Time to Lock this thread

[Night Strike]

Alright, here's my first reply to this thread:

The 4 issues that HA has with me have all been replied to via PM, and I will not discuss them in this thread. As I said in PM, if any of you have a problem with me as a Tournament Director, PM Optimus Prime. This thread needs to be used as a critique of the proposed changes (that were NOT supposed to be posted publicly) and not as an attack on me. To be honest, the opinions sent to me via PM in my feedback request are the ones that are the most important to me because they are the ones I requested originally. I'll follow this thread, but I don't plan to debate every single point within the thread (nor should I be expected to).

To those of you who felt you were slighted by being left off the list, I'm sorry. I received a list of members from Lindax and Fuzzy as well as added some after going through the privilege menu. I sent the PM to 17 members as well as the other Directors and OP. I don't have the time to sift through every single PM if every single organizer was included in the list, and we can all see what has happened when things like this are posted in public: a lot of personal attacks with little debate on the issue. I requested each recipient to send me one reply in order to minimize Inbox space as well as make sure they organized their thoughts in a cohesive manner just as I had to do when sending out the PM. The message was designed for feedback, not for debate.

There are only a few things I'm going to mention right now regarding the proposed rules, and they revolve around existing rules.

At least 50% of the spots available must be for open/public sign-ups and not filled with special invitations.

This was taken verbatim from the current rules.

If you wish to run a tournament based upon an actual sports league or another well-designed format, and it requires you to have less than the minimum amount of participants or games, please contact the Create/Join Director to discuss a possible exemption.

This was slightly reworded from the current version, but is the same in principle.

The Tournament Directors reserve the right to deny privileges for your tournament if the tournament is deemed to break site rules or has an unfair structure.

This has been done for some time by the Directors in cases where it was deemed a few participants had an unfair advantage/disadvantage to winning. This is a codification of a) common sense and b) what is already being done.

NO tournament may have a point restriction greater than 2000 points per player (or average of 2000 points per player in team tournaments)

This is being done partially already. Currently 2000+ point tournaments as well as some 2500+ point tournaments have been run, but we do not allow 3000+ point tournaments. There can be some debate around point levels for team tournaments, but the 2000 level was picked based on a survey of tournaments I did as well as some number crunching off the scoreboard.

[HighlanderAttack]

In response to Kinnison

Those are just my views and you have responded to this with your views. I just don't feel they should be restricted.

I understand different formats--I have done many. I just listed some examples on what would not be able to be accomplished.

These are for fun and competition and restricting them takes away from the fun and competition.

Of course winning a bigger tourney would probably mean more than winning a small tourney. Some of my tournaments that I have won do have more meaning, but the small ones also have had meaning and are just as exciting to win.

I know everyone has their own opinion. I am about not restricting tourneys. If you want to restrict things, maybe don't give out medals for anything under a certain amount of players. I don't see any reason for restricting small tourneys except that is causes more work for the tourney directors. If there are other reasons I really don't see them.

[Blitzaholic]

So I am tired of Night Strike and his dictatorship. Over the past year I have had four issues with Night Strike.

1. My medals being stripped for running AACM tourneys which although different in format were deemed the same format due to name only-after a few back and forth pm's I was eventually ignored and nothing happened.

2. Then the thread by Bones(Night Strikes Buddy) about there being too many tourneys to choose from. Instead of supporting tourneys he is about tourneys being his way or no way.

3. Then after being told I could not run speed tourneys the way I wanted to, and responding with my reasoning, I was never given a response.

4. And now with this pm I received. Basically eliminating at least 5 different styles of the tourneys I run. On top of that this was not sent to all tourney organizers. I don't know who it was sent to but I do know it was not sent to at least one tourney organizer who has run numerous tourneys.


I am basically putting this out there so everyone knows Night Strike is a dictator that is going to do things his way and if you don't like it oh well. Well I don't like it and I am over it and I am making my opinion known to everyone.

