Time to Lock this thread

[nudge]

On another note though and nothing personal is meant here by the way, but how come Night Striker is a Tourny Mod anyway????? He has never been the author of a tournament. This seems a bit strange but I may be missing something somewhere !!!!

Had you taken a few seconds to research this you would have found out he has hosted tournaments on CC since 2007...

My apologies Keith but I did say nothing personal intended and I may be missing something. But when I checked the completed tournament link earlier I must have missed the 8 he has made.

[Optimus Prime]

1) Good job on obliterating our trust in you, HA.
2) Yes, Dako and ZZ, it is a mimimum. You can run with more than XX players.
3) None of these things were set in stone in the first place, as pretty much stated in the PM so there's no reason to be bitching about it now but talking civilized about what you like and don't like.
4) Moved to the proper forum.

I don't feel this was wrong to do because the last two issues I brought in private to Night Strike were swept under the rug. In my opinion whatever I have to say about the rules would mean nothing especially since they were supposed to be sent back to him only.

Wrong. You are completely unaware of the long, and quite detailed discussion taking place in the Tournament Director forum about the pros and cons of making adjustments to the current set of tournament requirements. No official decision has been made in either direction regarding the change. The feedback was requested to be sent directly to Night Strike so that he could compile the information and post it accordingly for the Tournament Directors to discuss at my personal request as Operations Manager. You think far too highly of your supposed dispute with Night Strike.

He stated one pm back to him only--ridiculous.

Not ridiculous. Do you have any idea how many private messages he receives on a daily basis? I can promise you it is far more than you do and with the limits on how many can be in inboxes at a time he was simply ensuring that the feedback messages did not get lost in the pile he already has. It was an entirely appropriate request.

He should have sent this to all tourney organizers.

Wrong. To do so would have led to a completely unmanageable amount of information for the Tournament Directors and myself to sift through in order to make an proper and timely decision on the matter. Night Strike picked out 15-20 of the tournament organizers who he felt could best provide feedback from all angles regarding the issue at hand. Once again, he did so at my personal request and you should consider yourself proud of the fact that he chose to include you in the process despite the previous disagreements between the two of you.

This is just a way to dictate how Night Strike wants things. He has even told me he is against small tourneys.

Wrong. Night Strike may have a personal opinion that he feels small tournaments are not as exciting, elaborate, or entertaining as others, but he knows quite well that the small tournament is a vibrant part of the tournament organizing community. I should know, I started the small tournament revolution far before you even thought about organizing tournaments and I have had many long, in-depth, and detailed discussions with him on the matter since I first became a Tournament Director over two years ago and up until now as an admin.

------

I have been blunt because that is the mood I'm in at the moment. You are not being targeted, you are not being discriminated against. The request for feedback and the idea to even discuss the possibility of making changes to tournament requirements was done at my request and Night Strike is simply following up on that request. For you to abuse the trust he placed in you by sending you a request to provide feedback shows your immaturity regarding the matter and a distinct lack of respect.

Take a little while to calm down before you continue throwing around accusations and assumptions that are completely off base and perhaps we can still salvage the situation and work towards finding a solution that will be workable and tolerable for everyone involved.

[AndrewB]

Lol, sure, lets make the tournaments more difficult to organize!


Ridiculous...

[leolou2]

I think you all need to grow up this site has went downhill so bad that my Premium will not be renewed and all the people I got to join are doing the same . This was fun for awhile but has lost it . So way to go all you smart people ruin a good thing

[HighlanderAttack]

1) Good job on obliterating our trust in you, HA.
2) Yes, Dako and ZZ, it is a mimimum. You can run with more than XX players.
3) None of these things were set in stone in the first place, as pretty much stated in the PM so there's no reason to be bitching about it now but talking civilized about what you like and don't like.
4) Moved to the proper forum.

I don't feel this was wrong to do because the last two issues I brought in private to Night Strike were swept under the rug. In my opinion whatever I have to say about the rules would mean nothing especially since they were supposed to be sent back to him only.

