[16-Jun-08] Tournament Medals & New Tournament Time Limits

[barterer2002]

I'm disturbed by the rule and I'm not positive why. It isn't one that will affect me because I'm somewhat agressive in my recruiting (that may be an understatement) and have never spent more than 2 weeks filling a tournament. I also fully understand where the TDs are coming from as I've been frustrated watching tournaments that are abandoned still keep getting people signing up (dispite numerous posts that state that the tourney is abandoned). I've also watched TOs announce a tourney and never come back which is seriously frustrating.

That being said the rule bothers me. The reason it bothers me is that it is hard and fast. Now I understand that you said that each case will be evaluated individually but you also seemed to indicate that any lienancy would be short in coming.

There is clearly a reason that CC needs a hard and fast rule. Its no secret that many of the TOs are in Generation One as are two of the three TDs and so if there was anything less than a hard and fast rule it could open up the TDs and CC as a whole up to questions as to fairness. For that reason the rule clearly needs to be open to less rather than more TD interpretation however . . .
I remain unconvinced that an organizer who is actively recruiting and I'm going to define actively as an organizer who is doing something to garner new players, should have his or her tournement taken away.

[Optimus Prime]

Clearly you didn't pay very close attention to what I wrote then, Gozar.

It states nowhere in the rule that there will be no case by case consideration, and as a matter of fact, I clearly stated that organizers will be contacted about their tournaments before any moving action is taken. As Tournament Directors we understand that each organizer goes about doing things differently, and we want to respect that within reason.

For example, your Legends tournament has been waiting for players for a long time now, and I have kept a close eye on it watching to see how it fills up because the format is so very unique in comparison to anything else that goes on tournament-wise around here.

It was posted on May 10th, that was.... 42 days ago, and I know it has been sitting somewhere in the 30ish range of players signed up for a long time now. I don't doubt that you keep close tabs on it, but what have you done to find more players? I understand that the organizers should recruit how they see fit, but at the same time, the organizers need to know that they can't just rely on willy-nilly happenstance to find players, especially for complex tournaments. You need 50 players and some reserves, there is no reason you can't find that many in 30 days, plus perhaps a little bit of negotiated leeway when the time comes if you don't have it quite full.

Yes, you are providing something back for the site, but just allowing tournaments to sit for 50, 60, 80+ days in some cases isn't helping the site. It just adds confusion to which tournaments are ACTUALLY going to get rolling, and which ones are just hoping on a wish and a prayer to find some players.

You are correct in assuming that some measures of control need to be implemented, and I don't think that any of you can really complain that we have restricted or tied your hands all that much as far as tournaments are concerned. We ask you to have a certain number of players, a certain number of games, and to make sure the thread gets updated once or twice a month. The only creativity we squash is that of organizers who want to violate a rule of CC in order to make their tournaments work, or if they want to run a tournament where some players don't have a fair chance at winning (which happens more than you think).

We aren't asking a whole lot of you guys as far as restrictions are concerned, all we want is for the tournaments to get started in a timely fashion so as to keep the headaches for organizers, players and directors to a minimum. Since we do everything else in our tournament forums on a 1 month timetable there isn't really a whole lot of reason to change that now.

[Optimus Prime]

That being said the rule bothers me. The reason it bothers me is that it is hard and fast. Now I understand that you said that each case will be evaluated individually but you also seemed to indicate that any lienancy would be short in coming.

I did not say it would be short in coming, but I did mean to imply that you aren't going to be given 5 or 6 more weeks to fill a tournament just because you are only halfway there after 30 days. All I said was that these tournaments that were already announced would be given an appropriate time period after discussion with the organizer running it and then all new ones would be discussed on a case by case basis.

The system will work much like it does now for Abandoned Tournaments. 30 days is when we start looking for the organizer to find out what is going on.

[barterer2002]

OK so tell me what is the difference between the current abandoned policy and the new policy?
Is what you're doing really codifing that a bit more? It sounds much stricter than the current abandoned policy but perhaps I'm reading it wrong.

[Optimus Prime]

OK so tell me what is the difference between the current abandoned policy and the new policy?
Is what you're doing really codifing that a bit more? It sounds much stricter than the current abandoned policy but perhaps I'm reading it wrong.