I have tried to make tourneys a fun thing over the past year. I have started over 130 tourneys and completed over 100. That I know if most everyone has enjoyed them. I do this with my time and get my own person reward for running tourneys out of it and nothing more. I didn't even know you received medals for running tourneys in the beginning. I just feel Night Strike is against tourney formats that don't fit his own personal criteria. I feel like no matter what response I give to him personally will have no effect anyway so I did not waste my time responding to him personally. I will pm this to the players that have been in my tourneys in the past. That is about it. Good Luck to all. I do not know what my future holds for CC, but it is time I make a stand against someone who I believe is bad for CC tourneys.

Hello organizers and players,

I'm sending this PM to each of you to gather feedback on a soon-to-be-released tournament forum announcement. Our current minimum tournament requirements have been in place for 2 years now, so in order to catch up to the many changes on CC and specifically in the tournament area, we Directors have written a new set of requirements for all new tournaments. Because of the scope of changes in the requirements, we've decided to allow a select group of tournament contributors to review the new rules before they go live. Most of the ideas incorporated in these requirements were developed from things that have been mentioned from time to time over the past year, including from the contentious threads in General Info this January. They are meant to strike a balance between the ease of organizing tournaments as well as the equity among every tournament in regards to medals. They are not meant to target any individual organizer, so I hope no one feels that way, but rather they are meant to improve everyone's experiences in our tournament forums.

Each of you have the opportunity to provide me and the other Directors with feedback regarding these changes (you will reply to me and I will post them in a thread in our Director forum, anonymously if you specify that desire). You may voice your support, rejection, critique, clarification, or other requirements you think need to be included. It's up to you on how you respond to this feedback request, but there are two things that I ask of you:

1. These requirements are private until they are announced by me to the whole forum.
2. You only get to send me ONE reply to this PM.

This second rule is to keep my inbox from overflowing (it'll already get full if everyone replies) as well as to make sure you take the time to ponder the new requirements to formulate a well-reasoned and objective response. I may reply directly to some of your comments/concerns, but this is designed more as a feedback opportunity rather than a dialogue. Your input is very much appreciated, so I hope you can come up with some beneficial suggestions.

All responses are due by Friday at 2:00 PM EST (7:00 PM GMT) to guarantee consideration.

So without further ado, here are the proposed requirements (the current requirements are in the Tournament Handbook: How to Host a Tournament if you are unfamiliar with them):
Updated Proposal

• 1v1 bracket tournaments must have at least 32 players OR can have 16 players with at least best of 3 games every round
• Singles (3-8 player games) tournaments must have 16 players
• Doubles tournaments must have 16 teams (32 players)
• Triples & Quads tournaments must have 8 teams (24 or 32 players)
• NO tournament may have a point restriction greater than 2000 points per player (or average of 2000 points per player in team tournaments)
• The tournament structure must cause the eventual winner to play 3 games (ex. 4 games with 4 players and then the 4 winners playing a final game would not be allowed)
• At least 50% of the spots available must be for open/public sign-ups and not filled with special invitations.
• Each organizer can have only 3 tournaments recruiting players at once, and only 2 of those can be 32 players or less (has NO effect on ongoing tournaments or reserves threads)
• The Tournament Directors reserve the right to deny privileges for your tournament if the tournament is deemed to break site rules or has an unfair structure.
• If you wish to run a tournament based upon an actual sports league or another well-designed format, and it requires you to have less than the minimum amount of participants or games, please contact the Create/Join Director to discuss a possible exemption.

Thanks again for your feedback. Also, this isn't the only tournament update coming down the pipe in the near future: all the others are non-controversial, so you all can still be looking forward to that.

~Night Strike
Head Tournament Director

Wow guys! I know when I started to 1st create tourney's I was a noob at them and took some heat for making too many at once and having high ranks 1 vs 1 tourneys, I figured I could make what I want as long as I followed the rules, but, some did not like it. I decided to take the high road and told them I would stop doing this out of the respect for the veteran organizers. Right or wrong, I do not know, but, I just choose to see it from their perspective and they had a valid point, although, I do think they could of handled it more appropriately, we have to be careful of this, I mean some just drove off b00060 not too long ago, not cool.