Wrong. You are completely unaware of the long, and quite detailed discussion taking place in the Tournament Director forum about the pros and cons of making adjustments to the current set of tournament requirements. No official decision has been made in either direction regarding the change. The feedback was requested to be sent directly to Night Strike so that he could compile the information and post it accordingly for the Tournament Directors to discuss at my personal request as Operations Manager. You think far too highly of your supposed dispute with Night Strike.

He stated one pm back to him only--ridiculous.

Not ridiculous. Do you have any idea how many private messages he receives on a daily basis? I can promise you it is far more than you do and with the limits on how many can be in inboxes at a time he was simply ensuring that the feedback messages did not get lost in the pile he already has. It was an entirely appropriate request.

He should have sent this to all tourney organizers.

Wrong. To do so would have led to a completely unmanageable amount of information for the Tournament Directors and myself to sift through in order to make an proper and timely decision on the matter. Night Strike picked out 15-20 of the tournament organizers who he felt could best provide feedback from all angles regarding the issue at hand. Once again, he did so at my personal request and you should consider yourself proud of the fact that he chose to include you in the process despite the previous disagreements between the two of you.

This is just a way to dictate how Night Strike wants things. He has even told me he is against small tourneys.

Wrong. Night Strike may have a personal opinion that he feels small tournaments are not as exciting, elaborate, or entertaining as others, but he knows quite well that the small tournament is a vibrant part of the tournament organizing community. I should know, I started the small tournament revolution far before you even thought about organizing tournaments and I have had many long, in-depth, and detailed discussions with him on the matter since I first became a Tournament Director over two years ago and up until now as an admin.

------

I have been blunt because that is the mood I'm in at the moment. You are not being targeted, you are not being discriminated against. The request for feedback and the idea to even discuss the possibility of making changes to tournament requirements was done at my request and Night Strike is simply following up on that request. For you to abuse the trust he placed in you by sending you a request to provide feedback shows your immaturity regarding the matter and a distinct lack of respect.

Take a little while to calm down before you continue throwing around accusations and assumptions that are completely off base and perhaps we can still salvage the situation and work towards finding a solution that will be workable and tolerable for everyone involved.

If I felt my response to Night Strike would have accomplished anything like in the past(nothing) I would have responded to him. I don't trust him and I don't think he is a good mod. This is why I brought this public. If people just sit back and do nothing then the supposed leaders just get things their way. Night Strike has ignored me twice by not getting back to me and I expected the same thing here so why waste my time going to him?

[jpcloet]

C. Running private tourneys is impossible because I cannot set the games up-you need privileges to do this.

Not impossible, and not necessarily hard to do if you are a good TO. Having game creation rights makes it easier to facilitate.

1. Clan League Season 1 - 1350 games and I created next to none of the games.
2. Conqueror's Cup - Lots of games and no game creation rights
3. Countless clan wars - again without game creation rights.
4. I've run almost 50 tournaments on this site, check my medal count, you should see 4 medals.

[Optimus Prime]

If I felt my response to Night Strike would have accomplished anything like in the past(nothing) I would have responded to him. I don't trust him and I don't think he is a good mod. This is why I brought this public. If people just sit back and do nothing then the supposed leaders just get things their way. Night Strike has ignored me twice by not getting back to me and I expected the same thing here so why waste my time going to him?

Regardless of your personal feelings regarding him it is quite clear that he was extending a hand to you by including you in the process of getting feedback about the situation. The private message made it clear that he was requesting feedback from several tournament organizers, so it follows common sense that the feedback was going to be used in a worthwhile manner.

If you are unable to get past your pride and ego then that is your own personal problem. The one at fault here is you for posting something that was supposed to remain a private discussion into the public view with no viable reason for doing so, not on Night Strike for disagreeing with you in the past.

You might not think he is a good moderator, but there are plenty of individuals who do, just like there are plenty of individuals who feel both ways regarding every other moderator and admin on this website. Your own personal offense and anger is prohibiting you from seeing that he was trying to get your help on something that he knows first hand you are quite passionate about.

