barterer2002 makes his own response thread

Where dead threads are laid to rest - No new topics, no new posts allowed

Moderators: Tournament Directors, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

barterer2002 makes his own response thread

Postby barterer2002 on Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:38 am

Since I've learned from experience that most people can't be bothered to read before posting except for the first post I'm starting my own here to call out a few un-named fellow organizers and players

1). In my opinion, when a PM specifically says that it is not yet deemed for public consumption it is inappropriate to publish it in a public forum.

2). The guidelines for tournament creation don't really have a bearing on how effective any particular organizer is. There are organizers who will run effective tournaments, keep them moving and play things out and there are those who will not. The idea that "if someone can run an effective tournament they should be able to do whatever they want" is stupid and in general put forth by those who have no idea what they're talking about.

3). The majority of the tournaments that currently run will not be affected by any of the new guidelines. Those that will be affected are the ones that are in place for medal grabbing, whether it be an organizer who wants an easy medal, or more often, those who think it means something to win 2 games to get a Tournament medal. Playing 3 games to earn that medal is neither a hardship nor unreasonable.

4). When a mob is pushed forward with incendiary PMs that have little to do with the grasp of the situation it becomes not only difficult but wrongheaded to look at the opinions of that mob as "the will of the majority" and even if we were to assume that the opinions put forth by the mob were in fact the will of the majority, that does not make it either right or good policy.

5). Tournaments have always been intended to be an inclusive place within the CC community. The requirement has always been that at least 50% of the slots have to be open to the public. I have read many comments that say things objecting to the limit of 2000 points. Clearly some of the posters don't understand or didn't read the proposed rules as it clearly states that 2000+ limit tournaments are allowed. Just as clearly there has to be some line drawn. A tournament for 3500+ players would be open to 25-30 players at any one time. That's a bit silly and against the spirit of the tournament forum which is intended to be open for all. The 2000 point requirement allows players to play with higher ranks without cutting out the majority of the site.

6). Night Strike is bearing the brunt of the attack here buts lets be honest. Anyone who thinks that this is a unilateral decision made solely by a power hungry mod is an idiot. Quite clearly this was discussed in the TD forum and Night Strike, as the head TD is the one who sought out other opinions. He certainly doesn't need me to point this out as anyone with half a brain can read it in the PM that was posted.
(you will reply to me and I will post them in a thread in our Director forum,
.

7). There are many comments that say things along the lines of "Tournaments isn't broken so don't do anything" Again, I consider this to be the advice of fools who would tell you to not bother changing the oil since your car is running great. While the tournament section of CC is in general a great place and has shown terrific growth over the past year plus, there are some issues that have been raised that are valid concerns and should be addressed one way or the other. The January threads were quite contentious with many on both sides of the issue that couldn't be bothered to read the comments therein. Medals and medal scrounging has been an issue since they were introduced and as always I'm on the side of I don't care and I don't want to make rules in response to medals. There have been, however, many tournaments that really aren't worthy of the name tournament. Lets be honest here, allowing 4 quad teams to play in a single elimination bracket format is just silly. If you want to do something small like that go make a private thing.

8). There has been a question raised about who got NS's PM and the accusation was levied that he was only sending it to those who would support him. Lets be honest here, anyone who thinks that HA (and I'm sorry about naming names here but I don't know who all got the PM either besides HA and myself) was going to be supportive of NS is a fool. They have publicly butted heads on many issues and it is clear that including HA shows that it was not just to those who would support the new ideas and the suggestion that it was is foolish on its face. As for whether the idea of a focus group is wise we're certainly all aware that major companies will spend millions on them this year and sounding out a representative group of TOs in advance of making changes (rather than a public debate which generally seems to become a lot of spam from people who can't be bothered to read) is an effective thing to do.

9). From where I sit, none of the new guidelines is really onerous. Sometimes its a matter of codifying things that have always been there, other times its taking common courtesy and making it part of the rules and others its an attempt to stop cheapening tournament medals.

Thank you for actually taking the time to read this
-barterer2002
Image
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant barterer2002
 
Posts: 5971
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:51 am
Medals: 105
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (19) General Achievement (10) Clan Achievement (7) Tournament Contribution (33) General Contribution (2)

Re: barterer2002 makes his own response thread

Postby jpcloet on Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:49 am

I wanted to respond, so I'll do it in the well written thread.

1) Moving to the new standard may mean that it becomes more difficult for new TO's to run a tournament.

2) I think the new standard should be used for medal qualification only and would be a big improvement to the value of T-Medals. TO's should still be able to run the smaller tournaments, however, neither the TO nor the winner should receive a medal. If TO's and players are truly in tournaments for the fun, this should not be an issue. Medals should be awarded to tournaments with some significant substance to them.

3) Let's keep tournaments fun!
Image
User avatar
Captain jpcloet
 
Posts: 4421
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:18 am
Medals: 69
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (7) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (5) Tournament Contribution (8)
General Contribution (8)

Re: barterer2002 makes his own response thread

Postby Timminz on Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:05 am

jpcloet wrote:2) I think the new standard should be used for medal qualification only and would be a big improvement to the value of T-Medals. TO's should still be able to run the smaller tournaments, however, neither the TO nor the winner should receive a medal. If TO's and players are truly in tournaments for the fun, this should not be an issue. Medals should be awarded to tournaments with some significant substance to them.


I think that's a great idea. A sort of "Ranked", or "Un-ranked" tourney system.