This is what I will say, I can see both sides, the Forums getting cluttered and people paying for the service allows some freedom, however, perhaps we come to a happy medium. If this quote: All responses are due by Friday at 2:00 PM EST (7:00 PM GMT) to guarantee consideration. is referring to tomorrow (3-5-10?), then, these rules should not be put forth until tomorrow and cast a vote and let CC'ers and or the public decide, maybe the poll could last a week, if the poll suggests to add these changes, then implement them, if not, then leave them alone. Finally, if the poll or votes favor NS's goal or vision, then any current tournament active and or recently completed should be "grandfathered in", it is NOT fair to add new rules without given a set date, and a thorough discussion, then any tournament created after the date set forth would fall under these conditions as Night Strike (NS) stated above. If HA or any other tournament organizer has had medals stripped or tourney's taken away before a finalized set date has occurred of NEW rules, then, you need to give that player the credit of what work they did, little or not, why? because , they followed the CC rules as they were at the time. It sounds like now, some may want a change, if so, cast a poll, vote and if the % suggests change, then all need to accept the change or be in the process of it.

Respectfully, Blitz

[saaimen]

Just run them without privileges then. If these rules are to be applied, that is.

[cowboyz]

NO tournament may have a point restriction greater than 2000 points per player (or average of 2000 points per player in team tournaments)

Really??, extremely anti-straight.

[Night Strike]

NO tournament may have a point restriction greater than 2000 points per player (or average of 2000 points per player in team tournaments)

Really??, extremely anti-straight.

Apparently that requirement is not clear enough. Tournaments that only allow 2000+ point players (Majors and above) WILL be allowed. Tournaments that require 2001 or more minimum points would NOT be allowed.

EDIT: The new wording for that rule will read: "The maximum point restriction allowed on a tournament is 2000+ points per player or team average."

[tdans]

NO tournament may have a point restriction greater than 2000 points per player (or average of 2000 points per player in team tournaments)

Really??, extremely anti-straight.

Apparently that requirement is not clear enough. Tournaments that only allow 2000+ point players (Majors and above) WILL be allowed. Tournaments that require 2001 or more minimum points would NOT be allowed.

EDIT: The new wording for that rule will read: "The maximum point restriction allowed on a tournament is 2000+ points per player or team average."

lol retardedly retarded..lol this is retarded.. this whole entire thing..why do yall keep cahnging stuff for the worse?? it doesnt make sense.. buggerbutts.,.

[JoshyBoy]

NO tournament may have a point restriction greater than 2000 points per player (or average of 2000 points per player in team tournaments)

Really??, extremely anti-straight.

Apparently that requirement is not clear enough. Tournaments that only allow 2000+ point players (Majors and above) WILL be allowed. Tournaments that require 2001 or more minimum points would NOT be allowed.

EDIT: The new wording for that rule will read: "The maximum point restriction allowed on a tournament is 2000+ points per player or team average."

that is retarded..

I agree.

[Night Strike]

Saying something is retarded is NOT an argument against it. What is bad about the 2000 point level? People still get their high-rank-only tournaments, but it keeps the point level from being too restrictive to other players. If you take a look through past tournaments, most of the tournaments run with a point restriction had that level at 2000.

[JoshyBoy]

Saying something is retarded is NOT an argument against it. What is bad about the 2000 point level? People still get their high-rank-only tournaments, but it keeps the point level from being too restrictive to other players. If you take a look through past tournaments, most of the tournaments run with a point restriction had that level at 2000.

I am not arguing against it, the whole thing just seems a bit retarded...

*edit* maybe tdans was meaning something different *edit*

[amazzony]

I am not arguing against it, the whole thing just seems a bit retarded...

If you are saying that something is retarded then it's quite a clear statement that you are against it AKA don't agree with it AKA you are arguing against it. So, if you are against something then bring out reasons why you are against it. If you don't have a reason then there's no point adding your retarded comments as they don't have any meaning to the actual discussion and are just waste of space That goes for a lot of comments in this topic, including the one that I'm writing right now

[jrh_cardinal]

<NS EDIT to make the edit color legible.>

Wow, I have to agree with HA on this almost completely. I'll admit that I am just now running my first couple tourneys, so I understand that I don't have authority or a spot in the upper circle like HA and b00060 should, but I still think I, along with everyone else who likes playing in or running tourneys, should get to register an opinion before the entire tournament forum is restructured. I like the idea of a poll for this.