If you choose to ignore the facts regarding the situation that is your prerogative, but you need to understand that you crossed a line in posting that message to the public and the chances that you will be included in the future to help shape changes and things have gone down significantly. That's unfortunate because despite your tendency to get upset a little too quickly at change you do have some very good ideas that I've seen.

[reptile]

Well, for 1 I believe HA has improved CC by making tournaments more fun and more interesting. I have only played in a few of the shorter 1v1 tournaments at best (i really dont care all that much about medal's and have never even once intentionally gone after X medal). I think that everything HA has done for CC should be put into consideration .... yah he gets medals, but seriously...

On the other hand i dont think that private pm's should ever make it to the public forums... except in extreme cases. If it is true that NS just ignores all pms from HA and HA feels he is being targeted by NS then it should have first gone up in a pm to the next higher person (OP i believe). Then if that doesn't work i dont see why not try the next step ... which may be post publicly. (though still not right).

Either way, i hate to see this dispute. I think we have some great mods and admins and i also think that losing HA from CC would be a mistake (also made by pride), maybe not on a huge scale as there are other tourney organizers out there... but what CC does with this dispute will say a lot about CC and its appreciation for its unpaid dedicated members that put so much time into the web site.

In all honesty, the rule changes dont seem like that big of a deal. I am more so involved because i want to see what is done about this situation. A dedicated CC player voicing their oppinion against a mod (or is it admin...idk).

[keiths31]

On another note though and nothing personal is meant here by the way, but how come Night Striker is a Tourny Mod anyway????? He has never been the author of a tournament. This seems a bit strange but I may be missing something somewhere !!!!

Had you taken a few seconds to research this you would have found out he has hosted tournaments on CC since 2007...

My apologies Keith but I did say nothing personal intended and I may be missing something. But when I checked the completed tournament link earlier I must have missed the 8 he has made.

Apology accepted

[Artic patrol]

I like his tournamnets! And he does not do it for medals.

[sportsgod24]

I would still let the smaller tourneys run, just don't award medals for them. If you do that the number ran will go down, but no body will be able to bitch about not being able to run their tournaments. I like the bigger, more creative touraments better anyway and will continue to play in those the most.

Edit: That is what they do on yahoo fantasy sports. You can run 4-8 team leagues but you don't get a trophy for winning.

[BenKenobie]

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


This proposed new rule should be abandoned. Let's not restrict the rights of tourney organizers too much, now. Keep liberty alive on CC!

[HighlanderAttack]

Hello organizers and players,

• 1v1 bracket tournaments must have at least 32 players OR can have 16 players with at least best of 3 games every round
  
  To me all this rule does is prevent freemiums from being invited to tourneys. Make is one or another-16 player bracket or 32 player bracket. What does it matter if it is 1 game, best of 3, or best of whatever? You still have to win 4 or 5 times depending if it is one game or best of and depending on bracket size.
  
  This rule would also prevent me from finishing my Don't Blink series which was meant to focus on quick hitting, manual style, freemiums allowed, and all maps used in a series. It is a bracket style 1/1/1/3 and trust me it is not very easy to win one of these.
  
  
  
• Singles (3-8 player games) tournaments must have 16 players
  
  This rule confuses me because if you take into consideration the rule of at least playing three games then the least amount of players you can have for a bracket style tourney would be 3x3x3, 4x4x4 and so on. You would not be able to do a 5, 6, 7, or 8 without having at least 125 players. In my opinion winning two escalating games in a row is a good accomplishment.
  3=27-can't do two rounds anyway
  4=64-you would probably get this filled
  5=125-you are asking a lot-trust me I have done one(2 rounds=25)
  6=216-not going to happen(2 rounds=36)
  7=343-not going to happen(2 rounds=49)
  8=512-I think there has only been one tourney this size ever(2 rounds=64)
  I don't personally see an issue with the two rounders
  
  
  
• Doubles tournaments must have 16 teams (32 players)
  
  I tried running doubles tourneys with 8 teams. Because of the success I had and the interest in them I expanded to 16 teams and I like running them at this level
  
  
• Triples & Quads tournaments must have 8 teams (24 or 32 players)
  
  I think these should be the same as 1v1 and doubles
  A bracketed tourney is a bracketed tourney.
  If you consider the brackets why should doubles, triples, and quads have to travel a smaller route than the 1v1 players?
  
