Author |
Topic: 2013 World Championship Format (Read 31114 times) |
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender: 
Posts: 5928
|
 |
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #30 on: Apr 1st, 2012, 9:35am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Mar 30th, 2012, 10:48pm, Nombril wrote:Regarding volunteers: I had started a forum discussion and spreadsheet this year about organizing A/V, wiki, etc, but it seemed there were fewer people involved then I had hoped. We did get a good variety for commentary, but what % of the Wiki coverage did Hippo write? What % of the games were recorded by Omar?
... After posting I didn't follow up...
so
A. the "paycheck" might motivate more?
and/or
B. we should have a volunteer coordinator that follows up...specifically asks people for help...etc... |
|
I have noticed that a major motivator for volunteer effort seems to be a sense of ownership. Three examples are the Continuous Tournament that I ran, the Arimaa World League that megajester founded, and the Ironman Tournament that Adanac is getting started. All three of us volunteered a lot of time, and Adanac and I additionally put up a noticeable amount of money as well.
Common to all three cases was each of us pursuing a concept that we personally thought was cool. I was inspired by the idea of an infinite party that you could join or drop out of at any time, but with officially scheduled games, standings, and prizes. Megajester was inspired by the concept of playing for a club as in soccer leagues, and envisioned the crazy loyalty that self-chosen teams engender. Adanac is inspired by the epic nature of long knockout matches, and imagines they can have a historic importance for Arimaa like they did for chess.
The critical point is that we each throw our energy into our own vision. I was rather skeptical of megajester's proposed format (although it turned out fantastic) and similarly dubious as to Adanac's current proposal (although it will likely be just as epic as he expects). Probably other people thought my Continuous Tournament format was weird, but I gave it my sincere effort and I think it worked out well.
Omar's 2012 Arimaa World Championship was similar in that he was pursuing his vision of what it should be like. Yes, he was present to record video on almost every single game, which is a huge time commitment. It makes sense because that's part of his dream. But the lukewarm participation from other volunteers (and near disappearance of community contributions to the prize fund) probably reflects the fact that the rest of the community didn't feel it was their vision of an Arimaa World Championship.
I definitely don't think you can conclude that the volunteer spirit "isn't there" because people didn't fill in their names on the spreadsheet you set up. I think it is more a matter of people buying in to the event and getting excited about helping make it happen.
I love large audiences. I love live commentary and permanent video recordings thereof. I understand the urge to have a small number of high-quality games, and put all the energy into promoting a spectator base. That's not a bad thing.
But I love large participation even more. The core of a gaming community is always going to be people who play the game. If we can't have everything we want, if we have to make a choice between where our finite energy is spent, I would be prefer it be spent on promoting the player base.
I think the trick here is not to decide between my vision and Omar's vision (and/or anyone else's vision), but rather to gauge what will get people fired up. It's really easy for me to call for volunteers to make my vision happen, or for Omar to call for volunteers to make his vision happen. But who is going to volunteer to drum up sponsors and collect money for a larger prize fund just because Omar is dreaming of sponsorship? Who is going to volunteer to be on call for large chunks of thirteen consecutive weekends because I am dreaming of a 64-player World Championship?
In light of these reflections, I want to ask a slightly different question than, "What chores will you sign up to do for the 2013 World Championship?" Instead I want to ask, "Is there a dream 2013 World Championship that inspires you so much that you are willing to pitch in to make it reality?" Share your vision and excitement.
