5punk

Right, although the tournament has been mighty enjoyable, its gone on for rather a long time due to excessive procrastination. Although theres no pressing need for it to finish after a certain amount of time, its kinda hard to keep up the interest in it when theres gaps of over a week between matches. For this reason, I think the next tourney should have some more firmly stated rules.

Post your ideas here for further discussion. Dont be afraid to suggest anything that pops into your mind, but also dont be offended if everyone then shouts "I hate you! And I hate the band you like!"

To kick off, in order to deal with the only real problem i think this has had:

Rule 1) For each tournament, three "official adjudicators" will be decided. This means that for any given match, there will be at least one that is not directly involved, and can therefore make impartial decisions. Whenever possible, at least one judge will be online when matches are being played. Any decisions regarding the tournament will be made by them, and their decisions will be final. Anyone not liking their decisions can kiss their hairy arses.

Rule 2) Once the two participants of a match has been decided, either by the initial draw or by the completion of previous rounds, there is a 1 week time limit for that match to be played in. If the match has not been started within this 1 week time limit, the results go to the judges. If they decide that one participant has made significantly more effort than the other, that participant wins by default. If neither has made significantly greater efforts, the result may be decided at random, or a previously knocked out participant, randomly selected, may be re-entered. This will be a judges decision.

Rule 3)If a game is scheduled, and one player fails to turn up, that player forfiets the game. If both players fail to turn up, they have till the end of the week to play, as before.

What if one or neither person can make the tournament for legitimate reasons in the allocated four days?

Grimmie wrote:What if one or neither person can make the tournament for legitimate reasons in the allocated four days?

I agree. Make it just 1 week.

deject wrote:

Grimmie wrote:What if one or neither person can make the tournament for legitimate reasons in the allocated four days?

I agree. Make it just 1 week.

What if one or neither person can make the tournament for legitimate reasons in the allocated 1 week?

But no, you are right. How about; if there are legitimate reasons they can submit them to the judges, who can then decide how long extra to give them? To be honest, how many legitimate reasons are there going to be for a person to suddenly not be able to play an hour or two of a game at any point over a week? the only things that are going to wipe out your entire week are things like going on holiday or some such, and if thats the case you really shouldn't have entered in the first place.

People will take as much time as you give them, often, which is why I didnt want to give too much time right off the bat. But ok, say a week. I'll edit the first post for those changes.

Any more suggestions for rules?

EDIT: k, changed the first post. I made the total limit two weeks max. Even in the unlikely event of someone having a legitimate reason for suddenly not being able to play for two weeks, putting the whole thing on pause for one player is a little unfair to the others, I feel.

Joose wrote:Dont be afraid to suggest anything that pops into your mind

k, then

- players agree in advance a date and time, an independant judge also agrees to be there at the specified time
- if one player misses it, they lose
- if both players miss it, they both lose and the oppenent in the next round gets a bye

Honestly, I say we make 1 week a hard deadline. Honestly, we need to make it a hard deadline, or these things will drag on forever.

FatherJack wrote: - players agree in advance a date and time, an independant judge also agrees to be there at the specified time
- if one player misses it, they lose
- if both players miss it, they both lose and the oppenent in the next round gets a bye

I wouldnt want to deny chance moments when both players and a judge happen to all be online with time to spare earlier than they thought. If we make them wait till a specified time, then people could pass up these oportunities only to find that they cant play later. But I like the second half of that. How about a slight addendum, that if theres an opportunity to play earlier, they still can?

deject wrote: Honestly, I say we make 1 week a hard deadline. Honestly, we need to make it a hard deadline, or these things will drag on forever.

oh, right. I mis-understood your first post. Legitimate reasons be damned then? actually, yeah, a week gives a reasonable amount of time for people, its going to be a rare thing that someone has a legitimate reason to not find the time at any point in a whole week. And as you rightly say, things can drag on somewhat otherwise.

I shall re-edit.

deject wrote:Honestly, I say we make 1 week a hard deadline. Honestly, we need to make it a hard deadline, or these things will drag on forever.

Like right now. I think these rules a great idea.

can we do it with random generals this time because i enjoy the thrill of a unknow player

Yup, I quite fancy that idea too, but I was thinking this could be a more generic "rules for tournaments", that could be used in other games too, maybe. Stuff thats game specific (like random generals) can be decided relatively quickly.

I do like the idea of increased randomness for the next tournament

EDIT: ooh, a different idea on the same theme: keeping it totally random means theres always the possibility of some poor bugger getting the toxin general. How about; You can choose your general, but you can only play each general once? That way you have to decide whether to play your favorite early, to increase your odds of getting through, or keep your best till things get harder, running the risk of being knocked out early?

good idea but i will stick to my randomness in the choosing department

Joose wrote: That way you have to decide whether to play your favorite early, to increase your odds of getting through, or keep your best till things get harder, running the risk of being knocked out early?

Well, depending on who you're going against, perhaps? It's not like we have enough people for it to matter that much.