  
• NO tournament may have a point restriction greater than 2000 points per player (or average of 2000 points per player in team tournaments)
  
  I don't find a need to restrict any tourney from having a group of the same range playing in it. There are low rank tourneys and Major+ tourneys and they all seem to be fun experiences for the players. If the interest is there let them play. I personally tried to run a colonel+ tourney but the interest was not there so I changed it back to a Major+. My Major+ tourneys have been very successful and they are not easy to win at all.
  
  
• 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)
  
  Look at my example above. This stops good escalating tourneys when you try to make them 5 player or above from being filled in most cases.
  
• At least 50% of the spots available must be for open/public sign-ups and not filled with special invitations.
  
  No problem with this. I was told that sending out a pm and having players sign up for speed tourneys would be considered private. My list of players that have joined past tourneys is over 500 so when I send out a pm a large amount of players is solicited and I do not feel that makes for a private tourney.
  
  
• 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)
  
  
  I think this should be five if it is made a rules. Since the long thread came out about too many tourneys being posted in create/join, the thread has basically stayed under 1 page or about 40 open tourneys for registration. I don't feel this is a problem, but it does not really effect things either way in my opinion.
  
  
• 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.
  
  No problem
  
• 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.

No problem

~Night Strike
Head Tournament Director

I have posted my responses to each rule listed by Night Strike. I feel that there will be very many different views on what a tournament consists of. These are my views. I used to play foosball tourneys twice a week and most consisted of 16 player bracketed. They were great. I lover running and playing in tourneys. Medals was never a reason for me. I have maxed out on medals for tourneys winning and running so I do this for the many players who enjoy playing and I do it for myself as I love to organize and run tourneys. I will not apologize for my views or how I handled this because I do not feel this should be decided by a few private players. Everyone will have their own opinion to this matter and now that I have stated mine I will deal with whatever happens.

[merch313]

I hope you are ashamed Highlander because you were trusted by a moderator in a discussion and misused the trust. This is low and you've shown what awful and childish person you can be.
I will not answer to the points because Night Strike will get my private answer as was asked in his PM.

Seems like you kinda did the same thing you are accusing HA of. Myabe you should have sent him a PM?

You read everything HA wrote it stated that he has contacted NS on several matters with little or no response. So why stay quiet when you invest all of your own time for a game here when you dont have to.

Seems like all that plays HA's tournys are like by most. He is fair and like others have stated keeps you up-to-date on what is going on.

It seems that no matter what you tell NS he will do as he wishes. Even though by the MAJORITY that play in tournys think they should be left alone. I mean really arent the people that play the ones that should be considered in this?

[Prankcall]

I think this realistically comes from players creating tournaments to gain Medals.I think HA is one of those that this was not a motivating factor(he simply likes to make tournaments).I see no reason why a person cannot make as many tournaments as they like if they are filling and running,if it is stepping on the toe's of other players oh fucking well,this is not Candy Land.This is the problem when you start awarding Medals for creation of a Tournament instead of winning it,hmm maybe we should think long and hard about such trivial things as Medals and how to gain them.

[Bones2484]

C. Running private tourneys is impossible because I cannot set the games up-you need privileges to do this.

Not impossible, and not necessarily hard to do if you are a good TO. Having game creation rights makes it easier to facilitate.

1. Clan League Season 1 - 1350 games and I created next to none of the games.
2. Conqueror's Cup - Lots of games and no game creation rights
3. Countless clan wars - again without game creation rights.
4. I've run almost 50 tournaments on this site, check my medal count, you should see 4 medals.

Yea. I've organized a half-dozen Clan Challenges that meet much more stringent guidelines than the ones outlined by Night Strike in the proposed changes for tournaments. And you know what? I've done each one without game creation privileges and have yet to not be successful.

Don't fall back on a crutch. If you truly want to play and host 16 player single elimination bracket tournaments, then nothing is stopping you from still organizing them other than yourself.