Quote:| Or does Omar still prefer to take our input from these discussions and make the final decision? |
|
The only workable solution is for Omar to be benevolent dictator. I believe, however, that he understands the importance of having the enthusiasm of the community behind him, and what that implies for how he takes community input.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 1st, 2012, 9:42am by Fritzlein » |
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #31 on: Apr 1st, 2012, 10:11am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 31st, 2012, 3:14am, Thiagor wrote:| I completely agree. However, we could fix this problem: Just set the qualification criterion to be winning a certain number of games, as opposed to a certain place on the position table. The only drawback would then be that the number of people qualifying is not fixed, but I guess, as long as this number doesn't vary too widely, it really doesn't matter much. |
|
To apply your idea to the Open Classic as we had it before, we could add a column to our tournament size to indicate the number of people who qualify for the final.
players rds wins qualifiers
------- --- ---- ----------
1- 8 0 0 1-8
9-11 3 1 8-10
12-15 4 2 8-12
16-23 5 3 8-12
24-35 6 4 8-12
36-55 7 5 8-13
56-88 8 6 8-13
89+ 9 7 8+
Note that I set the breakpoint in the number of rounds so as to ensure at least 8 qualifiers, but if we wanted it to be an average of 8 instead, with a range of 6-10, we could set different breakpoints.
Unfortunately, this doesn't address my concern about there being motivation to throw final-round games. Both scenarios of intentionally getting a lower seed to avoid a particular pairing and intentionally losing when you are eliminated anyway are alive and well even when more qualifiers are allowed in.
On the other hand, the notion of time off between two distinct phases has some merit in my mind. But would both phases be in the new year? We could be looking at 7-8 weeks of Open Classic and 6-8 weeks of (double-elimination) finals. Put a break in between and we might not crown a champion until May! Another merit of the floating triple elimination plus consolation bracket is slightly greater efficiency. Even with 64 players it should be done in 13 weeks.
Quote:| By the way, I'm also willing to help with the organisation next year, e.g. as a game referee or as a wiki recorder, although I will make a definite commitment only closer to the event, when I know better how much time I have available. |
|
Thanks for volunteering in a general sort of way. The point about not knowing commitments this far in advance is valid; it applies to me as well. There will very likely be supporters that come out of the woodwork at the last minute regardless of what format we choose.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #32 on: Apr 1st, 2012, 10:26am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 29th, 2012, 12:05pm, mistre wrote:| One twist that I think will address the issue of length would be to award the top finishers from the previous year a bye until the finals. So the top 4 finishers from last year (Chessandgo, Hanzack, Adanac, and Nombril would get byes). Then the top 4-6 finishers in the swiss qualifer would reach the finals which could be double or triple elimination. |
|
My hunch is that these players would all want to play in the Open Classic anyway, but supposing they didn't, we would have to jigger the number of rounds and/or number of wins required get the right number of qualifiers. If some of them take the bye into the finals and others don't, we wouldn't know how many top spots the Open Classic should choose until the last minute. To cope with the uncertainty, we might have to stick with the tiebreakers that Nombril hates.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 1st, 2012, 10:28am by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #33 on: Apr 1st, 2012, 10:30am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 30th, 2012, 1:18pm, omar wrote:| The Game Referee would have access to the tournament management tool to restart or resume a game if for example there was a timeout due to a server problem. Of course the Game Referee has to look at the logs, determine what happened, verify that the case falls within the scope of predefined rules to restart or resume; othewise contact the TD. So I think the Game Referee does need to be present during the game so that spectators and players don't have to track down and notify the person who is on call. |
|
I'm not sure I follow that logical train. What is wrong with the spectators and/or players calling in help after the problem has occurred? We have often done that in the past, i.e. calling on you to resolve a problem after it happened, and it worked just fine except when you were not available.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 1st, 2012, 1:01pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #34 on: Apr 1st, 2012, 1:15pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 30th, 2012, 1:18pm, omar wrote:Thanks, but I would rather have people give time than money. If you can't give time and still want to contribute, then just add to the prize fund.
|
|
That is very generous of you. If you decline to accept any remuneration, I like the idea of distributing the registration money among the volunteers who make the tournament happen, or if there is one main organizer who sacrifices all to make sure the event happens (like Dolus volunteered to do above) to give all the registration fee to him. If anyone wants to step forward like megajester did for the AWL, only on a larger scale, they deserve it.
The size of the entry fee is another issue. I would be happiest if we held the line at $10. At the moment we already see people hesitating to pay $20 for the Postal Mixer even though it is 100% refundable. My main reason for wanting a registration fee at all is not to build a big prize fund, but rather to encourage a minimal commitment.
