Abandoned Tournaments

Aerial Attack · Post by **Aerial Attack** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:01 pm

Optimus Prime wrote:What about a system something like this:

Non-premium: Limit of 1 tournament

ROOKIE TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER: (No previously run tournaments)

Premium: Limit of 1-3 tournaments

SOPHOMORE TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER: (At least 1 successfully completed tournament)

Premium: Limit of 1-5 tournaments

JUNIOR TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER: (At least 3 successfully completed tournaments)

Premium: Limit of 1-7 tournaments

SENIOR TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER: (7 or more successfully completed tournaments)

Premium: unlimited tournaments

ABANDONED TOURNAMENT PENALTIES(These will need some serious discussion)

Non-premium:

First Offense: 6 weeks new tournament ban.
Second Offense: 8 week new tournament ban.
Third Offense and further: 10 week new tournament ban for each successive abandoned tournament.

Premium:

First Offense: bump down in tier (allow active tournaments to finish out).
Second Offense: 6 week new tournament ban.
Third Offense and further: 12 week new tournament ban for each successive abandoned tournament.

I like this proposed system. Although, I liked your earlier point about making tournament organizer status a perk of premium membership. Therefore, I say always limit non-premiums to 1 active tournament. Look at non-premium players, no matter the score or # of games played (with or w/o deadbeating) - they still only get 4 active games.

I've also edited the way I think the penalties should play out. NOTE: After a bump down in tier - it's like you're restarting at that tier. So, you would need 7 more successful tournaments to get bumped back up to SENIOR.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:11 pm

About abandoned tourny's - surely someone shouldn't be penalised if they have to abandon a tourny cos not enough people sign up within a reasonable timelimit?

Night Strike · Post by **Night Strike** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:17 pm

That's virtually a given because the tournament hasn't actually started.

Optimus Prime · Post by **Optimus Prime** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:24 pm

Clive wrote:About abandoned tourny's - surely someone shouldn't be penalised if they have to abandon a tourny cos not enough people sign up within a reasonable timelimit?

Most definitely. If there is not an interest, then it technically isn't abandoned because it never started. It stinks for those that had signed up for it though, but at least they are no worse for wear.

Optimus Prime · Post by **Optimus Prime** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:28 pm

Aerial Attack wrote:
Optimus Prime wrote:What about a system something like this:

Non-premium: Limit of 1 tournament

ROOKIE TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER: (No previously run tournaments)

Premium: Limit of 1-3 tournaments

SOPHOMORE TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER: (At least 1 successfully completed tournament)

Premium: Limit of 1-5 tournaments

JUNIOR TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER: (At least 3 successfully completed tournaments)

Premium: Limit of 1-7 tournaments

SENIOR TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER: (7 or more successfully completed tournaments)

Premium: unlimited tournaments

ABANDONED TOURNAMENT PENALTIES(These will need some serious discussion)

Non-premium:

First Offense: 6 weeks new tournament ban.
Second Offense: 8 week new tournament ban.
Third Offense and further: 10 week new tournament ban for each successive abandoned tournament.

Premium:

First Offense: bump down in tier (allow active tournaments to finish out).
Second Offense: 6 week new tournament ban.
Third Offense and further: 12 week new tournament ban for each successive abandoned tournament.
I like this proposed system. Although, I liked your earlier point about making tournament organizer status a perk of premium membership. Therefore, I say always limit non-premiums to 1 active tournament. Look at non-premium players, no matter the score or # of games played (with or w/o deadbeating) - they still only get 4 active games.

I've also edited the way I think the penalties should play out. NOTE: After a bump down in tier - it's like you're restarting at that tier. So, you would need 7 more successful tournaments to get bumped back up to SENIOR.

The only problem I have with limiting a non-premium member to only 1 tournament at a time is that I can see myself in a year or so wanting to just continue running tournaments but not playing as many games. I would have no trouble running 8 tournaments like now with only 4 active games at a time.

That's why I used the graduated system. Besides, how many non-premium tournament organizers are there anyways?