[Prankcall]

Don't fall back on a crutch. If you truly want to play and host 16 player single elimination bracket tournaments, then nothing is stopping you from still organizing them other than yourself.

Except cry babies like you?? They are making so many tournaments mine are not filling,blah blah blah.

[Bones2484]

And what I REALLY don't understand here, HA?

Why did you feel the need to throw such an attack on Night Strike by PM and this thread? If I am reading what you sent in response to NS correctly on the previous page, you either agree / want harsher rules / dont care on all but one category.

Is having a beef with one thing really worth all of this!?

[amazzony]

Don't fall back on a crutch. If you truly want to play and host 16 player single elimination bracket tournaments, then nothing is stopping you from still organizing them other than yourself.

Except cry babies like you?? They are making so many tournaments mine are not filling,blah blah blah.

Prankcall, why are you voicing your opinion about things you don't know about?

[Bones2484]

Don't fall back on a crutch. If you truly want to play and host 16 player single elimination bracket tournaments, then nothing is stopping you from still organizing them other than yourself.

Except cry babies like you?? They are making so many tournaments mine are not filling,blah blah blah.

Prankcall, why are you voicing your opinion about things you don't know about?

Just ignore the trolls, ZZ. Easier to report and follow up with a PM to a mod than to dignify their existence with a post.

[Optimus Prime]

Don't fall back on a crutch. If you truly want to play and host 16 player single elimination bracket tournaments, then nothing is stopping you from still organizing them other than yourself.

Except cry babies like you?? They are making so many tournaments mine are not filling,blah blah blah.

Ah, except that Bones2484 has never organized a tournament, so your logic is false. He was simply pointing out what he thought was a strange and unnecessary situation. To call him a cry-baby shows your lack of knowledge regarding the facts surrounding that particular incident.

[Moop]

I have a feeling that the problem here is bad communication. Perhaps if the point of the original PM to HA was clearly worded, in that PM, then this thread would never have existed, and HA would have known that NS would have paid attention to what he had to say.(possibly)

[KoE_Sirius]

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.

I think the ill feeling stems from this.Now that the admin are being a little proactive.Do you think this can be resolved.It seems a little unfair to me.

[Kinnison]

Well spoken, HA. I'm going to chop up the order of your responses, but NOT alter your comments, in order to address them.

[*]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)

Look at my example above. This stops good escalating tourneys when you try to make them 5 player or above from being filled in most cases.

THIS seems to be the central issue. And I have to agree with NS on it, I'm sorry. Playing two games to win a tournament... It's trivial. Frankly, it should be something like 4 or 5, IMO. Note that this does NOT REQUIRE FIVE ROUNDS. See my next comment.

[*]Singles (3-8 player games) tournaments must have 16 players

This rule confuses me because if you take into consideration the rule of at least playing three games then the least amount of players you can have for a bracket style tourney would be 3x3x3, 4x4x4 and so on. You would not be able to do a 5, 6, 7, or 8 without having at least 125 players. In my opinion winning two escalating games in a row is a good accomplishment.
3=27-can't do two rounds anyway
4=64-you would probably get this filled
5=125-you are asking a lot-trust me I have done one(2 rounds=25)
6=216-not going to happen(2 rounds=36)
7=343-not going to happen(2 rounds=49)
8=512-I think there has only been one tourney this size ever(2 rounds=64)
I don't personally see an issue with the two rounders

I know there's been several in the hundreds, easily. Think: you're talking single game, single elimination, one winner advancing? Why limit yourself in that way? What about a loser's bracket, it's winner having to defeat the eventual winner's bracket champion twice to take the tournament? or advancing the top two players of 8 until you get to the semifinals, or even the final game? (EXAMPLES: finals 2, semis 16, quarterfinals 64[2 advance] - or finals 4, semis 16 [2 advance], quarterfinals 64 [2 advance] - finals 8, semifinals 32 [2 advance], quarterfinals 128 [2 advance]). You could have round robin play for one round, then advance to semifinals. There are a LOT of options other than straight brackets. I understand you like the brackets, but once you get into multi-player singles, as opposed to 1v1, the numbers DO get unmanageable unless you're letting someone win a tournament with two games.