I believe that almost everyone who would play for prize money would also play simply for the fun of the games and the glory of the victories. Chessandgo isn't going to skip the tournament on the logic that there isn't enough money available for him to win. I would therefore be happy to let prize fund be a nominal amount, plus any community donations, thus reserving all of the $10 entry fee for the TD and/or volunteers.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
chessandgo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1889
Gender:
Posts: 1244
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #35 on: Apr 1st, 2012, 4:00pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 1st, 2012, 1:15pm, Fritzlein wrote:| Chessandgo isn't going to skip the tournament on the logic that there isn't enough money available for him to win. |
|
U sure?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #36 on: Apr 1st, 2012, 8:47pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 1st, 2012, 4:00pm, chessandgo wrote:
Feel free to set me straight! 
(I vaguely recall your saying the glory was enough for you, but probably I remember wrong. It definitely would be a shame if we held a World Championship and the best players in the world didn't show up.)
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 2nd, 2012, 7:36am by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Adanac
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #892
Gender:
Posts: 635
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #37 on: Apr 2nd, 2012, 4:29pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 1st, 2012, 8:47pm, Fritzlein wrote:
Feel free to set me straight!
(I vaguely recall your saying the glory was enough for you, but probably I remember wrong. It definitely would be a shame if we held a World Championship and the best players in the world didn't show up.) |
|
He’s defending the Arimaa Challenge for the glory. I’m convinced of his genuine motivations 
on Apr 1st, 2012, 10:11am, Fritzlein wrote:
To apply your idea to the Open Classic as we had it before, we could add a column to our tournament size to indicate the number of people who qualify for the final.
players rds wins qualifiers
------- --- ---- ----------
1- 8 0 0 1-8
9-11 3 1 8-10
12-15 4 2 8-12
16-23 5 3 8-12
24-35 6 4 8-12
36-55 7 5 8-13
56-88 8 6 8-13
89+ 9 7 8+
Note that I set the breakpoint in the number of rounds so as to ensure at least 8 qualifiers, but if we wanted it to be an average of 8 instead, with a range of 6-10, we could set different breakpoints.
Unfortunately, this doesn't address my concern about there being motivation to throw final-round games. Both scenarios of intentionally getting a lower seed to avoid a particular pairing and intentionally losing when you are eliminated anyway are alive and well even when more qualifiers are allowed in.
On the other hand, the notion of time off between two distinct phases has some merit in my mind. But would both phases be in the new year? We could be looking at 7-8 weeks of Open Classic and 6-8 weeks of (double-elimination) finals. Put a break in between and we might not crown a champion until May! Another merit of the floating triple elimination plus consolation bracket is slightly greater efficiency. Even with 64 players it should be done in 13 weeks. |
|
The floating-elimination has the advantage of being a bit more compact than the old Open Classic/WC Final system. Even with 128 players it would wrap up in April. If we have a big Open Classic it would have to begin in early December, or perhaps even earlier, to accommodate its length. But if the WC cycle begins in January 2013 then I’d have a very strong preference for one giant triple-elimination tournament. I only have a preference for the Open Classic qualifier if it begins early and then has a break week(s) before the Finals begin.
The next biggest concerns are the two situations where one player can qualify in the final round of the Open Classic against an opponent with one more or one fewer victory. In both cases I think we should offer incentives to the opposing player. In the case that one player is eliminated and must play someone with a chance of qualification, perhaps the person “playing up” should be offered a 2000 Arimaa Point discount for the following World Championship if he/she wins (or, alternatively, just make it a free entry for next year or a full refund for the current year). I believe that would be a big enough incentive. In the opposite case, where someone is “playing down” I would make the incentive slightly smaller because this player will advance to the Finals and already has two incentives to win built-in (better seed + one less competitor). Perhaps, 1000 Arimaa Point discount for the following WC? Or we could be nastier and make it a stick rather than a carrot – “playing down” against someone who needs a victory to qualify means that you’ll automatically get the lowest seed in the Finals if you lose that game  .
