Jump to content


Photo

Masters Divisions 2017 - Questions


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

#21 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Captain

  • WC Online Team
  • 761 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 16 February 2017 - 08:39 PM

I usually like to stay out of topics such as this, as I do not wish, when not (directly) involved, in any way, to criticize the way TC runs their tournaments.
 
While it is unfortunate to see that Max was disqualified from the tournament, by entering a tournament, you agree to the terms/rules, not choosing to follow (or read) those is a player's own choice (mistake) and responsibility.
 
Of course, Max's statement regarding a courtesy PM would have been nice, however, in the end, it is still his own responsibility. The TC could, but is in no way obliged to send things such as courtesy PMs, especially considering this tournament does not use PMs (which has been communicated.. players should realise the forum should be checked every now and then).
 
In spirit of the tournament/game, I could agree with queenbee, however, rules are there to be followed aswell. The TC could have made an exception, could have tried to actively reach out to Max.... instead, Max should have: Read the forum, keep an eye on the division tournament... perhaps subscribe to the designated division thread to receive e-mail updates.
 
It is unfortunate and regrettable that Max was disqualified, but fully understandable.
 
 
 
 
 
As for the WCO stuff, we have opened a survey ( http://forum.strateg...eedback-survey/ ) which you can fill in to provide us with feedback.

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

#22 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

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

Posted 16 February 2017 - 09:10 PM

>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?

Max was reached out to in the forum, as are all players who haven't provided valid availability with a deadline looming. The 'rules are rules' comment are your words, not ours. TC fully recognises that some cases deserve exceptions and so reserves the right to make changes where they feel it is reasonable to do so - as they did in the case where a few more players were invited to Divisions (Division 5 may otherwise have only had 6 players).

Forgetting about a tournament (or not reading the rules) are not generally considered good enough reason to be granted a reprieve. If there was a good reason for a reprieve, we didn't hear one. It is worth noting that we are not talking of a sole infringement - There is room for error to allow for a couple of cases of memory lapse. 3 strikes (not one or two) are required.

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

A players history does not have an influence on the current tournament. So long as they are eligible for the tournament they are given the same treatment as anyone else. But seeing as you are coming out with arguments not supported by the facts, you are probably unaware that even this season in another tournament he was granted a reprieve from a third strike that would have caused a dq. - not that it is relevant in any way to the current tournament.

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

I don't support your opinion, but the WCO isn't a tournament run by TC, so again this is not relevant. Nortrom (member of WCO organising team) has addressed this above.

>So your comment that rules are without prejudice doesn't fly. Rules can be changed and modified. You just don't want to.

As already stated, exceptions to rules wil be made, but only with good reason. Additionally you have misquoted me - I said that rules are without prejudice to ability. (This is to say that no player gets preferential treatment).

>Inconvenience is such a subjective word. I can play 5 matches a week while others cannot find one hour in common in the same

Not providing availability inconveniences an opponent (Why - because they have made themselves potentially available, and then may have to make themselves additionally available to play at the default time) Not turning up to a game inconveniences an opponent (Why - because they have wasted their time. On top of that they then have to find more time to be available in a later week, beyond the commitment they signed up to). Subjectivity doesn't come into it in these cases - these actions inconvenience an opponent whichever way you look at it.

>I am changing my statement. DQing "any player" without reaching out to them is an insult to us all.

There is no insult here. The rules are clear - and it is the players responsibility to be aware of the rules and to follow them. If a player doesn't like the rules they needn't register.

>The Forum is a mess and I often cannot find the information I need.

That may be a general comment, but the only information you need for this tournament is the tournament rules. These are mischievously entitled - Masters Divisions 2017 - Rules - and are confusingly located in this very sub-forum.
  • The Prof likes this

#23 maxroelofs

maxroelofs

    Major

  • Dutch Tournament Manager
  • 1,035 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 17 February 2017 - 12:58 AM

Wow! A whole thread about me, which I just figured out about, what an honour.  :D

 

Anyway, I forgot about the whole tournament for a while, since I am quite busy. I got two warning points, for 1 mistake, makes me wonder why the TC didn't reach out, and rather just kicks a player out. I agree that it's my own responsibility, but I think a part of being a tournament organiser is reaching out to people who are about to get kicked. It's not a thing you can put in the rules ofcourse, but if you want to have as many participants as possible, it's a thing that a tournament organiser should do in my opinion. 

 

Oh well.. Onto the next one. 

 

Max


To watch stratego videos: https://www.youtube....HOHXWONQMsVcOLA

#24 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

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

Posted 17 February 2017 - 10:04 AM

I disagree that doing their utmost to get hold of a player should be a part of TCs role, or that keeping as many players as possible in a tournament should be an objective.

The best 'solution' for both players and organisers is for the player (as Nortrom mentioned) to 'follow the forum thread'. This way, if a player wants emails or notifications they can have them (without creating an additional and unnecessary duty for the organisers - which players would come to expect).