I said above, i don't care WHO you have to play... If, by some insane chance, I were to beat 2 8-player games of 3000+ players... I'd be proud of the achievement... but I still wouldn't call it a tournament.

[*]1v1 bracket tournaments must have at least 32 players OR can have 16 players with at least best of 3 games every round

To me all this rule does is prevent freemiums from being invited to tourneys. Make is one or another-16 player bracket or 32 player bracket. What does it matter if it is 1 game, best of 3, or best of whatever? You still have to win 4 or 5 times depending if it is one game or best of and depending on bracket size.

This rule would also prevent me from finishing my Don't Blink series which was meant to focus on quick hitting, manual style, freemiums allowed, and all maps used in a series. It is a bracket style 1/1/1/3 and trust me it is not very easy to win one of these.

Is it that much harder to run a 32-person bracket than a 16? This is an HONEST question. I've run 2 tournaments, 25 players each, with an INSANE schedule I came up with. So I have no experience in running a straight bracket tournament of any size. ..also, a freemium could play 2 of a 2 of 3 challenge, and only play the third if it was needed. You could organize a 16 player run that way... or just have freemiums leave the slots open... they do have 4... they COULD use three for your tournament, although I *DO* admit that's asking a lot.

[*]Doubles tournaments must have 16 teams (32 players)

I tried running doubles tourneys with 8 teams. Because of the success I had and the interest in them I expanded to 16 teams and I like running them at this level

[*]Triples & Quads tournaments must have 8 teams (24 or 32 players)

I think these should be the same as 1v1 and doubles
A bracketed tourney is a bracketed tourney.
If you consider the brackets why should doubles, triples, and quads have to travel a smaller route than the 1v1 players?

I've only recently started team play, I've usually been a singles or 1v1 player. And it's HARD, especially if you're not in a clan, to find folks for a quads tourney. Trips is not much better. A requirement to play a minimum # of games, and the simple fact that you can only put 8 players in a game, sets certain restrictions on what you can and can't do. Any trips or quads tournament is scheduled much like 1v1, simply because you can't FIT any more teams into a game. But they involve more players, and therefore more coordination. I do see your point, but again, there are ways to schedule other than straight brackets. an initial round robin play in (like the world cup, or the recent Olympic Hockey tournament) is simple enough to set up.

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

I don't find a need to restrict any tourney from having a group of the same range playing in it. There are low rank tourneys and Major+ tourneys and they all seem to be fun experiences for the players. If the interest is there let them play. I personally tried to run a colonel+ tourney but the interest was not there so I changed it back to a Major+. My Major+ tourneys have been very successful and they are not easy to win at all.

I'm rarely over 2000, as I play the game for fun, not for my point score. So I won't comment on this one, except to say it was a suggestion, and raising or lowering that limit a bit should not be a serious sticking point...

[*]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)

I think this should be five if it is made a rules. Since the long thread came out about too many tourneys being posted in create/join, the thread has basically stayed under 1 page or about 40 open tourneys for registration. I don't feel this is a problem, but it does not really effect things either way in my opinion.

I do think this proposed rule should be looked at. It MAY be a bit over-restrictive.

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

No problem with this. I was told that sending out a pm and having players sign up for speed tourneys would be considered private. My list of players that have joined past tourneys is over 500 so when I send out a pm a large amount of players is solicited and I do not feel that makes for a private tourney.

[*]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.

No problem

[*]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.

No problem

[barterer2002]

In the interest of dialog, I'd like to post my thoughts here along side HA. On some points I agree, in others I don't (which doesn't make either of us right or wrong, just coming from a different place). When I disagree I'll try to explain why. I'd invite other TOs to comment as well (always hoping that we can get something productive out of this today)

Hello organizers and players,

• 1v1 bracket tournaments must have at least 32 players OR can have 16 players with at least best of 3 games every round
  
  To me all this rule does is prevent freemiums from being invited to tourneys. Make is one or another-16 player bracket or 32 player bracket. What does it matter if it is 1 game, best of 3, or best of whatever? You still have to win 4 or 5 times depending if it is one game or best of and depending on bracket size.
  
