Regarding the proposal itself
Is it unnecessary to host a competition to assist seeding? Possibly.
I'd simply argue that a tournament that lasts for multiple seasons that has clear rules regarding seeding is preferable to one that does not.
If you do not want to discuss or receive criticism or suggestions, you should close this thread and just do as you please. If you want to be open to either type of input, there is no basis for being offended or any rational reason to be insulted. I'm making this point purely objectively: It is your tournament, you're free to run it as you please.
I can certainly envision better things to do with my free time than try to work with you to improve this tournament, if that is not in the interest of admin staff and/or participants.
To clarify, I do not care which option the admin staff decides upon. Just let me know if I can save any further energy on this endeavour.
I'll put my answers to your comments regarding my proposal in a condensed list, as this post is going be long enough as it is:
Regarding the length of the rules
1. The ruleset was a draft I wrote down in about 15 minutes. Wording is not final, as the entire proposal is not final or gospel of any kind. Condensing the content can be done of course. I do agree that the rules should be as brief and clear as possible.
Regarding how many maps are played
2. To minimise the time the HUNT system would take in preparation for BEAST, a singular map would be played. A regular tie-breaker match-up, to keep things as balanced as possible. There are more elaborate options, however given the importance of time and the necessity for quick results this is the most sensible option.
This is also why, in case of there being more than a certain number of teams, the contest is changed into a ladder with a fixed number of matches.
Regarding spots are earned in the HUNT
3. The HUNT would be an event that covers all open spots within the fixed number of matches. Since there is no way to know how many open spots there might be.
Let's assume there's 3 open spots and 4 teams competing. The first three teams would earn those spots based upon their ranking, the 4th place goes emptyhanded.
Regarding admin discretion
4. If there are more open spots than teams hoping to gain one of them that means that there are still open spots, even after the HUNT. It is for the eventuality that no team is left to earn a spot in a fair competition. Spots need to be filled. If even after a placing event there are still gaps, then there is no other option than witchcraft on behalf of the admins. Ideally this part would never be triggered, but the rule should be in writing and accepted before it is needed.
Just to clarify, there wouldn't be any time "wasted", since if there are more open spots than team willing to competete in the HUNT, you know that in advance. You also know which of the open spots will be claimed during the HUNT.
The point is that the process of how open spots are handed out should be as transparent and in concordance with the spirit of a competition as possible.
This is not about earning an "undeserved promotion". This is about putting a system into place that covers a gasping hole in the current ruleset, which adresses an issue that has occured every season so far. Except for season 1 ofc.
The issue is: If there is an open spot, it needs to be filled by someone.
I'll try to to illustrate the line of thought here as briefly and clearly as possible:
How do you fill an open spot in a division?
Option 1) Put the next team in line in (second place), if they want
Option 2) Put a new team in, if they want.
Option 3) Put in any other team in that wants the spot.
How do you determine who gets the spot, if multiple people gun for it?
Option 1) Lottery
Option 2) Dark Magic
Option 3) Make them earn it by playing
Assume you go with Option 3, how do you that?
Option 1) You put a rule into place and design a system for it
Option 2) Come up with something yourself
Now the admins argue, that it is too much work, it has to fit within their timeline of organising things etc.
Option 1) Do nothing and complain
Option 2) Do nothing and don't complain
Option 3) Propose a system, optimise it with feedback. Offer to run the entire operation in order to assist.
I've opted for option 3.
Is it unnecessary to host a competition to assist seeding? Possibly.
I'd simply argue that a tournament that lasts for multiple seasons that has clear rules regarding seeding is preferable to one that does not.
The argument "We've always done it like this and nobody complained" is invalid. It argues nothing but the status quo. Which leads to my next pointI consider this whole thing unnecessary and even insulting tbh as neither Nova nor anyone else ever felt the need to make this fuss in Warband tournaments, many of which were admin seeded.
If you do not want to discuss or receive criticism or suggestions, you should close this thread and just do as you please. If you want to be open to either type of input, there is no basis for being offended or any rational reason to be insulted. I'm making this point purely objectively: It is your tournament, you're free to run it as you please.
If that is the position I am trying to discuss and reach consensus with, please clarify if at all, or even how any competition could possible allow for seeding by competition rather than purely admin discretion.However if Nova wants to run this I have no objection. It is not however going to be a precedent for every tournament. The default option is admin seeding of new teams.
I can certainly envision better things to do with my free time than try to work with you to improve this tournament, if that is not in the interest of admin staff and/or participants.
To clarify, I do not care which option the admin staff decides upon. Just let me know if I can save any further energy on this endeavour.
I'll put my answers to your comments regarding my proposal in a condensed list, as this post is going be long enough as it is:
Regarding the length of the rules
1. The ruleset was a draft I wrote down in about 15 minutes. Wording is not final, as the entire proposal is not final or gospel of any kind. Condensing the content can be done of course. I do agree that the rules should be as brief and clear as possible.
Regarding how many maps are played
2. To minimise the time the HUNT system would take in preparation for BEAST, a singular map would be played. A regular tie-breaker match-up, to keep things as balanced as possible. There are more elaborate options, however given the importance of time and the necessity for quick results this is the most sensible option.
This is also why, in case of there being more than a certain number of teams, the contest is changed into a ladder with a fixed number of matches.
Regarding spots are earned in the HUNT
3. The HUNT would be an event that covers all open spots within the fixed number of matches. Since there is no way to know how many open spots there might be.
Let's assume there's 3 open spots and 4 teams competing. The first three teams would earn those spots based upon their ranking, the 4th place goes emptyhanded.
Regarding admin discretion
4. If there are more open spots than teams hoping to gain one of them that means that there are still open spots, even after the HUNT. It is for the eventuality that no team is left to earn a spot in a fair competition. Spots need to be filled. If even after a placing event there are still gaps, then there is no other option than witchcraft on behalf of the admins. Ideally this part would never be triggered, but the rule should be in writing and accepted before it is needed.
Just to clarify, there wouldn't be any time "wasted", since if there are more open spots than team willing to competete in the HUNT, you know that in advance. You also know which of the open spots will be claimed during the HUNT.
The point is that the process of how open spots are handed out should be as transparent and in concordance with the spirit of a competition as possible.
You're missing the absolute core of the this proposal and I'll skip your mislead argumentation about standings, results and whatever, because they are, for the most part, not relevant for the matter of principle we are dealing with here.You're making this entire thing more complicated than necessary.
...
This is not about earning an "undeserved promotion". This is about putting a system into place that covers a gasping hole in the current ruleset, which adresses an issue that has occured every season so far. Except for season 1 ofc.
The issue is: If there is an open spot, it needs to be filled by someone.
I'll try to to illustrate the line of thought here as briefly and clearly as possible:
How do you fill an open spot in a division?
Option 1) Put the next team in line in (second place), if they want
Option 2) Put a new team in, if they want.
Option 3) Put in any other team in that wants the spot.
How do you determine who gets the spot, if multiple people gun for it?
Option 1) Lottery
Option 2) Dark Magic
Option 3) Make them earn it by playing
Assume you go with Option 3, how do you that?
Option 1) You put a rule into place and design a system for it
Option 2) Come up with something yourself
Now the admins argue, that it is too much work, it has to fit within their timeline of organising things etc.
Option 1) Do nothing and complain
Option 2) Do nothing and don't complain
Option 3) Propose a system, optimise it with feedback. Offer to run the entire operation in order to assist.
I've opted for option 3.