Personally, the only big concern I have with the new rules are the restriction on the amount of tournaments one person can be running. I agree that many amateur tournament makers can get into problems when they try to take on too much at once, and end up abandoning a bunch of tournaments, and that is a problem which should be addressed. However, HA is right, his small tourneys fill up extremely quickly, and a lot of people like to play in them. Once an organizer has run a few tournaments, and understands the work load required for each one, he should have the right to make tourneys as he wishes. If you (Night Strike and Bones) want to be able to see only the tournaments that interest you, EDIT THE FORMAT OF THE CREATE/JOIN PAGE SLIGHTLY. ALL YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IS MAKE IT SO THE TOURNAMENTS CAN BE SORTED BY OTHER THINGS, LIKE TIME OF THE FIRST POST OR TOTAL PLAYERS WANTED FOR THE TOURNEY, NOT JUST BY THE LAST POST. If you sorted them this way, then you would only need to look at the most recently made tournaments every time you logged on, which would be a lot faster.

Again, I am not saying that I should get to pick how the tourney forum is run, or HA either. I just agree with HA that the forum should NOT be run to restrict tournaments other people like, while not really effecting the tournaments you personally like. I personally like all types of tournaments, and think the creation of them should not be restricted as long as the tournament organizer knows what he is doing. Each tournament HA or anyone else runs requires hours of their time, while looking through the forum, which seems to be your main concern, only takes a few minutes.

Basically, I'm just asking that you give the players (WHO PAY FOR THE WEBSITE) the chance to share their opinion before you go completely changing things just because that's the way you and your pal like 'em.

[jrh_cardinal]

also, if you have to specifically say they aren't directed toward anybody in particular, they probably are mostly directed towards 2 or 3 at the most.

[Tripitaka]

Personally, the only big concern I have with the new rules are the restriction on the amount of tournaments one person can be running.

Did you actually read the proposals Night Strike submitted, or are you just another person on HA's pm list that came here and decided to throw in their 2 cents worth without even bothering to read what it is they are commenting on? Because if you did you will have seen that there are no plans to restrict the number of tournaments a person can run at once, only the number they can have in SIGN UPS at any one time.

I thought this was covered to death back in the January thread...apparently not.

[jrh_cardinal]

Personally, the only big concern I have with the new rules are the restriction on the amount of tournaments one person can be running.

Did you actually read the proposals Night Strike submitted, or are you just another person on HA's pm list that came here and decided to throw in their 2 cents worth without even bothering to read what it is they are commenting on? Because if you did you will have seen that there are no plans to restrict the number of tournaments a person can run at once, only the number they can have in SIGN UPS at any one time.

I thought this was covered to death back in the January thread...apparently not.

Its the same thing. Restricting the number of tournaments someone can start will lower the number they have going, obviously.

[Night Strike]

Basically, I'm just asking that you give the players (WHO PAY FOR THE WEBSITE) the chance to share their opinion before you go completely changing things just because that's the way you and your pal like 'em.

I DID ask for players to give their input. Just because ALL players weren't asked doesn't mean they a) must be or b) should be. If every person on the site was allowed to give their input on anything proposed, things would get done even slower than they already are, if at all. I bet you and other people don't clamor for input on every change made at other businesses, so why at this business? Myself and the other Tournament Directors are just unpaid managers, and we feel that there are improvements that can be made to the forum. So we are doing what we can do make those improvements. Keep in mind that there was a statement at the very end of that (unethically) posted PM that states there are several great tournament updates being planned and that this was the only controversial one (hence the request for limited feedback).

[lostatlimbo]

Far too much drama here for my tastes, but I have one small suggestion:

Rather than limiting the amount of tournaments a director can create, why not have a sub-level under the Open Tournaments forum for 'branded'/re-occuring tournaments.

That way new TOs can get the exposure to fill their tourneys (something I've had trouble with), but committed TO's who want to run dozens of tourneys can do their thing in their own space?