Abandoned Tournaments are tournaments that already started, and then were left hanging for 30 days, at which point we contact the organizer and take appropriate action in the punishment system.

The Sign-Up policy puts a 30 day window on new tournaments before the organizer is contacted and it is determined whether they want to keep trying or not. You may not believe this, but a majority will say they won't. I deal with it all the time. If the organizer wants to keep trying they will discuss with the Tournament Directors an appropriate amount of time to get their tournament filled up. 95% of tournaments will be filled in 30 days, of the 5% that aren't, if the organizers would put forth a bit more effort (which is perfectly acceptable for the TDs to expect of them) then most of those would be filled in 30 days too.

However, if extra time is given it won't be in the 4+ week range. Simple as that. Yes, we are codifying things so that as tournaments become a more popular thing to do (which will happen, I promise) there is a standard that the new organizers can be held to in order to reduce confusion and keep track of what is going on. The rule has to be set so that things don't get out of control in the future.

You guys are making it sound like there are going to be tons of tournaments arbitrarily canceled out of nowhere. But, when have the TDs ever given you reason to think we do things that way? The policy is phrased the way it is to help avoid new organizers from trying to weasel a way around the rule. That's why it comes across as hard and fast, but all of you know that isn't how the TDs operate. We discuss with you first, and then go from there whenever a situation arises.

[barterer2002]

The Sign-Up policy puts a 30 day window on new tournaments before the organizer is contacted and it is determined whether they want to keep trying or not. You may not believe this, but a majority will say they won't. I deal with it all the time.

Truthfully, I will believe you. I'd suspect that 90% or more of the tourneys that are out there for 30+ days are ready to be abandoned. I have seen tourneys that I think should go, have been very close, been abondonded.

If the organizer wants to keep trying they will discuss with the Tournament Directors an appropriate amount of time to get their tournament filled up. 95% of tournaments will be filled in 30 days, of the 5% that aren't, if the organizers would put forth a bit more effort (which is perfectly acceptable for the TDs to expect of them) then most of those would be filled in 30 days too.

OP I'm really not disagreeing with you here.

You guys are making it sound like there are going to be tons of tournaments arbitrarily canceled out of nowhere. But, when have the TDs ever given you reason to think we do things that way?

OP, you haven't but the issue is what you've done in the past but rather what you're trying to do in the future.

The policy is phrased the way it is to help avoid new organizers from trying to weasel a way around the rule. That's why it comes across as hard and fast, but all of you know that isn't how the TDs operate. We discuss with you first, and then go from there whenever a situation arises.

As I stated earlier, this policy isn't going to apply to me. I have a background in sales and know how to market but I also know that many TOs don't have a similar background and if I were organizing when I was 17, 21 or 25 years old I wouldnt' have the same life and sales experience. That might not allow me to fill my tourneys as quickly but doesn't necessacarily mean that the tourneys aren't worthy.
For intance you used Gozar's Legends of Tur'Na'Mit signups. The question isn't whether I would recruit differently than Gozar for the tournament, obviously I would. That doesn't make Gozar's way wrong or his tourney less worthy of being part of CC lore.

Its not a matter of questioning the TDs OP. I think they do a tremmous job. That doesnt' mean that we shouldn't question new policies as they come into place. It isn't a personal thing OP but the truth is, a year ago the TDs were vastly different than they are now. I think you became one at the end of '07 and NS is only a month or so into his tenure. Steelhorse has been there a while but none of us knows who will be the TDs in June of '09 and these policies will be enforced by those people at that time. Its not a personal "I don't trust the current TDs" type of thing but rather "I want a system that I can trust that doesn't put the TDs into a situation where they have to make a lot of interpretations."

[Optimus Prime]

Its not a matter of questioning the TDs OP. I think they do a tremmous job. That doesnt' mean that we shouldn't question new policies as they come into place. It isn't a personal thing OP but the truth is, a year ago the TDs were vastly different than they are now. I think you became one at the end of '07 and NS is only a month or so into his tenure. Steelhorse has been there a while but none of us knows who will be the TDs in June of '09 and these policies will be enforced by those people at that time. Its not a personal "I don't trust the current TDs" type of thing but rather "I want a system that I can trust that doesn't put the TDs into a situation where they have to make a lot of interpretations."

