Jump to content


Photo

Masters Divisions 2017 - Questions


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
47 replies to this topic

#1 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,199 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 15 January 2017 - 11:39 PM

Please ask your questions here and a member of TC will get back to you.

 

To answer some questions asked already in other threads:

 

Division Sizes will be 10

 

Only players who scored 5TRPs or more (with no disqualifications) in this current season (in tournaments run by TC) will be invited.


  • FGP_ likes this

#2 roeczak

roeczak

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 15 January 2017 - 11:47 PM

Umm , the allocation is kinda... incomplete...


  • FGP_ likes this

Highest rating : 838 (Platinum Major)

 


#3 Yellowhat

Yellowhat

    Sergeant

  • Junior Tournament Management
  • 281 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 16 January 2017 - 07:31 AM

Where is the division 5 arranging topic?


Yellowhat is the literally translation of my surname.

#4 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,199 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 16 January 2017 - 12:54 PM

Umm , the allocation is kinda... incomplete...


It is a work in progress and will be finished shortly!

#5 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,199 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 16 January 2017 - 12:56 PM

Where is the division 5 arranging topic?


We are not yet at the arranging matches stage - this will come after players have registered. Bear in mind that not all players that have qualified will register, so the Division that you play in will depend on this.

#6 Yellowhat

Yellowhat

    Sergeant

  • Junior Tournament Management
  • 281 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 16 January 2017 - 04:52 PM

Ooh I looked at the ones of 2015/2016. Ok, I'll sign up!


Yellowhat is the literally translation of my surname.

#7 Master Mind

Master Mind

    Captain

  • Tournament Manager
  • 885 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 18 January 2017 - 06:46 AM

So if a player in Div 1, 2 or 3 doesn't sign up, Moghedien will enter Div 3?


First Dutch Champion Juniors 2015

#8 --Wogomite--

--Wogomite--

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 January 2017 - 01:47 PM

Yes, that is how it works Master Mind.



#9 Master Mind

Master Mind

    Captain

  • Tournament Manager
  • 885 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 18 January 2017 - 06:44 PM

I want to point out that the allocation says HiImNew is in both Division 2 (place 3) and in Division 3 (place 2). 


First Dutch Champion Juniors 2015

#10 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,199 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 18 January 2017 - 06:56 PM

Good spot, thanks MM. Will look into this tonight, double check the entire order and correct any errors.

#11 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,199 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 18 January 2017 - 11:25 PM

The order of allocation has now been double checked - there were some minor amendments to the order.



#12 Master Mind

Master Mind

    Captain

  • Tournament Manager
  • 885 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 14 February 2017 - 06:31 AM

Do I have a 'free week' in Round 6?


First Dutch Champion Juniors 2015

#13 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,199 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 14 February 2017 - 04:17 PM

Do I have a 'free week' in Round 6?

Yes



#14 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,199 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 14 February 2017 - 04:31 PM

Moved from another thread:
 

Alright, I respect TC's decision, but I would still want to make a few notes:
 
- I think when a player received two strikes, he should be sent a pm regarding the matter.
- I think that it is strange to get two strikes in 1 round, 1 stike should be the maximum per round. Right now I didn't check the forum for a week and it didn't come to my mind that there was a tournament going on. So I get the second warning point for an automatically arranged game, which I didn't even know about.
- Arranging games via pm's is imo a better solution, when Astros opened a pm with me, we had our game arranged within a day, it would have been played tomorrow evening/night 23:00 GMT, but I guess that one's off the board now as well.
 
Anyway, I respect TC's decision, I forgot about the tournament for a while, and that's my mistake. I would however suggest to make some changes/additions in the warning point system.. If having as many players as possible in a tournament is your goal.
 
Max

 

It is not TC's job to chase players for availability. That having been said, reminders are published in the relevant forum thread weekly. The rules state that players are responsible for their own arrangements which includes regularly checking the forum. (I'm sure you can appreciate that on top of running the tournament, chasing players would involve unnecessary extra work)

 

Strikes are provided where players have shown unreliability, or inconvenienced another player. The duration for the tournament is short - at one game a week, so if a one-strike a week rule was applied, then a backlog of games would start to build up - and the consequence of this would that we would be forcing other players to play more than one game a week - which is not the commitment that players agreed to when registering.

 

Arranging games by PM is certainly a more efficient situation (other tournaments that we run do use this method) but the practical downside is that this involves TC sending out hundreds of PMs, and monitoring them, rather than needing to only look in one forum thread per division.

 

Perhaps going forward a player should receive a PM when they receive two strikes. Then again, who is to say that they will read that PM, rather than reading the forum thread? The method of match arranging, and the consequences for not staying on top of game arrangements were clearly communicated in the rules, so TC's decision is justified and prevents the possibility of further inconvenience to other players.



#15 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,199 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 14 February 2017 - 04:34 PM

Are there standings for this tournament?


Thanks for the reminder! The Masters Divisions standings are available here:

 (http://forum.strateg...2017-standings/)



#16 queenbee1

queenbee1

    Captain

  • Tournament Manager
  • 972 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 15 February 2017 - 09:57 PM

What is the goal? Just to win the division?



#17 sevenseas

sevenseas

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,037 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 15 February 2017 - 11:03 PM

What is the goal? Just to win the division?

 

The goal is to win as many games as possible. 


