Effective immediately, I am making an executive decision to put a hold on ALL new Large-Team Tournaments.
I admire the creativity that many organizers have put into organizing tournaments that involve teams larger than your typical doubles/triples/quads that the site naturally provides, but with these elaborate tournaments also means more caveats that we Tournament Directors have to investigate to make sure the tournaments are within the rules and require an adequate number of games for each player to justify the number of medals that organizers are requesting for their winners. Our minimum requirements and medals policies currently indicate that generally all members of winning teams will get winners medals no matter how many players are on the team, but we've come to realize that this blanket policy is not working. We've had some tournaments where even half the number of participants would have made up the winning team. In order to give us time to develop a better policy for this growing area of tournaments, we have decided to put a hold on all new Large-Team Tournaments. Hopefully this will stop the hodge-podge approach we've taken to allowing these tournaments as well as give us time to get input from the community. If you have any suggestions, please post them in this thread. We definitely need opinions from all of you. I hope to have a policy announced within 1-2 months. Thanks for your cooperation and understanding.
i have not played in any of those tournaments, nor have i run one.
so that we can discuss this could you please post examples/links of what has come before you so that we may understand the variety/complexities of large-team tournaments.
"Large Team" is a type in the Tournament Database, so it's easiest to look up the tournaments by going to the database and searching by the description.
Night Strike wrote:We've had some tournaments where even half the number of participants would have made up the winning team.
I think a good start is to compare them with regular team tournaments (doubles/triples/quadruples). Rule states that there must be at least 8 teams, so I think large team tournaments should also feature the need of having at least 8 sides.
This way, you limit medals to 12.5% of participants.
This is not going to solve all your problems, but I think it's a nice way to get the ball rolling.
I have played in large team tourneys and appreciate the incredible amount of work involved in planning and running them.
There needs to be enough games each round that every player plays in a minimum of one game and/or one of each type of game. If there are are standard, doubles, triples and quads games each round then every team member has to play in one of each of those games. This way every player is participating fully ane entitled to a medal if they win.
That's a little irritating, as I've been working on the set up of a new tournament in my free time for awhile now (large team) discussed with an admin in chat a week / week n half ago to make sure I was within TO rules and suddenly the tournament can't even be played?
What a waste of time.
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
That's a little irritating, as I've been working on the set up of a new tournament in my free time for awhile now (large team) discussed with an admin in chat a week / week n half ago to make sure I was within TO rules and suddenly the tournament can't even be played?
What a waste of time.
How can there be a transition period that you would like? We're allowing the ones already announced to continue without being canceled outright. Isn't that a transition? We're hoping to have something developed within 2 months. Can't your tournament just get announced then?
Sure it can, anything can wait. Just frustrating when you put time into your 1st tournament concept and then can't do it for 2 months.
Transition period could be a warning, like "hey next month were stopping them" instea of effective immediately. Yes it's great ones advertised can move forward, but that doesn't address the ones not yet advertised but have had work put into them.
I understand the reason, like I said just annoying as I took extra time getting feedback for my first tournament making sure it works and within rules but had I rushed to post it it would have been ok to continue on.
IcePack
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
IcePack wrote:Sure it can, anything can wait. Just frustrating when you put time into your 1st tournament concept and then can't do it for 2 months.
Transition period could be a warning, like "hey next month were stopping them" instea of effective immediately. Yes it's great ones advertised can move forward, but that doesn't address the ones not yet advertised but have had work put into them.
I understand the reason, like I said just annoying as I took extra time getting feedback for my first tournament making sure it works and within rules but had I rushed to post it it would have been ok to continue on.
IcePack
But if we had given a one month warning (or however long), people would just pile up their tournaments all at once, even though we already said we don't have consistent rules or policies regarding large-team tournaments. And sorry, you can't claim people wouldn't do that because when we gave a full weekend before implementing the new minimum tournament requirements, some organizers posted a bunch of new tournaments to get in under the old rules.
I'm sorry this immediate hold directly affected you, but I wouldn't be surprised if you're the only one who had a tournament planned that was about to be announced. Hopefully when we do get the new rules posted, they won't affect you too much, if at all.
Oh I agree people would. I'm not saying it's bad I'm just blowing off steam.
Because it was my first I was taking my time and getting lots of feedback before I posted it.
Set up my charts google docs even drafted my tournament post and edited several times based on feedback and questions i received.
Had I just posted a half finished idea for sign ups and made the edits as I went I could have still run it. I guess Thad the irritating part, I see that happen all the time yet i wanted my first to e better then that.