And you have hit upon one of the main reasons we keep working to set some standard rules for organizing tournaments. There haven't been any before, and we, or perhaps even more appropriately, I, want there to be a standardized set of guidelines and practices so that no matter WHO is a TD 6 months from now, or 5 years from now, there will be a starting place for making decisions.

[Natewolfman]

this is a good healthy debate no real anger just points and counter points,

as for the 30 day rule, I also for the most part are not worried, my one shot one kill is the only one ive had trouble filling but im less then 90 away now and will be underway soon, as long as current tournaments are special cased, overall i think this is an improvment, especially now, if you waited another month to add this, it would be BAD since you will have the whole new influx used to the old rules so... honestly i say if you have any more drastic rule changes do them SOON so use oldies can get used to them
Yep, I'll deal with the current tournaments on a case by case basis, and anything new will be held to the standard unless they have some extenuating circumstances, which I think we all agree are pretty rare anyways. As for any more drastic changes, I don't think we have any planned now, at least until Lack tells us what is coming with his next update. These last few rules have been to get things set up into a nicely packaged system of guidelines in preparation for a tournament boom in the future.

[Gozar]

Clearly you didn't pay very close attention to what I wrote then, Gozar.

It states nowhere in the rule that there will be no case by case consideration, and as a matter of fact, I clearly stated that organizers will be contacted about their tournaments before any moving action is taken. As Tournament Directors we understand that each organizer goes about doing things differently, and we want to respect that within reason.

But the rule does not imply any case by case consideration. In fact, by my reading of the last line, it seems to say TOs will be notified after the move has happened....

Announcing New Tournaments

With the arrival of our new medals, and with the consistent growth we have seen in the Create/Join a Tournament forum, we have decided it is time to start putting a cap on the amount of time a tournament has to gather all of its players before it will need to be moved out of the Create/Join forum and into the Archives. You will now have 1 month to fill your tournament and request your tournament privileges, or it will be considered canceled.

This move is not to punish the organizers by any means, but rather to allow the Create/Join forum to accurately display the number of tournaments that are seeking players. After a lot of observation, research, and tracking by Optimus Prime, it is becoming clear that a tournament that takes longer than 1 month to fill experiences a much higher degree of no-show players and drop-outs because the players don't remember that they had signed up in the first place, and on some occasions the players are no longer active CC members. We hope this change will allow the tournaments to stay fresh and crisp in their natural habitat.

All current tournaments that have been announced prior to today will be given until June 23rd, 2008 to finish filling up, and then the new rule will be put into effect. If your tournament has gone past the time limit and is moved you will be notified via PM so that no confusion arises.

[Blitzaholic]

Dear Tournament Organizers and Players,

The time has come for the Tournament Directors to make a couple more announcements regarding our favorite CC home, the tournament forums. With the advent of the new Tournament Contribution Medals, and a healthy influx of new organizers trying their hand at running a tournament during the summer months, there are a couple of issues we would like to address for the benefit of all.

Tournament Contribution Medals

We know that everyone wants to earn all the medals now that they are available, but we also want to make sure that everyone knows what you need to do to properly earn, and thus be awarded, a Tournament Contribution medal. See below for the details on what criteria need to be met:

A. The tournament must have a clear and distinct winner. If the tournament is serving as a qualifier in part of a larger, more complex tournament, the organizer will not receive a medal until the entire tournament is complete. At which point, they will receive ONE medal for the entire process. This is to prevent organizers from inflating their medal count artificially.

B. If you abandon a tournament at any time, you will not receive a medal for it. No exceptions. You must see your tournament through from beginning to end in order to receive the reward.

C. If you rescue a tournament from abandonment (with the permission of the original organizer) you will be considered for a tournament medal based upon the amount of work and effort you put in to finishing the tournament. If you took over a tournament near the beginning you are more likely to receive (but are not promised) a medal than if you only took care of finishing the final round.