On a side note - I also think the 30 day limit is a little restrictive. You want to limit tourneys to help new TOs get exposure, but I think the first step is just giving them a little more time. If I'm going to start a tournament, I'd like it to be something a little different - something which may take some more time to find the right audience. I get the point of clearing out tournaments who have no real audience or concept, but I just think there needs to be exceptions.

That's my $.02

[Tripitaka]

Personally, the only big concern I have with the new rules are the restriction on the amount of tournaments one person can be running.

Did you actually read the proposals Night Strike submitted, or are you just another person on HA's pm list that came here and decided to throw in their 2 cents worth without even bothering to read what it is they are commenting on? Because if you did you will have seen that there are no plans to restrict the number of tournaments a person can run at once, only the number they can have in SIGN UPS at any one time.

I thought this was covered to death back in the January thread...apparently not.

Its the same thing. Restricting the number of tournaments someone can start will lower the number they have going, obviously.

How is it the same thing? Since you used HA as an example, let's continue with that. You stated that his small tourneys fill up "extremely quickly" did you not? Then what difference is making them three at a time going to make. Once they fill, he makes another 3, then another, etc. The end result will still be the same. He can still run however many tournaments he wants to at once.

[jrh_cardinal]

Personally, the only big concern I have with the new rules are the restriction on the amount of tournaments one person can be running.

Did you actually read the proposals Night Strike submitted, or are you just another person on HA's pm list that came here and decided to throw in their 2 cents worth without even bothering to read what it is they are commenting on? Because if you did you will have seen that there are no plans to restrict the number of tournaments a person can run at once, only the number they can have in SIGN UPS at any one time.

I thought this was covered to death back in the January thread...apparently not.

Its the same thing. Restricting the number of tournaments someone can start will lower the number they have going, obviously.

How is it the same thing? Since you used HA as an example, let's continue with that. You stated that his small tourneys fill up "extremely quickly" did you not? Then what difference is making them three at a time going to make. Once they fill, he makes another 3, then another, etc. The end result will still be the same. He can still run however many tournaments he wants to at once.

true, but as HA pointed out, it's a lot quicker and easier for him to do them in large batches, he already puts in a ton of time for his tournaments, and to run that many tournaments on an inefficient schedule is crazy.

Far too much drama here for my tastes, but I have one small suggestion:

Rather than limiting the amount of tournaments a director can create, why not have a sub-level under the Open Tournaments forum for 'branded'/re-occuring tournaments.

That way new TOs can get the exposure to fill their tourneys (something I've had trouble with), but committed TO's who want to run dozens of tourneys can do their thing in their own space?

The idea of a subforum for people who want to run a lot of tourneys could definitely work.
The problem with that is the tourneys would be split up and even people like NS and you (Tripitaka) would have to look at both also unless the subforums were for seperate types of tournaments. Even if you just broke off the 16 and 32 player 1v1 bracket style tournaments into a seperate subforum it would clear up a lot of space in the main create/join forum.

[jrh_cardinal]

and I'm not on HA's PM list, I just saw this thread in the forum

[HighlanderAttack]

You might as well lock this thread. This will accomplish nothing because the powers to be will do what they want to do in the end and even though there is a varying opinion on how and what types of tourneys should be run it will be done the way they want it done.

This is my last statement and I am done. I have went down rule by rule and given my opinion.

I have spent hundreds of hours creating and running tourneys to the delight of many CC players.

I have not seen a good enough reason for them to not allow specific "what they call small tourneys" except that there are too many, they take up space and they don't deserve a medal.

I am officially taking a three week break from running tourneys. I will see what the site ends up doing and make a decision on what I will do after that. I do not see myself wasting time running tournaments when there is going to be so many stipulations on what some people feel a legitimate tourney should consist of.

[scottp]

while some of the restrictions are reasonable, they're pretty much meaningless because they change almost nothing...

3 wins minimum... haven't seen fewer
2000 points as top qualifier... haven't seen higher and WHY NOT an occasional one for the "elites"? I wouldn't be offended!

bottom line, none of these will not enhance my experience here, in the slightest.


1) What was the PROBLEM that needed to be solved?
2) How do these RESTRICTIONS ON VOLUNTEER TOURNEY ORGANIZERS fix those problems?!

