Tournament Organization Suggestion

[Woodruff]

I don't even know what suggestion we are talking about anymore.

It doesn't matter, since the people running this place can't seem to drag themselves into thinking outside of the box a little bit.

I thought out of the box and said it was a bad idea. Just because something is out of the box doesn't make it a good idea.

Nor does it make it a bad one, though that certainly is the prevailing theme around here. Did you have a counter-point to my counter-point on your thoughts regarding why it was a bad idea? Or was that simply "enough" in your opinion?

[Night Strike]

I'd also be against this suggestion. Some people don't have the time to join the games as soon as they receive it. If you send me games on Friday, but I'm going to be out of town over the weekend, it makes more sense to just join the games after I return rather than have my sitter take the turns.

Sure...though "over the weekend" could very well mean "not joining the game within the required time" anyway in many cases, right? This would avoid you having deadbeated out of the match.

I can easily send an organizer a PM saying I'll be gone over the weekend and it would make more sense for me to join right after I return. Every organizer that I've dealt with has been ok with that. Only ones who are in it for the medal wouldn't give those small concessions.

Overall, the ability of a player to control what games he/she joins should ALWAYS be respected, regardless of whether a player is in a tournament or not.

[Woodruff]

I'd also be against this suggestion. Some people don't have the time to join the games as soon as they receive it. If you send me games on Friday, but I'm going to be out of town over the weekend, it makes more sense to just join the games after I return rather than have my sitter take the turns.

Sure...though "over the weekend" could very well mean "not joining the game within the required time" anyway in many cases, right? This would avoid you having deadbeated out of the match.

I can easily send an organizer a PM saying I'll be gone over the weekend and it would make more sense for me to join right after I return. Every organizer that I've dealt with has been ok with that. Only ones who are in it for the medal wouldn't give those small concessions.

I'm not "in it for the medal", but I leave the decision up to the individual's opponent. My rationale there is "it's in the rules, so I'm not going to bust my own rules without approval of the individual's opponent affected by it. That simply seems fair to me.

Overall, the ability of a player to control what games he/she joins should ALWAYS be respected, regardless of whether a player is in a tournament or not.

But the player IS in control of the games they join...they can either join or not join the tournament. Other than for freemiums (where the problem is obvious as far as number of slots available), if someone joins a tournament it seems patently clear that they do in fact desire to play games IN THAT TOURNAMENT. It seems odd to me that this needs to be explained.

[jpcloet]

There are just too many holes. If I desire to leave a tournament and end up in a game I'd be furious. I've always liked the "reserved for playerx" idea.

[Woodruff]

There are just too many holes. If I desire to leave a tournament and end up in a game I'd be furious. I've always liked the "reserved for playerx" idea.

What holes? If you desire to leave a tournament, I would HOPE you'd let the tournament organizer know...if they still put you in a game, then clearly that would be a case of abuse to be looked at by the moderators. I'm pretty sure that would be a very rare case.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with the reservation idea...I couldn't find a thread on it. Could you point me to one?

[GenuineEarlGrey]

Concise description:

• Give Tournament Organizers the ability to "join" the players into their respective tournament games.

I've gone through the thread and as someone said. it getting difficult to follow.

I think the key to Woodruff's original idea is something that jpcloet said....

I've always liked the "reserved for playerx" idea.

The whole site is run on a massive database. There must be someway of allowing TO's to add games to the database in an easier way.

At the moment the TO creates a game with no players in it.
The game is started when both players join.

Could the TO create the game with players assigned (but not join)
but the game not started until both players join?
In this case, you couldn't join a game unless you were that player.

How could this be done?

[ubersky]

Seems like the easiest thing to do is for the TO to be able to set slot/game reservations (unordered) to which the password mechanism currently used would be replaced with a simple lookup list of members allowed to join the game.

Sounds interesting, but I'm not sure I follow your terminology. Could you explain it a bit better for those of us who...uh...read slower than others? <laughing>

lol

Basically right now the only way to regulate joins is with a password, and that can lead to mistakes for large Tournaments, especially with the auto-join.

Since the Games backend should have access to the memberlist, whomever is creating the game can simply set a list of members that can join the game.

Since join order determines color, and some might get upset of the TO orders them wrong, I wouldn't set the reservations on the exact slot, just simply restrict which members can join a game. (Implement team reservations for team based games).

This way a password would no longer be needed for Tournament games because anyone not on the memberlist for that game, would not be allowed to join it.

You can build in some automation to the game creation process, so that after the game is created, and the memberlist is set, the TO can push a button and notify all of the members in the game of the games existence, and provide a link to join. This would streamline the game creation process, and reduce some of the paper-work the TO's have to do and manage.

I know that it's been said that there is a large Tournament automation rework in theworks, but a memberlist should be easier to implement in the short term and would have good benefits IMHO.

You can also add the reserved games to the Awaiting tab on the My Games list, or even add a Tournament tab

[Woodruff]

Seems like the easiest thing to do is for the TO to be able to set slot/game reservations (unordered) to which the password mechanism currently used would be replaced with a simple lookup list of members allowed to join the game.

Sounds interesting, but I'm not sure I follow your terminology. Could you explain it a bit better for those of us who...uh...read slower than others? <laughing>

lol

Basically right now the only way to regulate joins is with a password, and that can lead to mistakes for large Tournaments, especially with the auto-join.

Since the Games backend should have access to the memberlist, whomever is creating the game can simply set a list of members that can join the game.

Since join order determines color, and some might get upset of the TO orders them wrong, I wouldn't set the reservations on the exact slot, just simply restrict which members can join a game. (Implement team reservations for team based games).

This way a password would no longer be needed for Tournament games because anyone not on the memberlist for that game, would not be allowed to join it.

You can build in some automation to the game creation process, so that after the game is created, and the memberlist is set, the TO can push a button and notify all of the members in the game of the games existence, and provide a link to join. This would streamline the game creation process, and reduce some of the paper-work the TO's have to do and manage.

I know that it's been said that there is a large Tournament automation rework in theworks, but a memberlist should be easier to implement in the short term and would have good benefits IMHO.

Ah, I think I understand. Yes, I like this idea a lot and it certainly would aid TREMENDOUSLY in tournament-games.

The only quibble I have here isn't even so much with your suggestion, but more to the "joining the game order" part of it. The players shouldn't care which slot they're assigned to, since "who goes first" isn't tied to the slot itself...it's random. If that makes sense.

But that being said, I like it!

[ubersky]

The only quibble I have here isn't even so much with your suggestion, but more to the "joining the game order" part of it. The players shouldn't care which slot they're assigned to, since "who goes first" isn't tied to the slot itself...it's random. If that makes sense.

I was just predicting the inevitable complaints about "but but but.. I'm always red in my games!" thing..

Honestly, I've always felt a random shuffle of the order (not just randomizing who goes first) once the game starts, before the first turn, is the best policy. I know it sucks for those that create a ton of games, thus getting red every time, but that sort of thing is really just vanity anyway

[ubersky]

Soooo.... what happens with this idea now? Do we just sit here? maybe pull up a skirt and show some leg hoping for a site developer to drive by and pick us up, hoping even more it's not some serial killer that will just delete us?

[ubersky]

I'd say that this gets a win Woodruff, as lack just basically did this.

[Woodruff]

I'd say that this gets a win Woodruff, as lack just basically did this.

It does appear that he took my suggestion combined with jpcloet's addendum and put it in (whether he actually saw this thread at all or just happened to do it on his own is unknown, but I'm ok with that!).

I'm very happy.

[redhawk92]

this si a great idea