Oh well. See you in 2 months then.
IcePak
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
This had better be a good one, I'm looking forward to it!
Important Tournament Notice
The data for ALL of my tournaments has potentially been lost. I am working to recover it but as I am away on business all of this week, there will be some delay. Sincere apologies.
This had better be a good one, I'm looking forward to it!
Well, depends on what new rules / criteria they put on these games. assuming I'm still able to run it in 2 months, I think it will be a great new large scale team game tournament series.
I think it will get a great response from tournament playing community of CC.
IcePack
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
IcePack wrote:Because it was my first I was taking my time and getting lots of feedback before I posted it.
I highly recommend you work on organizing some smaller tournaments first. There is a very good likelihood that there will be a minimum number of tournaments that an organizer must have already organized before hosting a large-team tournament. We currently require that international tournament organizers must have organized 1 completed regular tournament, so we'll probably require at least that for large-team tournaments.
I don't really have unique ideas for regular sized tournaments, there are so many variations in place already. I chose large scale as it'd be unique, interesting, something new to CC and not stepping on peoples toes who runnthe small scale tournaments.
Otherwise I'd just be running a basic tournament set up to run thru the motions to meet minimum qualifications, which adds nothing to the site or CC tournament experience.
If I have to I will...
IcePack
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
IcePack wrote:I don't really have unique ideas for regular sized tournaments, there are so many variations in place already. I chose large scale as it'd be unique, interesting, something new to CC and not stepping on peoples toes who runnthe small scale tournaments.
Otherwise I'd just be running a basic tournament set up to run thru the motions to meet minimum qualifications, which adds nothing to the site or CC tournament experience.
If I have to I will...
IcePack
I understand unique ideas can seem like more fun but sometimes something fairly simple like my "patrickaa317's Trips Across the USA" tourney is quite fun too. I'd suggest getting some of these going just in case there is a minimum number of tourney's required, that way we won't have to wait for your large team one.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
IcePack wrote:I don't really have unique ideas for regular sized tournaments, there are so many variations in place already. I chose large scale as it'd be unique, interesting, something new to CC and not stepping on peoples toes who runnthe small scale tournaments.
Otherwise I'd just be running a basic tournament set up to run thru the motions to meet minimum qualifications, which adds nothing to the site or CC tournament experience.
If I have to I will...
IcePack
I understand unique ideas can seem like more fun but sometimes something fairly simple like my "patrickaa317's Trips Across the USA" tourney is quite fun too. I'd suggest getting some of these going just in case there is a minimum number of tourney's required, that way we won't have to wait for your large team one.
Thanks mate. I'm working to rescue a tournament or two and I'm also just started a basic 32 player cookie cutter random map thing. Nothing special. That way I'll have 3-4 of them done and under my belt for the one that i actually wanted to do.
Cheers,
IcePack
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
IcePack wrote:I don't really have unique ideas for regular sized tournaments, there are so many variations in place already. I chose large scale as it'd be unique, interesting, something new to CC and not stepping on peoples toes who runnthe small scale tournaments.
Otherwise I'd just be running a basic tournament set up to run thru the motions to meet minimum qualifications, which adds nothing to the site or CC tournament experience.
If I have to I will...
IcePack
I understand unique ideas can seem like more fun but sometimes something fairly simple like my "patrickaa317's Trips Across the USA" tourney is quite fun too. I'd suggest getting some of these going just in case there is a minimum number of tourney's required, that way we won't have to wait for your large team one.
Thanks mate. I'm working to rescue a tournament or two and I'm also just started a basic 32 player cookie cutter random map thing. Nothing special. That way I'll have 3-4 of them done and under my belt for the one that i actually wanted to do.
Cheers,
IcePack
i have some advice for you IcePack
those simple bracket tourneys help the TO get their backoffice in order. things like spreadsheets & charts make life easier.
and if you do want to run a large tourney straight off how about Woddruff's abandoned one
Hey Greenie,
I have all my spreadsheets and google docs in place. Why you think I'm pissed I can't run it? I spent all the time getting ready lol
I've run non-cc tournaments before so that's why I took the time to get everything together prior to posting anything. I was maybe a week off of posting my tourney. Was waiting for one last feedback on the wording.
I've already been told about wood's tournament already - I'm awaiting an email with his files etc to review before I take it on. Thanks for the suggestion.
IcePack
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
Night Strike wrote:Effective immediately, I am making an executive decision to put a hold on ALL new Large-Team Tournaments.