Godd · Post by **Godd** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:55 pm

All sounds fine with some kind of classifcation for someone running a tourney. The question is can CC get involved enough to make those classifcation posted for any one starting a tourney.
I would like to see a subline under the user name for tourney classes so we can all know
Like example......
____________
Steelhorse
Tournament Director

_________
if we could havethat kind of subline advailible for those who run a touney with there tourny rank or class listed would be great

kendoh99 · Post by **kendoh99** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:24 pm

hulmey wrote:And what about players who dont show up for tournaments should they be banned from playing tournaments!! I just started a tournament pls see my sig and the amount of people that didnt join their games is astounding.

yes and you abandoned my tournrment

hypocrite

Optimus Prime · Post by **Optimus Prime** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:36 pm

kendoh99 wrote:
hulmey wrote:And what about players who dont show up for tournaments should they be banned from playing tournaments!! I just started a tournament pls see my sig and the amount of people that didnt join their games is astounding.
yes and you abandoned my tournrment

hypocrite

There are far too many players that don't show up for tournaments that it would be very difficult to track that sort of information unless there were official ways of reporting players and I don't think anyone wants to get into that kind of thing.

Aerial Attack · Post by **Aerial Attack** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:57 pm

OPie,

Now that you are a Tournament Director. Are you planning on trying to implement a system like the one you proposed here a little over a month ago?

Will the Rivals system help to keep track of deadbeat tournament players (or at least people who leave them quite often)?

Optimus Prime · Post by **Optimus Prime** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:01 am

There has been discussion on a couple of different plans as far as Abandoned Tournaments go, but nothing definite yet.

amazzony · Post by **amazzony** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:03 am

I just skimmed it through so maybe I missed something but... as a non-premium I feel dissapointed. Why is tournament organising based on prem/non-prem? Why do you assume that non-prem make crappier tournaments or that they abandon more tournaments?

Optimus Prime · Post by **Optimus Prime** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:14 am

amazzony wrote:I just skimmed it through so maybe I missed something but... as a non-premium I feel dissapointed. Why is tournament organising based on prem/non-prem? Why do you assume that non-prem make crappier tournaments or that they abandon more tournaments?

That part was left in the dust a long, long time ago, don't worry about it.

If any program comes out to combat Abandoned Tournaments it will not be as close to that thread as you think.

amazzony · Post by **amazzony** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:17 am

Darn, I didn't pay attention to the fact when these messages were posted

But my point stays

spinwizard · Post by **spinwizard** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:02 pm

I disagree with all of this, see my conquer europe tourny, if there is only 6 ppl that signup in 3 days I think you should be allowed to abandon it!

amazzony · Post by **amazzony** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:12 pm

spinwizard wrote:I disagree with all of this, see my conquer europe tourny, if there is only 6 ppl that signup in 3 days I think you should be allowed to abandon it!

Somebody mention in this thread that if you leave a tournament before it starts then it is not abandoning. Though I do not know why is is still under abandoned then

There's a contradiction.

And I still think that you abandoned your tourny too early

You didn't even give it a chance.

spinwizard · Post by **spinwizard** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:20 pm

amazzony wrote:
spinwizard wrote:I disagree with all of this, see my conquer europe tourny, if there is only 6 ppl that signup in 3 days I think you should be allowed to abandon it!
Somebody mention in this thread that if you leave a tournament before it starts then it is not abandoning. Though I do not know why is is still under abandoned then There's a contradiction.

And I still think that you abandoned your tourny too early You didn't even give it a chance.

Mabey, oh and thats ok then

Steelhorse · Post by **Steelhorse** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:08 pm

amazzony wrote:
spinwizard wrote:I disagree with all of this, see my conquer europe tourny, if there is only 6 ppl that signup in 3 days I think you should be allowed to abandon it!
Somebody mention in this thread that if you leave a tournament before it starts then it is not abandoning. Though I do not know why is is still under abandoned then There's a contradiction.

And I still think that you abandoned your tourny too early You didn't even give it a chance.

My feeling on this matter, for what it's worth, is this:

If a tournament is "abandoned" before it begins, it is more of a cancellation and should be considered as such. Afterall, no tourney organizer should be penalized because he/she couldn't get enough people.

However, if the tourney host walks away after the tournament has begun or even after it is full, then it would be deemed an "abandoned" in the classic sense.

Aerial Attack · Post by **Aerial Attack** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:28 pm

Steelhorse wrote:My feeling on this matter, for what it's worth, is this:

If a tournament is "abandoned" before it begins, it is more of a cancellation and should be considered as such. Afterall, no tourney organizer should be penalized because he/she couldn't get enough people.

However, if the tourney host walks away after the tournament has begun or even after it is full, then it would be deemed an "abandoned" in the classic sense.

I agree with this. However, if there is going to be a penalty applied for abandoning tournaments - there should be one for canceling.