  This rule would also prevent me from finishing my Don't Blink series which was meant to focus on quick hitting, manual style, freemiums allowed, and all maps used in a series. It is a bracket style 1/1/1/3 and trust me it is not very easy to win one of these.
  
  
  
  I disagree with you here. I find that Championship Series which uses the best of 3 format often has freemium players in them. I generally require them to play 2 at a time and the third if necessary (or as soon as they have an open slot) however I do hear your issue with the access of freemiums to tournaments.
  That being said, I don't find this type of tournament to be an issue in general. I think that people have always enjoyed the quick hitting 1v1 formats and that they have always filled quickly dating back to OP's Point Grabbers series. From my perspective I took the Championship Series into a best of 3 format to help allieviate the issues of one bad drop. There is only so much you can do in 1v1 games and I didn't want to go to best of 5 but I don't have an issue with the single elimination style brackets.
  
• Singles (3-8 player games) tournaments must have 16 players
  
  This rule confuses me because if you take into consideration the rule of at least playing three games then the least amount of players you can have for a bracket style tourney would be 3x3x3, 4x4x4 and so on. You would not be able to do a 5, 6, 7, or 8 without having at least 125 players. In my opinion winning two escalating games in a row is a good accomplishment.
  3=27-can't do two rounds anyway
  4=64-you would probably get this filled
  5=125-you are asking a lot-trust me I have done one(2 rounds=25)
  6=216-not going to happen(2 rounds=36)
  7=343-not going to happen(2 rounds=49)
  8=512-I think there has only been one tourney this size ever(2 rounds=64)
  I don't personally see an issue with the two rounders
  
  Well I have to disagree with you, I've personally run large tournaments (The Battle for Escalating Supremacy had 500 players, the Battle for Supremacy had 256 as did Bart's second birthday bash, Bart's 100th had 220 or so in 4 days). I believe Nate did a 500 player tournament as well and ZZ's Olympics had over 200. There are probably others that I'm forgetting. Its not the easy quick hitting things but there is a place for them and they are certainly possible and have been done.
  
  Essentially though what this rule does is nothing. It is the status quo. There is currently a 16 player minimum and it still exists.
  
  
• Doubles tournaments must have 16 teams (32 players)
  
  I tried running doubles tourneys with 8 teams. Because of the success I had and the interest in them I expanded to 16 teams and I like running them at this level
  
  This seems reasonable to me as well, 16 is always a good number to work with.
  
  
• Triples & Quads tournaments must have 8 teams (24 or 32 players)
  
  I think these should be the same as 1v1 and doubles
  A bracketed tourney is a bracketed tourney.
  If you consider the brackets why should doubles, triples, and quads have to travel a smaller route than the 1v1 players?
  
  Well not every tournament is a bracket formula. Some use round robin, I've seen a windmill type thing that I don't really understand but I don't think the rules should be put in simply because they work for a bracket that way. For instance, I'd like to run an 8 team round robin with two levels and sometimes finding 16 quad teams is more difficult.
  
  
• NO tournament may have a point restriction greater than 2000 points per player (or average of 2000 points per player in team tournaments)
  
  I don't find a need to restrict any tourney from having a group of the same range playing in it. There are low rank tourneys and Major+ tourneys and they all seem to be fun experiences for the players. If the interest is there let them play. I personally tried to run a colonel+ tourney but the interest was not there so I changed it back to a Major+. My Major+ tourneys have been very successful and they are not easy to win at all.
  
  Personally I'm with HA here, I don't tend to restrict my tournies (although I did run a portion of the Table Tennis one but there were slots for anyone to enter, just not necessarily the part I was running). I can certainly see the case for restrictive tournaments though. The 2000 point limit seems OK to me. On the current scoreboard there are 1144 out of 21268 eligible players or roughly 5%. I think that's about as low a percentage as I'd like to see. I'd probably expand this to say that any tournament that restricts more than 95% of the current scoreboard shouldn't be allowed. Tournament restrictions are a bit sketchy for me. After all, what's really the difference in saying "Only 2500+ players allowed in" and "only those who are in the Generational Legends of the Mythological Cow Empire Clan are allowed in". The second has always been not allowed and the first allowed. There is clearly a line to be drawn somewhere and I think 2000 points or a minimum of 5% of the CC population seems to be about right from where I am.
  