#25 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

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

Posted 04 March 2017 - 03:31 PM

Players who will play with yoyordy after his disqualification will receive the win without playing?
I think this is a bit unfair


That would be unfair, but this is not what happens when a player is disqualified.

 

Players who did not play yoyordy will have their score considered for that game as a possible range of 1-6 points. 



#26 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,429 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 05 March 2017 - 07:42 AM

Do you have guidelines or a formula to determine the number points they will receive, or is it a judgement call?



#27 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

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

Posted 05 March 2017 - 11:03 AM

Do you have guidelines or a formula to determine the number points they will receive, or is it a judgement call?

 

They receive 1-6 points.

 

A player with a No Result will have a final score expressed as a range (eg 22-27pts).

 

Example:

 

Player A wins 5 games and loses 1, scoring 31 pts.

Player B wins 4 games and ties 1, but cannot play the 6th game (due to an opponent being DQ'd). This player scores 28-33 pts.

 

Player A and Player B are now adjudged to have tied, so the result between the two players decides who finishes on top. 



#28 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,898 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 05 March 2017 - 11:24 AM

Isn't this providing a little advantage to player B? Assume Player A lost against player B, so according to your calculation B would finish on top while he could theoretically have lost against the Dqed player and would have finished below player A. So your calculation is eliminating this possibility. Wouldn't it be more fair in these cases to remove from player A the points that player A won against the Dqed player and compare the position of A and B on this basis only with one game less?


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#29 roeczak

roeczak

    Sergeant

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

Posted 05 March 2017 - 11:28 AM

If you remove those points B would still be on top...


Highest rating : 838 (Platinum Major)

 


#30 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

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

Posted 05 March 2017 - 11:49 AM

 Wouldn't it be more fair in these cases to remove from player A the points that player A won against the Dqed player and compare the position of A and B on this basis only with one game less?

 

When one player has played against a DQ'd player but the other hasn't, you can't have it both ways. 

 

Say for example that Player A beat the disqualified player, and Player B lost to the disqualified player, but Player C did not meet the disqualified player. If you remove the result for both Player A and Player B, then this would give Player B an unfair advantage over Player A.

 

What the NR system does is to make the result between the two tied players count as decisive.

 

This answers the claims: 'But I would have won against the DQ'd player' or 'But that player may have lost to the Dq'd player'. You can't know what would have happened in a game that didn't occur, so this method takes account of both possibilities. If the outcome of a match never played would have been decisive, then it is fairer to use the result between the two tied players to decide who finishes on top. 

 

Removing results that have already happened cannot be regarded as fair!



#31 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,898 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 05 March 2017 - 02:39 PM

If you remove those points B would still be on top...

no ... A would have 1 point removed and as he won against B then A would be on top. ... but still if player A did not lose against DQed player then player B has a little advantage because he didn't play against DQed player, so the case where he would have lost against player B but won against player A would give him an advantage


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#32 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

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

Posted 05 March 2017 - 03:06 PM

Assume Player A lost against player B

 

 

no ... A would have 1 point removed and as he won against B 

 

You have it muddled I think



#33 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,429 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 05 March 2017 - 11:07 PM

Example:

 

Player A wins 5 games and loses 1, scoring 31 pts.

Player B wins 4 games and ties 1, but cannot play the 6th game (due to an opponent being DQ'd). This player scores 28-33 pts.

 

Player A and Player B are now adjudged to have tied, so the result between the two players decides who finishes on top. 

 

That's actually quite an ingenious idea.  Did someone on the TC come up with it or did you get it from somewhere?  Whoever thought of it has my admiration.

 

This would result in more ties, however.  How would you deal with the case of a three-way tie in which A beat B, B beat C, and C beat A?



#34 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,898 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 05 March 2017 - 11:11 PM

They receive 1-6 points.

 

A player with a No Result will have a final score expressed as a range (eg 22-27pts).

 

Example:

 

Player A wins 5 games and loses 1, scoring 31 pts.

Player B wins 4 games and ties 1, but cannot play the 6th game (due to an opponent being DQ'd). This player scores 28-33 pts.

 

Player A and Player B are now adjudged to have tied, so the result between the two players decides who finishes on top. 

 

 

You have it muddled I think

... what I mean is your example is not possible that player A has 5 wins (including one against player B  ) and 1 loss against DQed player while player B has 4 wins, 1 tie and has not played DQed player ... at least player B should have 1 loss against player A

 

if the loss of player A is against player B then player B has a little advantage as I said above because you deny him the possibility to lose against DQed player ... which would make him end with 28 while player B has 31


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#35 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

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

Posted 06 March 2017 - 12:08 AM

That's actually quite an ingenious idea.  Did someone on the TC come up with it or did you get it from somewhere?  Whoever thought of it has my admiration.
 
This would result in more ties, however.  How would you deal with the case of a three-way tie in which A beat B, B beat C, and C beat A?