D. There can be a MAX of 2 medals per tournament, except under extremely rare and special circumstances which the Tournament Directors will discuss and decide upon. Take this into consideration when planning your tournaments. If you are a co-organizer, you are not guaranteed a medal just for that, you must prove you have done a significant amount of work to help the tournament move forward to completion. This would include things such as creating games, record-keeping, and sending PMs to players. The awarding of medals to co-organizers will be considered on a case-by-case basis. We recommend that tournaments be run by one person as often as possible to avoid confusion.

E. The Tournament Directors, upon discussion amongst themselves, have final say in who receives medals for each tournament. We do not plan on short-changing anyone, but you must do a certain level of work to receive the reward.

Announcing New Tournaments

With the arrival of our new medals, and with the consistent growth we have seen in the Create/Join a Tournament forum, we have decided it is time to start putting a cap on the amount of time a tournament has to gather all of its players before it will need to be moved out of the Create/Join forum and into the Archives. You will now have 1 month to fill your tournament and request your tournament privileges, or it will be considered canceled.

This move is not to punish the organizers by any means, but rather to allow the Create/Join forum to accurately display the number of tournaments that are seeking players. After a lot of observation, research, and tracking by Optimus Prime, it is becoming clear that a tournament that takes longer than 1 month to fill experiences a much higher degree of no-show players and drop-outs because the players don't remember that they had signed up in the first place, and on some occasions the players are no longer active CC members. We hope this change will allow the tournaments to stay fresh and crisp in their natural habitat.

All current tournaments that have been announced prior to today will be given until June 23rd, 2008 to finish filling up, and then the new rule will be put into effect. If your tournament has gone past the time limit and is moved you will be notified via PM so that no confusion arises.


As Tournament Directors, we hope this information and small changes to the tournament forums will continue to improve the tournament experience for all of us, organizers and players alike.

Many Regards, Steelhorse, Optimus Prime, and Night Strike

highlighted in red, I was co-organizer and director of a tourney back in December OP and you helped me when whats his face bailed out, I should of got a medal for that, it wa sa lot of work and my 1st time really trying, thanks to you I was able to get it finished and I know you did a lot of work, but I did my fair share I thought as well. The tourney was called Triples War, you must remember, started december 2007 I think.

[PaulusH]

Ok I have seen some good answers. It turns out that my original anxiety was not needed.
To my opinion the key point was confusion about strategy.
Together with the high energy to engage from both the organizers as well as the Tournament Directors causes a large eruption of emotions. So in fact that is very good. Congratulations to you all !

The complete idea is to deal with underperformance.
Simply by letting some organizers face the reality and make sure they deal with it.

In case I did say something negative about the time limit before, I will take it back. But I still hope that organizing tournaments with 512 participants or more will get a bit more time if needed.

[barterer2002]

Wait a minute Blitz, I'm curious as to how you assume that the the part highlighted in red in your quote proves your point that you "deserve" a medal. It seems to me that the part you highlighted specifically says that someone who takes over a tournament is not guaranteed a medal and that co-organizers are also not guaranteed a medal.

[Night Strike]

Wow, this is a pretty good discussion here. I'm liking it so far.

The system will work much like it does now for Abandoned Tournaments. 30 days is when we start looking for the organizer to find out what is going on.

Since I do most of the checking for abandoned tournaments, I have a feeling checking for these unfilled tournaments is going to fall my way as well, so I might as well be moderately transparent with my methods. When I check for abandoned tournaments, I typically send out an inquiry PM asking the organizer their specific status. This happens at about the 1 month mark and I then give the organizer anywhere from 24-72 hours to respond (depending on a few different factors). If they wish to continue, I give them a couple days to get it resumed before pulling the plug. My approach to the new recruitment time limit is going to be similar.

As many of you know, I've just returned from a 2 week absence and have come to a tournaments section that has exploded in the number of recruiting/active tournaments. I flipped when I saw the numbers, and my mind still hasn't adjusted to it. With the influx of new tournaments, we directors actually NEED the organizers to find new pools of recruitment. Everybody has their own cap in the number of tournaments/games they can manage to play in at once, which means that not every tournament is going to fill with the usual players. All of us need to find more players to bring to our tournament home so that more tournaments can be run successfully. Please, DO NOT go and spam the same players for every tournament that you decide to host, but spreading the word about the tournament forum to the 20,000+ active members on the scoreboard will improve every facet of these forums. I hope that all of you see this recruiting time limit as an opportunity to improve the tournament forum.