I admire the creativity that many organizers have put into organizing tournaments that involve teams larger than your typical doubles/triples/quads that the site naturally provides, but with these elaborate tournaments also means more caveats that we Tournament Directors have to investigate to make sure the tournaments are within the rules and require an adequate number of games for each player to justify the number of medals that organizers are requesting for their winners. Our minimum requirements and medals policies currently indicate that generally all members of winning teams will get winners medals no matter how many players are on the team, but we've come to realize that this blanket policy is not working. We've had some tournaments where even half the number of participants would have made up the winning team. In order to give us time to develop a better policy for this growing area of tournaments, we have decided to put a hold on all new Large-Team Tournaments. Hopefully this will stop the hodge-podge approach we've taken to allowing these tournaments as well as give us time to get input from the community. If you have any suggestions, please post them in this thread. We definitely need opinions from all of you. I hope to have a policy announced within 1-2 months. Thanks for your cooperation and understanding.
~Night Strike
Tournament Commissioner
Any update on this? I have one in the works that I want to kick off sooner than later. Can I send the details to a TD to get it approved?
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
Night Strike wrote:Effective immediately, I am making an executive decision to put a hold on ALL new Large-Team Tournaments.
I admire the creativity that many organizers have put into organizing tournaments that involve teams larger than your typical doubles/triples/quads that the site naturally provides, but with these elaborate tournaments also means more caveats that we Tournament Directors have to investigate to make sure the tournaments are within the rules and require an adequate number of games for each player to justify the number of medals that organizers are requesting for their winners. Our minimum requirements and medals policies currently indicate that generally all members of winning teams will get winners medals no matter how many players are on the team, but we've come to realize that this blanket policy is not working. We've had some tournaments where even half the number of participants would have made up the winning team. In order to give us time to develop a better policy for this growing area of tournaments, we have decided to put a hold on all new Large-Team Tournaments. Hopefully this will stop the hodge-podge approach we've taken to allowing these tournaments as well as give us time to get input from the community. If you have any suggestions, please post them in this thread. We definitely need opinions from all of you. I hope to have a policy announced within 1-2 months. Thanks for your cooperation and understanding.
~Night Strike
Tournament Commissioner
Any update on this? I have one in the works that I want to kick off sooner than later. Can I send the details to a TD to get it approved?
We're working on it. We should have something ready pretty soon.
It's no use sending anything for approval at this point, we'll have ask for your patience a little longer.
Night Strike wrote:Effective immediately, I am making an executive decision to put a hold on ALL new Large-Team Tournaments.
I admire the creativity that many organizers have put into organizing tournaments that involve teams larger than your typical doubles/triples/quads that the site naturally provides, but with these elaborate tournaments also means more caveats that we Tournament Directors have to investigate to make sure the tournaments are within the rules and require an adequate number of games for each player to justify the number of medals that organizers are requesting for their winners. Our minimum requirements and medals policies currently indicate that generally all members of winning teams will get winners medals no matter how many players are on the team, but we've come to realize that this blanket policy is not working. We've had some tournaments where even half the number of participants would have made up the winning team. In order to give us time to develop a better policy for this growing area of tournaments, we have decided to put a hold on all new Large-Team Tournaments. Hopefully this will stop the hodge-podge approach we've taken to allowing these tournaments as well as give us time to get input from the community. If you have any suggestions, please post them in this thread. We definitely need opinions from all of you. I hope to have a policy announced within 1-2 months. Thanks for your cooperation and understanding.
~Night Strike
Tournament Commissioner
Any update on this? I have one in the works that I want to kick off sooner than later. Can I send the details to a TD to get it approved?
We're working on it. We should have something ready pretty soon.
It's no use sending anything for approval at this point, we'll have ask for your patience a little longer.
Lx
Thanks Lindax.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
We're currently in the process of making some TD changes which is partially holding this up, but I hope to announce them all together by the end of this week.
Night Strike wrote:We're currently in the process of making some TD changes which is partially holding this up, but I hope to announce them all together by the end of this week.
June 4th Post....June 12th now....8 days....1 week = 7 days..........................
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
Night Strike wrote:We're currently in the process of making some TD changes which is partially holding this up, but I hope to announce them all together by the end of this week.
June 4th Post....June 12th now....8 days....1 week = 7 days..........................
I had a hold up on one of my TD nominees due to vacations (both his and mine), so once I get him added and trained, and the final wording if this new policy figured out, it will be posted. The framework is already there, the wording just has to be finalized.