I do like the idea of targeting 6-10 players to advance and basing advancement upon achieving a certain number of wins. Either double- or triple-elimination in the Finals would be OK, I suppose. The one I prefer would entirely depend upon how much of a gap there is between Open Classic and World Championship
I'm not passionate about the idea of giving byes into the Finals for the top x number of players from last year's World Championship. I think the Open Classic is so much more interesting if everyone participates.
I suppose this whole discussion is moot if we don’t have enough volunteers for next year. With the growth of the community, I'd feel much more optimistic in 2013 than I would have been in 2008 that we'll get enough volunteers. I’d guess that I’m 70%-80% likely to be available for volunteer duties for up to 10 hours per week in 2013. The other 20%-30% means my time will be much more limited or I can’t volunteer at all. Who knows what 2013 will bring for any of us?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #38 on: Apr 3rd, 2012, 12:09am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 1st, 2012, 10:30am, Fritzlein wrote:
I'm not sure I follow that logical train. What is wrong with the spectators and/or players calling in help after the problem has occurred? We have often done that in the past, i.e. calling on you to resolve a problem after it happened, and it worked just fine except when you were not available. |
|
If a problem is not resolved immediately, it could require having to reschedule the game on another day and possibly delay the next round by another week. If the Game Referee is present during the game then rather then spending time to track down the GR the players can chat right way with the GR and resolve the issue quickly.
How would the players and spectators know who to contact if a problem occurs? We would still have to go through the effort of making sure someone is signed up to be the GR for every game. Should we allow people to sign up to be the GR for a game without committing to be present at the game. I would not want that especially if they are receiving some compensation for it.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #39 on: Apr 3rd, 2012, 1:29am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 30th, 2012, 10:48pm, Nombril wrote:
Finally, I really don't want to bring this up, because I was never willing to read all of the by-laws for the AWL, but... do we want some sort of committee/organization to make official decisions? Or does Omar still prefer to take our input from these discussions and make the final decision? |
|
I don't want to make the final decisions in this event. Actually I would like to see someone step up and be the lead organizer for this event. The organizer can then setup a committee to make the final decisions.
I have written up this wiki page to help define the roles:
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/Event_Roles
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #40 on: Apr 3rd, 2012, 9:04am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 3rd, 2012, 12:09am, omar wrote:| If a problem is not resolved immediately, it could require having to reschedule the game on another day and possibly delay the next round by another week. |
|
Agreed, but this can be done with a call, as has been successfully done in the past when you were the only contact.
Quote:| How would the players and spectators know who to contact if a problem occurs? We would still have to go through the effort of making sure someone is signed up to be the GR for every game. |
|
I was envisioning a schedule of times and/or games that is filled each round as soon as the scheduler for that round had been run. I sort of imagined the person in charge would make up that schedule of responsibilities, dividing between himself and two or three other volunteers, depending on when all of them were free that weekend, rather than by a week-to-week sign-up process. Someone would be responsible for making sure every game was covered by someone who would know he was on call.
Quote:| Should we allow people to sign up to be the GR for a game without committing to be present at the game. |
|
Indeed, the commitment I envision would be to be immediately reachable and available if contacted, rather than to read all the chat live throughout the whole game. (Just being logged in to chat without reading it live could actually be less available than being reachable by phone.)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #41 on: Apr 3rd, 2012, 9:07am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 3rd, 2012, 1:29am, omar wrote:I don't want to make the final decisions in this event. Actually I would like to see someone step up and be the lead organizer for this event. The organizer can then setup a committee to make the final decisions.
I have written up this wiki page to help define the roles:
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/Event_Roles
|
|
Ah, so the list of roles is a starting point for discussion? In particular, if someone were to volunteer to be lead organizer, and that person decided that the roles should be different than you hoped, you would be fine with them making the final decision? But maybe when you refer to "final decisions" you are exempting any decisions implied the list of roles, which have already been made and can't be altered.