[max is gr8]

Is it just me or has this rule yet to be enforced.

[Night Strike]

Is it just me or has this rule yet to be enforced.

I was on vacation for two weeks, and Optimus got slammed with all the new tournaments and RL stuff. It'll get done soon.

[Optimus Prime]

The rule just got enforced. Anyone with a tournament that was announced any earlier than June 1st should have gotten a PM from me asking about it just a few minutes ago. I'll work with you individually to figure out a time-scale for each tournament.

HOWEVER, this isn't going to be a "common" practice. We are asking that from now on you plan on having your tournament filled within 30 days.

[Gozar]

The rule just got enforced. Anyone with a tournament that was announced any earlier than June 1st should have gotten a PM from me asking about it just a few minutes ago. I'll work with you individually to figure out a time-scale for each tournament.

HOWEVER, this isn't going to be a "common" practice. We are asking that from now on you plan on having your tournament filled within 30 days.

[Optimus Prime]

The rule just got enforced. Anyone with a tournament that was announced any earlier than June 1st should have gotten a PM from me asking about it just a few minutes ago. I'll work with you individually to figure out a time-scale for each tournament.

HOWEVER, this isn't going to be a "common" practice. We are asking that from now on you plan on having your tournament filled within 30 days.

Gozar,

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that you couldn't have filled that tournament in less than 30 days had you known going into it that was how long you had. I've seen you fill a tournament with hundreds of players in less than three weeks. 50 players shouldn't give you that much trouble.

[Gozar]

The rule just got enforced. Anyone with a tournament that was announced any earlier than June 1st should have gotten a PM from me asking about it just a few minutes ago. I'll work with you individually to figure out a time-scale for each tournament.

HOWEVER, this isn't going to be a "common" practice. We are asking that from now on you plan on having your tournament filled within 30 days.

Gozar,

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that you couldn't have filled that tournament in less than 30 days had you known going into it that was how long you had. I've seen you fill a tournament with hundreds of players in less than three weeks. 50 players shouldn't give you that much trouble.

If I had known a time limit was to be in effect, I never would have ran that tournament. I could easily fill it with 50 players who don't care/didn't read the rules, and then be saddled with never ending confusion as they fail to understand what is happening. Instead, I wanted to wait, and take the time to bring in those players who were excited by the theme and would read and understand the concept.

As I said, I have been in touch with all the players, to make sure they are still interested. I think it would be silly to deny 44 people their fun, don't you?

[Optimus Prime]

Which is perhaps why you should respond to my PM with more than just a "It isn't getting canceled." comment. Have I not posted multiple times that I would be granting appropriate extensions for all previously announced tournaments?

[Gozar]

Which is perhaps why you should respond to my PM with more than just a "It isn't getting canceled." comment. Have I not posted multiple times that I would be granting appropriate extensions for all previously announced tournaments?

Yes, you have.

But to be fair, I said a bit more than "It isn't getting canceled", although I said that too.

OP,
It is still taking signups.

It doesn't need many more people. I have been in contact with the players and made sure that they are all still interested.

It will fill up.

This tournament is not now or will be canceled.

Gozar

[Optimus Prime]

Yes, that's true, but I did ask you to work with me on a possible deadline for getting it filled. That's what I'm doing with everyone else, and with the exception of one organizer flying crazy for 7 paragraphs, I think it's working out well.

[Natewolfman]

with the exception of one organizer flying crazy for 7 paragraphs, I think it's working out well.

*curiosity takes hold*

[Optimus Prime]

with the exception of one organizer flying crazy for 7 paragraphs, I think it's working out well.

*curiosity takes hold*

Hopefully it lets go soon because there ain't no way I'm sharing that one with you.

[Natewolfman]

with the exception of one organizer flying crazy for 7 paragraphs, I think it's working out well.

*curiosity takes hold*

Hopefully it lets go soon because there ain't no way I'm sharing that one with you.

haha okok