DeluxeHazard wrote:Not to be mean but I don't really like the suggestion. This could discourage people and they may stop making tournaments. I wouldn't create anymore tournaments if there was a possibility of not even getting a medal.
that's right, if mid way through a tournament things happen and it gets neglected there is no incentive to finish it off as the players are likely to vote you were crap.
If the tournament is organized badly then the TO should not receive a medal, IDK why this is a problem for you two. Btw only 10 yearold can be mad if TO announces that he didn't sent out invites for 2 weeks because of RL problems, but not for a grown up man.
Night Strike wrote:Most tournaments are bracket tournaments where half the participants are eliminated in the first round. Especially depending on the size of the tournament (larger tournaments would take longer), why should half the participants be allowed to rate an entire tournament when they only participated in 1 round of it?
Everyone participant in a game can rate other players even he was eliminated before taking his very first turn(Example 8 player game, 8-th player eliminated from 7-th in Round 1 etc...). I see no problem in this, he participated.
Night Strike wrote:As for the tournament set-up criteria: if people don't like the way the tournament is set-up, why are they joining it in the first place? The only way this criterion would be valid is if the organizer made a mistake and had to change the set-up in the middle of the tournament, otherwise, if a player joined the tournament, then they agreed that the set-up is good enough to play.
The problem is not this... The problem is: Make one criteria for the Tournament and do something else in reality, or change the tournament criteria in the middle of it without need for such change.
My 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.
greenoaks wrote:if you haven't already guessed, i'm with NS on this. i don't believe we should change things because the OP has a problem with 1 TO.
greenoaks wrote:quality TO's already fill tournaments quickly, poor or new TO's struggle.
this suggestion will not add anything.
Since you are clearly against my proposal for unknown reason here a tricky question... How do you know if some TO makes quality tournaments, you bring that conclusion based on what?