on the site) - don't read this thread. People will come to consensus and TD's will tell lack what is need to be done. So please, stop flaming people (even if they flame you first) - that is not hte purpose of this thread.

Thanks.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:54 am
by max is gr8
In response to HighlanderAttack:

You've maxed out on medals so any tournament you make after the 30th is not important to your medal count. What I'm saying is that if people are desiring medals they'd go down the route of making a large number of small tournaments.

I'm saying that the people who make the massive tournaments that take a long period of time to finish won't be concentrating on the medals. And if they were they wouldn't be making long tournaments. The medal system is fine, people don't complain that they've put masses of effort into the tournament and only got a medal.

I love competition and that is my motivation. Does not matter the size, I just love to compete and I have brought enjoyment to hundreds of players. I have the list of players that have competed in my tourney if you want that so you can find a way in your world to degrade them.


How you got that from the:

I think the people who run the longer tournaments as in the year long or 6-month long or 100s of games ones will generally not care about the medals. For if you cared about the medals you'd just run smaller tournaments


I'm not attacking you, you are perceiving that that comment is in any way aimed at you. If I was aiming it at you I'd say "HA has run masses of 16 player bracket tournaments that don't deserve as many medals". I was saying that if someone is taking the time and effort to run a 6 month long tournament then they probably aren't in it for the medals.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:41 pm
by PaulusH
SuicidalSnowman wrote: Even PaulusH ...

Am I special :?:
Did I do anything wrong :x
Is that the reason why you didn't join :shock:
Why do you comment my tournaments, while you never have been part of it :twisted:

As far as I know it is allowed to join your own tournament :!:
The first time I joined one of my own tournaments was because there was one special place to fill, which was clearly worse compared to all other places O:)
Now I do it also when I use clear simple setups with specific games-settings of which it otherwise is difficult to find good games. In fact I hardly join tournaments or games for winning them, but more for the fun. My fun is getting to understand how the people would react in the games and tournaments and based on my predictions of that make my next turn; so yes in the end I have more fun when I win, but that is not the starting point :geek:

In the example you mentioned it is simply a 3x3-bracket of a 3x3 windmill, hardly to make more simple tournaments :roll:

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:49 pm
by SuicidalSnowman
PaulusH wrote:
SuicidalSnowman wrote: Even PaulusH ...

Am I special :?:
Did I do anything wrong :x
Is that the reason why you didn't join :shock:
Why do you comment my tournaments, while you never have been part of it :twisted:

As far as I know it is allowed to join your own tournament :!:
The first time I joined one of my own tournaments was because there was one special place to fill, which was clearly worse compared to all other places O:)
Now I do it also when I use clear simple setups with specific games-settings of which it otherwise is difficult to find good games. In fact I hardly join tournaments or games for winning them, but more for the fun. My fun is getting to understand how the people would react in the games and tournaments and based on my predictions of that make my next turn; so yes in the end I have more fun when I win, but that is not the starting point :geek:

In the example you mentioned it is simply a 3x3-bracket of a 3x3 windmill, hardly to make more simple tournaments :roll:



No, no, no, and no! I was trying to COMMEND you for having the sense to step back a bit from your own tournament. You make sure to play the role of player and the role of organizer separately. And when you join a tournament, it is not a simple win 5 games for a medal, it is a long, detailed tournament. I was comparing the way you conduct yourself as the example of, in my opinion, the right way to run tournaments.

And I play your tournaments when I can! viewtopic.php?f=91&t=97496#p2225806 which was an awesome tournament, by the way.


And I wish people could read Barterer's posts, I swear I can but then three posts later everyone is back arguing about medals again.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:52 am
by 72o
I think that organizers who abandon a tournament should have their organizing privileges revoked for a set amount of time. As long as they can keep up with them, and the tournaments are not generating complaints from their participants because they are poorly run, they should be able to make as many as they want with whatever format they want. I would rather see 100 tournaments of the same format, all well run, than 10 distinctly different format tournaments run by a bunch of idiots and deadbeats.

I guess I should clarify that I am operating under the assumption that tournaments are required to have an objective method for determining winners and losers. I think that should go without saying, but, nothing ever does.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:23 pm
by Lindax
72o wrote:I think that organizers who abandon a tournament should have their organizing privileges revoked for a set amount of time. As long as they can keep up with them, and the tournaments are not generating complaints from their participants because they are poorly run, they should be able to make as many as they want with whatever format they want. I would rather see 100 tournaments of the same format, all well run, than 10 distinctly different format tournaments run by a bunch of idiots and deadbeats.

I guess I should clarify that I am operating under the assumption that tournaments are required to have an objective method for determining winners and losers. I think that should go without saying, but, nothing ever does.


There is a system in place with sanctions for those who abandon tournaments.

See Abandoned Tournament Policies in the Tournament Handbook.

Lx

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:31 pm
by barterer2002
Part of the problem though Lindax, is that the current system is set up so that when Organizer X abandons a tournament it gets posted in the TO forum for rescue. There are many Organizers there who care about making sure tournaments are fun for all players and not abandoned. However, when one of us rescues a tournament that means that the original organizer has nothing happen to them. Its not considered abandoned even though it was because a second organizer was kind enough to come in and finish off the tourament for the players involved. I contend that this part of the policy needs to be changed.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:30 pm
by jpcloet
Incorrect?

If a tournament that is rescued did not have permission from the original organizer, the original organizer will be recorded for an abandoned tournament per the Abandoned Tournament Policy.


My understanding is that the TD's decide to move to TO group and thus the original TO does have a mark on their record.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:40 pm
by Night Strike
jpcloet wrote:Incorrect?