  
• 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)
  
  Look at my example above. This stops good escalating tourneys when you try to make them 5 player or above from being filled in most cases.
  
  There are two issues here. 1). Your contention that these tournaments can't be made and filled which I reject. 2). I wonder how many 5, 6, 7 and 8 player bracket style tournaments are/have been run that would be eliminated under the current rules. Are we trying to protect tournaments that nobody is running anyway? I don't know the answer to this one but maybe we can find out. That being said, I don't think that having to win 3 games to win a tournament is an unreasonable requirement. There are a few tournaments that have required less that might be able to get an exception (thinking of Natewolfman's one shot one kill) but even if not I'd be OK with it.
  
• At least 50% of the spots available must be for open/public sign-ups and not filled with special invitations.
  
  No problem with this. I was told that sending out a pm and having players sign up for speed tourneys would be considered private. My list of players that have joined past tourneys is over 500 so when I send out a pm a large amount of players is solicited and I do not feel that makes for a private tourney.
  
  
  As far as I know this has always been the rule. I tend to agree with HA that PMs to large groups does not make it private. I don't use mine very often but like HA I have over 1000 past players on my list. I don't use it for the smaller tournaments anymore simply because I want to give new players a chance to get in as well but for a larger one I'd send out. The slippery slope argument here is that conceivably I could send a PM to 16 friends and do a private tournament although to be honest I could just as easily do that without a PM the same way. I'm not sure why someone would contend that a PM list makes a tournament private although I'm not convinced that the use of them for smaller tournaments is appropriate it (and annoying to those who get a PM for a tournament that filled up 2 hours ago).
  
• 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)
  
  
  I think this should be five if it is made a rules. Since the long thread came out about too many tourneys being posted in create/join, the thread has basically stayed under 1 page or about 40 open tourneys for registration. I don't feel this is a problem, but it does not really effect things either way in my opinion.
  
  In general my feeling is that we're drawing a line somewhere. Having 14-15 out there in sign ups at one time (and I don't know if anyone has ever had that many at once-certainly not calling anyone out) is too many and is, in my opinion, rude. its like someone shouting at the top of their lungs in a restaurant so you can't hear the person you're trying to listen to. The standards of decorum that I try to hold myself to however, are not always ones that others agree with or follow and I may be wrong here. Still I would say that there should be some limit and 3 or 5 is fine with me. If anything though I might say that there should be a limit on new organizers. I've seen many who have 4-5 in sign ups, get privs and then can't figure out how to run them and drop them. I'd like to see a new organizer run a few before doing multiples to prevent from being overwhelmed at once.
  
  
• 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.
  
  No problem
  
  Same as its ever been
  
• 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.

No problem

Again, I think that allowing exceptions on a case by case basis is a good idea

~Night Strike
Head Tournament Director

I have posted my responses to each rule listed by Night Strike. I feel that there will be very many different views on what a tournament consists of. These are my views. I used to play foosball tourneys twice a week and most consisted of 16 player bracketed. They were great. I lover running and playing in tourneys. Medals was never a reason for me. I have maxed out on medals for tourneys winning and running so I do this for the many players who enjoy playing and I do it for myself as I love to organize and run tourneys. I will not apologize for my views or how I handled this because I do not feel this should be decided by a few private players. Everyone will have their own opinion to this matter and now that I have stated mine I will deal with whatever happens.

In general then I don't see much change in the rules with 2 exceptions: 1-minimum player requirements and 2-minimum win for a tournament victory requirement. For the most part, as people look at these rules with a clear head and don't do a knee jerk reaction they'll find that there isn't much of a change. I wouldn't raise the 1v1 minimum to 32 but other than that I view the changes as positive measures.
-B