Also I notice that the wiki document doesn't make any reference to The World Championship, but rather to Arimaa events generically. Is it your intent to apply these rules to anyone who wants to run a tournament in the future? Clearly the free weekend tournament Adanac just ran didn't fit in the framework, for starters because there wasn't a Game Referee present at all times. Maybe you don't want any more events like this in the future? And what about the possibility of severing the Open Classic from the World Championship? Would the Open Classic have to run under the same conditions and demands as the World Championship even if the former wasn't a qualifier for the latter? That doesn't make a lot of sense, so unless you explain otherwise, I'll take the list of roles as applying to the World Championship only.
Thanks in advance for clarifying the extent to which you are willing to relinquish control to community members (and/or take back control that you haven't been exercising until now).
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 3rd, 2012, 12:53pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #42 on: Apr 3rd, 2012, 9:49am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 2nd, 2012, 4:29pm, Adanac wrote:| If we have a big Open Classic it would have to begin in early December, or perhaps even earlier, to accommodate its length. |
|
There is a problem (at least in the United States) with having the Open Classic at the end of the year; Thanksgiving and Christmas interfere. Perhaps it is tolerable to collide with Thanksgiving, but not with Christmas. Maybe the Open Classic could be backed up to finish the week before Christmas, say Monday December 17, which would mean first pairings around Tuesday November 6, or a week earlier for a week longer tournament. Then there could be a three-week break including Christmas and New Year, with the finals to start in January.
Quote:| The next biggest concerns are the two situations where one player can qualify in the final round of the Open Classic against an opponent with one more or one fewer victory. In both cases I think we should offer incentives to the opposing player. In the case that one player is eliminated and must play someone with a chance of qualification, perhaps the person “playing up” should be offered a 2000 Arimaa Point discount for the following World Championship if he/she wins (or, alternatively, just make it a free entry for next year or a full refund for the current year). I believe that would be a big enough incentive. In the opposite case, where someone is “playing down” I would make the incentive slightly smaller because this player will advance to the Finals and already has two incentives to win built-in (better seed + one less competitor). Perhaps, 1000 Arimaa Point discount for the following WC? Or we could be nastier and make it a stick rather than a carrot – “playing down” against someone who needs a victory to qualify means that you’ll automatically get the lowest seed in the Finals if you lose that game . |
|
I could see offering incentives to people in situations where they would have a reason to lose on purpose, but I don't like the idea of punishments for something that could well happen innocently.
Quote:| I suppose this whole discussion is moot if we don’t have enough volunteers for next year. |
|
I think the discussion is not entirely moot in any case. Suppose, for example, that Omar decides we don't have the oomph for a huge, open World Championship, and decides that there will be exactly eight participants in the World Championship by invitation based on WHRE. In that situation, I would still want to run the Open Classic, even if it were just for fun, or just another event which could be used to establish WHRE.
If the Open Classic were not linked to the World Championship, I think I would prefer straight Swiss pairing rather than the elimination/consolation split that seems more appropriate for a championship. The question of when to schedule it would still be relevant; starting November 1 might be best. Having a list of potential roles to be filled by volunteers would still help an organizer, even if we were more relaxed about accepting the possibility that not every single role we dream up will be filled.
Since it is ultimately Omar's decision on whether to have a large, participatory World Championship or not, I'm trying to clarify in my mind what it would mean for him to veto it but still approve an Open Classic that isn't part of the World Championship. I suppose the difference would be that he could find it acceptable to have a lower level of support staff for a non-World-Championship tournament, whereas for a tournament that was an official part of the World Championship, he would draw the minimum level of support higher and say it won't happen at all if we can't meet his higher minimum bar. What I can't really imagine is that Omar would have the same standard for both cases, and say that because we can't have the Open Classic be the qualifier for the World Championship, we can't hold the Open Classic at all. This wouldn't make sense for someone committed to increasing player participation.