I think Tournament Organizers (TOs) should have a status per tournament that is one of the following:

+3 Completed Success - at least 7 total games played (8 people bracket)
+2 Rescued - took over for someone who transfered
+1 Ongoing - temporary tag, good standing
-1 Transfered - left in the middle, but made sure to find someone to take over
-2 Canceled - not enough interest
-3 Completed (Extremely Negative Feedback)
-4 Abandoned - left/canceled and was unable to get continued

As there are some players who only check the forums for tournaments on weekends (might only have enough time to play games during the week), there should be a minimum time enrollment period prior to cancellation of at least 7 days.

If interest is still low after this period, depending on the scope of the tournament - the TO should rethink how many players it will actually take for the tourney to be successful. If they have at least 50% enrollment - they should probably just cut the field in half and play.

Tieryn · Post by **Tieryn** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:41 am

So you want to stop people even throwing open the idea of a tourney to see if there is enough interest? I come up with lots of ideas, but being penalised for having an idea isn't going to help promote people running tourneys, nor is punishing them for what is essentially out of their control.

Secondly, when a tourney crashes due to a lack of people joining games, and sheer built up frustration because what you thought would be a manageable job, due to other peoples actions, becomes irritable and annoying. I disagree that there should be a punishment for that.

With the sheer volume of work involved with organising a large tourney (including sending out pm's to 30-60+ people, which takes time as there is no mass-pm system, at least none I'm aware of, and I have to pause for 10-15 seconds between each post) and then if half of those pm's are ignored, or people don't join the games, well, god, it's enough to make you throw your hands in the air and scream...

When things run well, great, and when all people involved are on the same side and trying, great. I think we should have some recognition of people who manage to complete the running of a tourney, but I disagree with any arbitrarily assigned "points" system that will discourage people from even wanting to run tourneys. This forum should be about encouragement, and when a tourney abandons, we should find out WHY, and try and fix THAT problem (and I'd bet it's rarely just the tourney organiser throwing it away for no reason... I think there'd usually be a reason, and those things are what we should look at fixing).

Anyway, that's my 2.71828 c

amazzony · Post by **amazzony** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:20 am

Aerial Attack wrote: As there are some players who only check the forums for tournaments on weekends (might only have enough time to play games during the week), there should be a minimum time enrollment period prior to cancellation of at least 7 days.

If interest is still low after this period, depending on the scope of the tournament - the TO should rethink how many players it will actually take for the tourney to be successful. If they have at least 50% enrollment - they should probably just cut the field in half and play.

I like this part. I like the idea that the tournament should have some time to introduce itself to the crowd. There are a lot of really active people in here who check the forums every day and are online a lot. But at the same time there are people who check forums maybe once a day for 5 mins, once in a few days, once a week or even more rarely. So, it might be annoying to tournament organiser to wait for so long but at the same time there's a chance that people will find your tournament and join if you give them time.

Oh, and I like the idea of "cancellation" by Steelhorse but for now - everything is called abandoned so I guess this idea needs to be seeded.

Aerial Attack · Post by **Aerial Attack** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:18 am

Tieryn,

I was providing example numbers. I wasn't saying that you should always be explicitly "punished" for matters that may or may not have been beyond your control. Obviously, a tourney that lasts a week and plays 7 games doesn't deserve the same points/status as one with over hundred games that lasts several months.

And a cancellation after 3 days vs one after 15 days is quite different. If there wasn't sufficient interest - was it because of the map? the organizer? the idea itself? the scope (just too large)? a combination of all these factors?

Obviously, with abandonment - the biggest reason is that it's tough to maintain players who will consistently join (the proper) games. Hopefully (soon?), when the new Rivals system is implemented the PM hassle will be more manageable. Although, the mass pm is a dangerous thing. I think that it should only be enabled for tournament organizers with privileges to people who have posted in thread for the specified tournament (in the Ongoing Tournament Sub-Forum).

That of course, makes it difficult to find someone willing to rescue a tournament as well.

I'm guessing that this thread will probably be one of the first things discussed in the Tournament Organizers User Group.

Steelhorse · Post by **Steelhorse** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:38 pm

Now that we have the new Abandoned Tournament Policy in place, I am going to lock this thread. But, I'll keep it in place for a while for those who wish to reference it.

If you have any questions about it, most can be answered here:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38060

If not feel free to PM either myself or Optimus Prime.

Or, if you would like to publicly post a question regarding the Policy, go here:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38124