Also, as usual, Bart's post was very well-thought out, and well-written. It's unfortunate that so many people fly into a blind rage so quickly, without fully reading (or more importantly, UNDERSTANDING) whatever it is they're fighting against.
jay_a2j wrote:lets not be so quick to judge Hitler
User avatar
Major Timminz
 
Posts: 5571
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store
Medals: 56
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (6) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: barterer2002 makes his own response thread

Postby Bones2484 on Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:41 am

jpcloet wrote:2) I think the new standard should be used for medal qualification only and would be a big improvement to the value of T-Medals. TO's should still be able to run the smaller tournaments, however, neither the TO nor the winner should receive a medal. If TO's and players are truly in tournaments for the fun, this should not be an issue. Medals should be awarded to tournaments with some significant substance to them.


That pretty much sums up the response I had already sent back to Mr Strike, and echoes the post I made yesterday in this thread.

And Bart, well written. You always seem to sum things up very well... hopefully it gets read this time.
User avatar
Major Bones2484
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA (G1)
Medals: 65
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (23) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (9) General Contribution (1)

Re: barterer2002 makes his own response thread

Postby keiths31 on Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:54 am

jpcloet wrote:
2) I think the new standard should be used for medal qualification only and would be a big improvement to the value of T-Medals. TO's should still be able to run the smaller tournaments, however, neither the TO nor the winner should receive a medal. If TO's and players are truly in tournaments for the fun, this should not be an issue. Medals should be awarded to tournaments with some significant substance to them.


This would be a true test to those that say they only play/run the small quick tournaments for fun. I doubt they would fill up as fast or even be made in the first place. Interesting idea...
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant keiths31
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario
Medals: 63
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (7)
Clan Achievement (8) Tournament Contribution (20)

Re: barterer2002 makes his own response thread

Postby safariguy5 on Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:41 pm

I agree. Although I find it interesting coming from the man who runs the Championship Series. For him to basically say that those tournaments come from pure fun lends credibility to his views.

=D>
Image
User avatar
Captain safariguy5
 
Posts: 1894
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: California
Medals: 69
Conquer Cup Silver Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3)
Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (3) General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (13) Tournament Contribution (6)
General Contribution (8)

Re: barterer2002 makes his own response thread

Postby HighlanderAttack on Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:10 pm

I understand everyone is not going to agree. That is what a democracy is about. I have my opinions and you have yours.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit.
User avatar
Lieutenant HighlanderAttack
 
Posts: 10746
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:01 am
Medals: 138
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (4)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (34) General Achievement (16) Clan Achievement (5)
Tournament Contribution (34) General Contribution (2)

Re: barterer2002 makes his own response thread

Postby jrh_cardinal on Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:49 am

jpcloet wrote:I wanted to respond, so I'll do it in the well written thread.

1) Moving to the new standard may mean that it becomes more difficult for new TO's to run a tournament.

2) I think the new standard should be used for medal qualification only and would be a big improvement to the value of T-Medals. TO's should still be able to run the smaller tournaments, however, neither the TO nor the winner should receive a medal. If TO's and players are truly in tournaments for the fun, this should not be an issue. Medals should be awarded to tournaments with some significant substance to them.

3) Let's keep tournaments fun!


I agree. I don't need a medal, and i don't really think any of the TO's that do tons of these small tourneys do either. The tournament forum is there for both organizers and players who want to play in a structured, multi-game format against good competition. There will always be some tournaments bigger than others (look at the ongoing NCAA one with over 200 players), NS can't make the minimum that much. If NS or anyone else thinks it is important enough to change the rules because of medals, so be it, just don't take away our fun, because that is what we paid for.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jrh_cardinal
 
Posts: 2715
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:15 pm
Medals: 74
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (7)
General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (30) General Contribution (2)

Re: barterer2002 makes his own response thread

Postby Teflon Kris on Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:48 am

The first post is a good overview of the situation.

However, lets not make speed tournaments too hard eh!

They are more fun.

Will these threads be moving?
Image
User avatar
Captain Teflon Kris
 
Posts: 3779
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:39 pm
Location: Lancashire, United Kingdom
Medals: 175
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (4)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (30)
General Achievement (15) Clan Achievement (20) Challenge Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (32) General Contribution (8)

Re: barterer2002 makes his own response thread

Postby iamkoolerthanu on Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:17 am

I only have one thing to say really, about this entire situation. (I am putting it in both threads so that everyone will read it)

The players do not run this site. I never read anywhere that this site was a democracy. The admins and mods have the right to be able to change anything they want on this site, they are the ones who spend so much of their time doing everything they can to make the site better for the players, and as soon as they try and do one thing that people arent huge fans of, everyone starts to accuse them without even giving the new way of doing things a try, and without even remembering all the amazing things that the people that run this site has done in the past.

The mods and admin on this site are constantly dedicating their time to make CC what it is, the best gaming site I've seen on the Internet, EVER. They are constantly taking time out of their lives to make improvements, and in all reality, they don't even have to ask the players if they agree with these changes. But they do. They wanted to hear opinions to see if the changes they were planning on making were good ones. And instead, they get people saying that they are not worthy of their jobs, and that they are power hungry maniacs? Would a 'power hungry maniac' ask the people before making a change?

Well, that's basically everything that was on my mind after skimming through the 11 pages in the other thread, and reading these posts... It's not right when people crucify someone for one thing that they don't agree with, without even taking into account all the good things that person has done in the past...
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class iamkoolerthanu
 
Posts: 4209
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:56 pm
Location: looking at my highest score: 2715, #170
Medals: 100
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (8) General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (8) Tournament Contribution (31)
General Contribution (1)


Return to Tournament Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login