I play as Sevenseas & Don't Cry

#18 queenbee1

queenbee1

    Captain

  • Tournament Manager
  • 972 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 16 February 2017 - 05:57 AM

Moved from another thread:
 

 

It is not TC's job to chase players for availability. That having been said, reminders are published in the relevant forum thread weekly. The rules state that players are responsible for their own arrangements which includes regularly checking the forum. (I'm sure you can appreciate that on top of running the tournament, chasing players would involve unnecessary extra work)

 

Strikes are provided where players have shown unreliability, or inconvenienced another player. The duration for the tournament is short - at one game a week, so if a one-strike a week rule was applied, then a backlog of games would start to build up - and the consequence of this would that we would be forcing other players to play more than one game a week - which is not the commitment that players agreed to when registering.

 

Arranging games by PM is certainly a more efficient situation (other tournaments that we run do use this method) but the practical downside is that this involves TC sending out hundreds of PMs, and monitoring them, rather than needing to only look in one forum thread per division.

 

Perhaps going forward a player should receive a PM when they receive two strikes. Then again, who is to say that they will read that PM, rather than reading the forum thread? The method of match arranging, and the consequences for not staying on top of game arrangements were clearly communicated in the rules, so TC's decision is justified and prevents the possibility of further inconvenience to other players.

I have to take sides here. You had enough time to comment 4 paragraphs and the TC should at least be involved enough to send a courtesy PM unless you don't care. Membership needs to be cultivated to grow. If you don't have the time then add someone to the team that does. You have a tournament that takes 5 months to complete and everyone seemed confused at the end?

 

Look at all the names that qualified and still you can't get 50 players. The parent company couldn't care less. You have to run these like a business. Generate some excitement. Don't throw people under the bus. Stratego is not growing. Players are not privileged to play. Max could easily make those games up and the players would be better for the experience. DQing a top player is an insult to us all.


Edited by queenbee1, 16 February 2017 - 06:46 AM.

  • Master Mind likes this

#19 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,199 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 16 February 2017 - 09:44 AM

>You had enough time to comment 4 paragraphs

Taking a week to write a 5 minute response to open tournament criticism, of course there is enough time.

> the TC should at least be involved enough to send a courtesy PM unless you don't care.

Strikes are announced in the forum thread (there's your courtesy). This is a reasonable place to announce this because 1. Each participant knows of the decision and 2. The recipient is assumed to be aware (as players know that the forum thread is practically the sole place they need to monitor)

>Membership needs to be cultivated to grow.

This has nothing to do with membership. It is about not allowing unreliable players to continuously inconvenience other players.

>You have a tournament that takes 5 months to complete and everyone seemed confused at the end?

This is a 9 week league tournament - which is the confusing part?

>Max could easily make those games up and the players would be better for the experience.

Probably, at further inconvenience to the players. I'll re-iterate this point - removing players who continuously either fail to provide availability or don't show up at all is necessary for the protection of the players (and to keep tournament from becoming a joke where players may or may not turn up on a whim, while their opponent makes/cancels/re-schedules their plans to accommodate).

>DQing a top player is an insult to us all.

Rules are without prejudice to ability. Suggesting immunity for 'top players' is quite frankly ridiculous.

#20 queenbee1

queenbee1

    Captain

  • Tournament Manager
  • 972 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 16 February 2017 - 07:13 PM

>You had enough time to comment 4 paragraphs

Taking a week to write a 5 minute response to open tournament criticism, of course there is enough time.

> the TC should at least be involved enough to send a courtesy PM unless you don't care.

Strikes are announced in the forum thread (there's your courtesy). This is a reasonable place to announce this because 1. Each participant knows of the decision and 2. The recipient is assumed to be aware (as players know that the forum thread is practically the sole place they need to monitor)

>Membership needs to be cultivated to grow.

This has nothing to do with membership. It is about not allowing unreliable players to continuously inconvenience other players.

>You have a tournament that takes 5 months to complete and everyone seemed confused at the end?

This is a 9 week league tournament - which is the confusing part?

>Max could easily make those games up and the players would be better for the experience.

Probably, at further inconvenience to the players. I'll re-iterate this point - removing players who continuously either fail to provide availability or don't show up at all is necessary for the protection of the players (and to keep tournament from becoming a joke where players may or may not turn up on a whim, while their opponent makes/cancels/re-schedules their plans to accommodate).

Rules are without prejudice to ability. Suggesting immunity for 'top players' is quite frankly ridiculous.

So why didn't you reach out to Max? Just too damn busy I guess. Don't want to show any special consideration? Well you let Henry and BillO into the tournament along with 17 others, but rules are rules?

 

You are saying that Max is an unreliable player that continuously inconveniences other players. Even you can't believe that.

 

The 5 months was about the WCO. A total cluster that ended in confusion.

 

The Committee at my bequest and two others bent the rules on TRPS while Max was qualified. So your comment that rules are without prejudice doesn't fly. Rules can be changed and modified. You just don't want to. 

 

You can always make exceptions and unless someone in his division doesn't want to play him, there is no issue. If someone take umbrage then he takes that loss and we move on. Inconvenience is such a subjective word. I can play 5 matches a week while others cannot find one hour in common in the same time period.

 

I am changing my statement. DQing "any player" without reaching out to them is an insult to us all. The Forum is a mess and I often cannot find the information I need.


Edited by queenbee1, 16 February 2017 - 07:15 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users