If a tournament that is rescued did not have permission from the original organizer, the original organizer will be recorded for an abandoned tournament per the Abandoned Tournament Policy.


My understanding is that the TD's decide to move to TO group and thus the original TO does have a mark on their record.


I think the organizer gives Lindax permission to post it in the TO forum.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:20 pm
by Lindax
jpcloet wrote:Incorrect?

If a tournament that is rescued did not have permission from the original organizer, the original organizer will be recorded for an abandoned tournament per the Abandoned Tournament Policy.


My understanding is that the TD's decide to move to TO group and thus the original TO does have a mark on their record.


barterer: Not every tournament that is or seems abandoned is automatically up for rescue. Generally I post the tournaments that the original TO would like to be rescued or tournaments that are almost finished.

jp: IF a tournament gets rescued without permission by the original TO (basically when the original TO has not logged onto CC for an X amount of time), he/she will receive a "mark", i.e., it counts as an abandoned tournament.

Lx

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:21 pm
by Lindax
Night Strike wrote:
jpcloet wrote:Incorrect?

If a tournament that is rescued did not have permission from the original organizer, the original organizer will be recorded for an abandoned tournament per the Abandoned Tournament Policy.


My understanding is that the TD's decide to move to TO group and thus the original TO does have a mark on their record.


I think the organizer gives Lindax permission to post it in the TO forum.


Generally that's correct NS. There are exceptions though.

Lx

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:33 pm
by Bones2484
Why should they not get a "mark" for abandoning a tournament, even if it is rescued by someone else? Sorry, I don't understand the logic here.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:38 pm
by PaulusH
Sorry :oops:

I misinterpret you :roll:

SuicidalSnowman wrote:
PaulusH wrote:
SuicidalSnowman wrote: Even PaulusH ...

Am I special :?:
Did I do anything wrong :x
Is that the reason why you didn't join :shock:
Why do you comment my tournaments, while you never have been part of it :twisted:

As far as I know it is allowed to join your own tournament :!:
The first time I joined one of my own tournaments was because there was one special place to fill, which was clearly worse compared to all other places O:)
Now I do it also when I use clear simple setups with specific games-settings of which it otherwise is difficult to find good games. In fact I hardly join tournaments or games for winning them, but more for the fun. My fun is getting to understand how the people would react in the games and tournaments and based on my predictions of that make my next turn; so yes in the end I have more fun when I win, but that is not the starting point :geek:

In the example you mentioned it is simply a 3x3-bracket of a 3x3 windmill, hardly to make more simple tournaments :roll:



No, no, no, and no! I was trying to COMMEND you for having the sense to step back a bit from your own tournament. You make sure to play the role of player and the role of organizer separately. And when you join a tournament, it is not a simple win 5 games for a medal, it is a long, detailed tournament. I was comparing the way you conduct yourself as the example of, in my opinion, the right way to run tournaments.

And I play your tournaments when I can! viewtopic.php?f=91&t=97496#p2225806 which was an awesome tournament, by the way.


And I wish people could read Barterer's posts, I swear I can but then three posts later everyone is back arguing about medals again.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:00 pm
by jpcloet
Bones2484 wrote:Why should they not get a "mark" for abandoning a tournament, even if it is rescued by someone else? Sorry, I don't understand the logic here.


There was an original "out" clause if the TO (on their own) could find someone to take it over. Having the TO group was meant as a last resort and I thought all tournaments that were put there were a mark, but it may not be the case by the above posts. I would say a high % (not all) have been rescued.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:09 pm
by Bones2484
jpcloet wrote:
Bones2484 wrote:Why should they not get a "mark" for abandoning a tournament, even if it is rescued by someone else? Sorry, I don't understand the logic here.


There was an original "out" clause if the TO (on their own) could find someone to take it over. Having the TO group was meant as a last resort and I thought all tournaments that were put there were a mark, but it may not be the case by the above posts. I would say a high % (not all) have been rescued.


Oh, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

I guess there's a difference if a TO can't handle it and actively pursues a replacement than if they simply stop updating and someone takes over (even if the TO then gives permission). I assume a "mark" would not be given in either situation, then? Personally, I think the second scenario deserves a "mark" while the first wouldn't.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:18 pm
by jpcloet
After much debate, this was added under the rescue portion of the Handbook....

If the original organizer has not logged on for more than one week or has been busted/banned (1 month or longer), the new organizer does not need permission to rescue the tournament.


There was an argument that the original TO owned the right to the tournament. However, a number of us felt that by failing to meet the requirements of running one, they forfeited that right.


In this situation, I'd like to see B and HA become TO coaches so that all tournaments can run as well as theirs. Personally, I still agree there is a lack of innovation in tournaments, but that is something we have to do ourselves in creating our own tournaments.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:33 pm
by Night Strike
jpcloet wrote:After much debate, this was added under the rescue portion of the Handbook....

If the original organizer has not logged on for more than one week or has been busted/banned (1 month or longer), the new organizer does not need permission to rescue the tournament.


There was an argument that the original TO owned the right to the tournament. However, a number of us felt that by failing to meet the requirements of running one, they forfeited that right.


The original paradigm in the tournament forums (that OP started and later trained me on) is that once a tournament was created, that organizer had the "copyrights" on that tournament until it was finished. And no one could take over that tournament without express permission by the organizer. The Rescued Tournaments Policy was created, in part, to handle those tournaments where the organizer had just up and disappeared. The wording of the new policy represents a compromise in the original paradigm of how tournaments are viewed.

Re: Tournament Discussion - More Stringent Policy

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:00 pm
by barterer2002
Over the past year I've rescued around 7 tournaments give or take a couple. Every time I needed to have the original organizer PM a TD to allow it so none of them got marks to my knowledge.