 
TC came up with the idea. (It was part of the Rules for the Champions League - we didn't want disqualifications to cause chaos in Divisions/Groups as it had done historically). With disqualifications of (or withdrawals by) players who have already played, this does raise the likelihood of ties a little (although 3 way ties are already quite possible). A 3 way play-off would take place to settle a 3 way tie (with an additional one-game Quick Arena tie-breaker in case of a 3 way tie in the play-off)



#36 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

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

Posted 06 March 2017 - 12:16 AM

... what I mean is your example is not possible that player A has 5 wins (including one against player B  ) and 1 loss against DQed player while player B has 4 wins, 1 tie and has not played DQed player ... at least player B should have 1 loss against player A


The example was only to illustrate how a range of points works. In the example that I posted, Player A lost to Player B in Divisions, so the impact of Player B being unable to play the 6th game means in this case that Player B finishes ahead of Player A.

 

You say that we 'deny him the possibility to lose against the DQ'd player'! It is not possible for him/her to play against the Dq'd player (short of reviving the disqualified player) so the best available option is to use the games between the two players.

 

In that example Player A can have no complaints - the only game Player A lost was to Player B (who beat everyone else). 



#37 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,898 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 06 March 2017 - 01:28 PM

Sorry but it looks there is some misunderstandings. If we consider the case you describe above player A lost against player B but won against all others so for him the total points of 31 are very clear. Now you say that because B did not play against DQed player he de facto shall end ahead of player A because he won his game against him, right? What i say is that if he would have played his game against DQed player he may have lost it and would have ended with 28 points ... which means his final position is not on top but in second. Therefore, as according to your system he would end on top he has a little advantage for not having played DQed player.

If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#38 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

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

Posted 06 March 2017 - 02:00 PM

Napoleon,
 
This is a question of what system to use when results are incomplete. In the absence of the opportunity for Player B to play against the Dq'd player, how do you best separate Player A and Player B?
 
Yes it is possible that had there been no DQ, Player B may have lost to the Dq'd player and therefore finished below Player A. But given that match never occurs, what is the best system to use?
 
It seems fair, when deciding who finishes above who, and where a result is missing that would have decided the finishing positions, to use the results between the two players.
 
You describe player B as having an 'advantage' for not having played the Dq'd player - but the 'advantage' comes from beating Player A.
 
Consider this example: 

Rxn6lSR.jpg

 

Player E has just been disqualified. Prior to that Player B needed a tie or a victory to finish ahead of Player A, but that opportunity was unfortunately for him removed. 

 

Player A finishes with 26pts, whilst Player B finishes with 26-31pts.  This constitutes a tie, and so the results between the two players are used which means Player A finishes ahead.

 

The disqualification of Player E in this case gives the 'advantage' as you call it to Player A in this case (who had already played against the DQ'd player).

 

The disqualification of any player, depending on the situation can mean either that

 

the player who didn't play the Dq'd player gets the benefit

or

the player who did play he Dq'd player gets the benefit

 

But the recipient of the benefit is decided in every case by the result between the two players in question.

 

Do you oppose this as a fair system?



#39 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,898 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 06 March 2017 - 09:59 PM

Napoleon,
 
This is a question of what system to use when results are incomplete. In the absence of the opportunity for Player B to play against the Dq'd player, how do you best separate Player A and Player B?
 
Yes it is possible that had there been no DQ, Player B may have lost to the Dq'd player and therefore finished below Player A. But given that match never occurs, what is the best system to use?
 
It seems fair, when deciding who finishes above who, and where a result is missing that would have decided the finishing positions, to use the results between the two players.
 
You describe player B as having an 'advantage' for not having played the Dq'd player - but the 'advantage' comes from beating Player A.
 
Consider this example: 

Rxn6lSR.jpg

 

Player E has just been disqualified. Prior to that Player B needed a tie or a victory to finish ahead of Player A, but that opportunity was unfortunately for him removed. 

 

Player A finishes with 26pts, whilst Player B finishes with 26-31pts.  This constitutes a tie, and so the results between the two players are used which means Player A finishes ahead.

 

The disqualification of Player E in this case gives the 'advantage' as you call it to Player A in this case (who had already played against the DQ'd player).

 

The disqualification of any player, depending on the situation can mean either that

 

the player who didn't play the Dq'd player gets the benefit

or

the player who did play he Dq'd player gets the benefit

 

But the recipient of the benefit is decided in every case by the result between the two players in question.

 

Do you oppose this as a fair system?

Exactly in either your example above or mine before one of the 2 players get an "advantage" so the system is not perfect.To be perfectly fair when you have such tied situation and in order to better position player A vs player B and reciprocally you need to compare their results as if none of them had played against the DQed player so in your case Player B would finish on top as he lost less games than player A


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#40 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

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

Posted 06 March 2017 - 11:38 PM

Your 'perfectly fair' situation involves removing a fairly earned victory from one player.

This system copes well when you throw in the fact that other players in the group may also have played against the dq'd player. Removing results can become really unfair when the result in question plays a part in the standings of the other players. (Consider where two other players are identical except one beat the disqualified player and the other didn't. Removing the result is certainly unfair in that situation!)

There is no perfect solution - Let's just accept we have differing interpretations.

The Prof says its ingenious, and that's more than good enough for me :)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users