Quote:| With the growth of the community, I'd feel much more optimistic in 2013 than I would have been in 2008 that we'll get enough volunteers. I’d guess that I’m 70%-80% likely to be available for volunteer duties for up to 10 hours per week in 2013. The other 20%-30% means my time will be much more limited or I can’t volunteer at all. Who knows what 2013 will bring for any of us? |
|
I also am optimistic that there will be enough volunteers to meet my minimum expectations for a World Championship tournament, plus many volunteers for the extras on a case-by-case basis. Notice that this year far more people eventually agreed to do commentary on the spot than were willing to sign up on the spreadsheet ahead of time. It's easier to volunteer in the moment that you see the need and the opportunity than to commit ahead of time. If we get commitment ahead of time only for the things that absolutely must be done, then it seems likely that many extra things that make a tournament extra fun will happen semi-spontaneously when the time comes.
The first objective is getting the lead organizer. (I would normally call this person the tournament director, but I'll try to use Omar's terminology to avoid confusion.) I am hesitant to be that person, in part because I don't know what next year will look like for me, and in part because it isn't yet clear to me what all the lead organizer will have to do. Will it just be a ton of responsibility with no freedom or authority? In line with my comment about ownership, I will be very tempted to commit right now, in spite of the uncertainties of my schedule, if Omar is really serious about the lead organizer having the final decision about everything. If it were truly my tournament that I could run the way I wanted, I might be motivated enough to make the extra time commitment.
Of course, in that scenario, I would suddenly be in the situation that Omar is currently in, namely wanting things to be a certain way, but not wanting to alienate anyone by making unilateral decisions. I would still definitely want to keep this discussion going, so as to see what would inspire and motivate volunteers. I would not want to go off on a tangent that makes people think the World Championship will not be fun, and therefore isn't worth their donations of time and energy. I recognize in advance that it is tricky to both be benevolent dictator and give the community a sense of ownership.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 3rd, 2012, 12:44pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #43 on: Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:05pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 3rd, 2012, 9:04am, Fritzlein wrote:
Agreed, but this can be done with a call, as has been successfully done in the past when you were the only contact.
|
|
Sometimes I got caught not being near a computer and things got delayed. That's why I started trying to be close to computer when event games were going on. Being able to call worked out in our case since I know you well enough to give you my number and you happened to be watching the game. In general I don't think the game referees want to give out their phone numbers so that anyone can call them.
The main reason for having multiple people be game referees is so that someone will be available to monitor each game. The game referee should actually be watching the game and they don't need to be reading the chat. If something goes wrong, they would use the chat to communicate with the players, but watching the chat is not something that the game referees need to do.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2013 World Championship Format
« Reply #44 on: Apr 4th, 2012, 12:16am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 3rd, 2012, 9:07am, Fritzlein wrote:
Ah, so the list of roles is a starting point for discussion? In particular, if someone were to volunteer to be lead organizer, and that person decided that the roles should be different than you hoped, you would be fine with them making the final decision? But maybe when you refer to "final decisions" you are exempting any decisions implied the list of roles, which have already been made and can't be altered.
|
|
The organizer can change the roles that are not essential, but essential roles like Director, Coordinator and Referees can't be changed. I would like to have these roles be well defined and not change from event to event.
Quote:
Also I notice that the wiki document doesn't make any reference to The World Championship, but rather to Arimaa events generically. Is it your intent to apply these rules to anyone who wants to run a tournament in the future?
|
|
Yes, it would be good if we could move towards that.
Quote:
Clearly the free weekend tournament Adanac just ran didn't fit in the framework, for starters because there wasn't a Game Referee present at all times. Maybe you don't want any more events like this in the future? And what about the possibility of severing the Open Classic from the World Championship? Would the Open Classic have to run under the same conditions and demands as the World Championship even if the former wasn't a qualifier for the latter? That doesn't make a lot of sense, so unless you explain otherwise, I'll take the list of roles as applying to the World Championship only.
|
|
We are just starting to formally define these roles. Eventually all events should have the essential roles.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 4th, 2012, 12:18am by omar » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print