This seems like a (night?) strike against a few TO's that do the most (volunteer, unpaid) work ON BEHALF of this money-making enterprise.

The only new rule that will have any effect whatsoever is the 3-recruiting-at-a-time rule and that will ONLY affect HA and a few others.

Yes, HA broke a "trust of confidence" by posting this but I think the clear intent of the generator of the rules was to target him and very few others.

The divulger of the Pentagon Papers is a hero to some, this is just another uncovering of back-room jury-rigging if you ask me...

I am against the 3-per-TO rule. Don't care about the others.

HA runs better tourneys than many others, regardless of HOW MANY. Regulate the poor TOs first, then the "too prolific" ones later.

This type of site management makes me begin to re-think my choice to pay for premium. Are the business leaders listening?!

[jpcloet]

but I think the clear intent of the generator of the rules was to target him and very few others.

You think incorrectly I think. I can say that winning a tournament means a lot less now than it did a few years ago. That's my feeling.

[Incandenza]

but I think the clear intent of the generator of the rules was to target him and very few others.

You think incorrectly I think. I can say that winning a tournament means a lot less now than it did a few years ago. That's my feeling.

If it indeed does mean less, it's because there are many many more tourneys now than then, thanks mostly to the TOs. Speaking as someone who only occasionally plays tourneys and has yet to organize one, a lot of these proposed restrictions seem more tailored to the needs and viewpoints of TDs than to the needs of players. Just because someone in authority doesn't like the idea of a 16-player quads tourney with only two rounds, doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be held. Making CC tourneys more exclusive instead of more inclusive is such a bad idea that I can't even believe it's being considered. If I want to organize or play in a very short tourney, or in one with a 2500 or 2750 or even 3000 point barrier, why shouldn't I? Why would that be such a threat?

And to compare running tourneys to running clan challenges, as some people have during the thread, is somewhat disingenuous because they're really two different things.

Of course, if Team CC would consent to giving certain people limited game creation and naming privileges, which has been asked for repeatedly over the years without so much of a hint that management is even listening, then people could quickly and easily organize little pick-up tourneys, leaving medals to be awarded for longer and more intense tourneys. But of course that will never ever happen, thanks to the party line: "Someone might abuse it!"

[jrh_cardinal]

but I think the clear intent of the generator of the rules was to target him and very few others.

You think incorrectly I think. I can say that winning a tournament means a lot less now than it did a few years ago. That's my feeling.

If it indeed does mean less, it's because there are many many more tourneys now than then, thanks mostly to the TOs. Speaking as someone who only occasionally plays tourneys and has yet to organize one, a lot of these proposed restrictions seem more tailored to the needs and viewpoints of TDs than to the needs of players. Just because someone in authority doesn't like the idea of a 16-player quads tourney with only two rounds, doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be held. Making CC tourneys more exclusive instead of more inclusive is such a bad idea that I can't even believe it's being considered. If I want to organize or play in a very short tourney, or in one with a 2500 or 2750 or even 3000 point barrier, why shouldn't I? Why would that be such a threat?

And to compare running tourneys to running clan challenges, as some people have during the thread, is somewhat disingenuous because they're really two different things.

Of course, if Team CC would consent to giving certain people limited game creation and naming privileges, which has been asked for repeatedly over the years without so much of a hint that management is even listening, then people could quickly and easily organize little pick-up tourneys, leaving medals to be awarded for longer and more intense tourneys. But of course that will never ever happen, thanks to the party line: "Someone might abuse it!"

THANK YOU
this guy is a genius!
Of course I am grateful for the hours put in by NS and the other directors, but in the end this site is about having fun playing risk. These new rules don't effect the directors in terms of their director jobs, just their personal preferences as players, and many people seem to be on both sides here (for/against directors and changes). Therefore, I think the rules should stay as they are. All these rules are doing are restricting the people who like the type of tournaments they are banning. This hardly effects the other players, because they can simply continue to scroll down the forum whenever they see a tournament with 16 players, forgive me if this is a great hassle to you, because I have no problem scrolling down through tournaments I don't like the looks of.