Moderator: Tournament Directors
I disagree with your summation. I'm not attacking Bones, I'm attacking his point of view and his false statement that the majority of poll voters agree with him. He is causing a great deal of disruption with longstanding tournament organizers, whose tournaments I enjoy and hope to continue participating in.Night Strike wrote:The last dozen or so posts have all been attacks on Bones, and they need to quit. If you disagree with Bones, that's fine. You don't have to flame his point of view. This thread is staying open, for now, to continue the voting, but the flames must stop.

It's only disrupting longstanding tournament organizers if they let it distract them. There is nothing official coming from this thread until it is announced by me, so things are business as usual until that time comes (if at all).72o wrote:I disagree with your summation. I'm not attacking Bones, I'm attacking his point of view and his false statement that the majority of poll voters agree with him. He is causing a great deal of disruption with longstanding tournament organizers, whose tournaments I enjoy and hope to continue participating in.Night Strike wrote:The last dozen or so posts have all been attacks on Bones, and they need to quit. If you disagree with Bones, that's fine. You don't have to flame his point of view. This thread is staying open, for now, to continue the voting, but the flames must stop.
I will agree with that, but unfortunately, it already has distracted one of them who is my friend and clan mate. I'm trying to rectify that situation by showing that bones is in fact in the minority, and most of us do not feel that more tournaments is a bad thing. I can't see why the tournament director would think that more tournaments would be a bad thing, either, unless they led to more abandonments.Night Strike wrote:It's only disrupting longstanding tournament organizers if they let it distract them. There is nothing official coming from this thread until it is announced by me, so things are business as usual until that time comes (if at all).72o wrote:I disagree with your summation. I'm not attacking Bones, I'm attacking his point of view and his false statement that the majority of poll voters agree with him. He is causing a great deal of disruption with longstanding tournament organizers, whose tournaments I enjoy and hope to continue participating in.Night Strike wrote:The last dozen or so posts have all been attacks on Bones, and they need to quit. If you disagree with Bones, that's fine. You don't have to flame his point of view. This thread is staying open, for now, to continue the voting, but the flames must stop.

My only point was that I hated seeing more and more tournaments failing to reach their numbers in a month (and being deleted by the Directors) because a few experienced TOs were releasing TONS of tournaments at one time. It wasn't fair to new inexperienced TO's whose tournaments were being lost in the flood.72o wrote: Can you explain your opinion a little bit more? Maybe then I will be able to see why you and Bones feel that this is somehow bad.
Then your vote doesn't match up with your view. If subforums are added, then the Directors aren't staying out of the situation, as the option entails.danfrank wrote:i voted 3.. i thank you for the pm without it , i would hve no knowledge of this thread..
my idea is simply this ... Have subforums for tournaments the subforums would be based on Players needed.. Example 16 player tourneys.. 32 player tourneys .. 64 player tourneys.. Etc.. What say you
Night Strike wrote:Then your vote doesn't match up with your view. If subforums are added, then the Directors aren't staying out of the situation, as the option entails.danfrank wrote:i voted 3.. i thank you for the pm without it , i would hve no knowledge of this thread..
my idea is simply this ... Have subforums for tournaments the subforums would be based on Players needed.. Example 16 player tourneys.. 32 player tourneys .. 64 player tourneys.. Etc.. What say you
Because the Tournament Directors would then be regulating tournaments by placing them into different forums.danfrank wrote:Night Strike wrote:Then your vote doesn't match up with your view. If subforums are added, then the Directors aren't staying out of the situation, as the option entails.danfrank wrote:i voted 3.. i thank you for the pm without it , i would hve no knowledge of this thread..
my idea is simply this ... Have subforums for tournaments the subforums would be based on Players needed.. Example 16 player tourneys.. 32 player tourneys .. 64 player tourneys.. Etc.. What say you
How would you be getting involved in the situation?
Option 3 is for things as they currently are. Adding subforums would take director-action (and admin-action) to form them and keep them containing the proper tournaments, which is not staying out of the situation.danfrank wrote:Night Strike wrote:Then your vote doesn't match up with your view. If subforums are added, then the Directors aren't staying out of the situation, as the option entails.danfrank wrote:i voted 3.. i thank you for the pm without it , i would hve no knowledge of this thread..
my idea is simply this ... Have subforums for tournaments the subforums would be based on Players needed.. Example 16 player tourneys.. 32 player tourneys .. 64 player tourneys.. Etc.. What say you
How would you be getting involved in the situation?
all tournament are and i like all tournament which i play and enjoy plus i dont have to wait long to play like i did in private game, they got deadbeat and rude player thanks for making my games good to play so keep on making tournament and i will joinb00060 wrote:Bones, 15-20? Back up your statement with the 15-20 tournaments I currently have posted in the join thread.
Also see below in one of my tournaments that just ended TODAY. I'll be sure to let the winner know that he should not in fact enjoy the tournament and there will never be another one. What everyone seems to be forgetting is that tourney organizers do not get paid! Its so easy to say when a tourney fills, create another one, well guess what, it is not that easy. Tournaments need to be created when the organizer has time and myself along with other organizers like HA prefer to send them out in batches. An assembly line technique is much more efficient. But whatever, like I said, I thought I was enhancing other players experience here at CC, but I guess all it did was piss of other organizers, so I will focus on rescuing abandoned tournamnets that happen every month.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ead#unread
I dont like long tournament i like them fast so they need to make more tournament so we can joinBones2484 wrote:My only point was that I hated seeing more and more tournaments failing to reach their numbers in a month (and being deleted by the Directors) because a few experienced TOs were releasing TONS of tournaments at one time. It wasn't fair to new inexperienced TO's whose tournaments were being lost in the flood.72o wrote: Can you explain your opinion a little bit more? Maybe then I will be able to see why you and Bones feel that this is somehow bad.
I was merely asking if people could spread out their tournaments instead of making 20-30 at one time. Is it really THAT bad to ask that we don't have 20-30 of the same exact tournament in the Create/Join at one time? Is asking to limit it to 5-10 tournaments waiting for players from one TO really an earth-shattering question?
This discussion has nothing to do with active tournaments. It is only about ones in the Create/Join forum. I have zero problem with TO's that can handle numerous tournaments at one time. If they keep them updated, I find that amazing dedication.
I just counted 15 tournaments of this type (or extremely similar) on the first page (out of 3) of the tournament forum. We have plenty of great options out there from numerous organizers for you to choose fromelmerfudd wrote: I dont like long tournament i like them fast so they need to make more tournament so we can join![]()
![]()
![]()
I'm a reasonably new Tournament Organizer (having only run five tournaments or so). The ONLY tournament I had trouble filling was the tournament where I was trying to get 256 entrants. I had trouble there simply because of the numbers I wanted...how many tournaments were available had absolutely no impact on it. Nor did it have any impact on my other tournaments, which all filled quite quickly.Bones2484 wrote: My only point was that I hated seeing more and more tournaments failing to reach their numbers in a month (and being deleted by the Directors) because a few experienced TOs were releasing TONS of tournaments at one time. It wasn't fair to new inexperienced TO's whose tournaments were being lost in the flood.

Some of us have moved on from the discussion a long time ago. Hopefully everyone else can too.While I do think limiting the amount of tournaments a TO can have waiting for players is a good idea, it's obvious that many people have a concern about placing limitations on people who want to have fun serving the community... which is a perfectly reasonable concern. I only would hope that TO's refrain from making more and more tournaments if they are responsible themselves for delaying the progress of a tournament that they are already running.