Resigning

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nord Champion

Grandmaster Knight
This may come as no surprise to some, but I'm resigning as Head Admin. I'm not capable of dealing with this tournament, and with the community involved, in its current state.

I've asked for a month for people to give input on rules. Only a select few do, and I make changes to the rules to reflect that. After that, ten other people, who said nothing before, get upset that I changed the rules. This happened several times throughout the month, and now that its a day before the start, that has happened again. This caused me to loose my patience with the community, and I have lost all interest in this tournament, and Warband, in general.

That said, I'm leaving the community. Zaffa/John/Eternal will do some democracy adminship thing for the tournament.

I wish the best for the tournament, in general, though.
 
A timetable and complete explanation will be up by the end of the night in a separate thread. We're staying focused and we're still doggedly determined to give you a great tournament. Hang with us guys. :smile:
 
Nord Champion said:
This may come as no surprise to some, but I'm resigning as Head Admin. I'm not capable of dealing with this tournament, and with the community involved, in its current state.

I've asked for a month for people to give input on rules. Only a select few do, and I make changes to the rules to reflect that. After that, ten other people, who said nothing before, get upset that I changed the rules. This happened several times throughout the month, and now that its a day before the start, that has happened again. This caused me to loose my patience with the community, and I have lost all interest in this tournament, and Warband, in general.

That said, I'm leaving the community. Zaffa/John/Eternal/Cradoc will do some democracy adminship thing for the tournament.

I wish the best for the tournament, in general, though.

Unicorn said:
The Pizza said:
I hear that Zaffa is in charge. I'm done then. Warband was fun guys, I'll be back for Bannerlord.
this

There are the Head Admins not Head Admin.
 
Most of everything is staying the same except the brackets and week 1 predictions, majority of people did not want a 13~week tourney and that's the main reason for changing back to brackets.
 
A two division randomization is the worst option I have ever seen for a tournament system. Two division system didn't work well in S2 and that was with supposed fair divisions. This isn't going to be any better. Five weeks is way too short for a tournament.

There was growing support for the Swiss System. Why has this been ignored? Instead of talking it out with captains and taking this slow, you are rushing into the tournament just like S2 was and no one really enjoyed S2.

Stop what you are doing and fix the problem instead of trying to patch it up and push it out the door.
 
I don't think you even read the Swiss System nor know what it is if you think it would have been 13 weeks. Why are you hiding the initial polling of negative Swiss System? There was not a single negative voice in the thread where I introduced the format. Who did you ask and what was their response?

Why do you believe there is a deadline to get the tournament started? This is community driven and we all want a great tournament like UNAC S1 was. Delay the tournament, have a meeting among the captains to decide the tournament format, map rule, to welcome everyone and get everyone on the same page instead of rushing through and making decisions that half the community doesn't agree with just so we can 'get it started.'
 
Aura (Zaffa) said:
2. Season 2 failed for many reasons, including a head admin who stopped caring before the tourney ever started, a 3 week top bracket, and a terrible rule set. These issues are not present here.

By that reasoning, this season will also fail because the head admin just pulled stakes and left, you're riding on faith with some brand new teams that may not last the season, and the rule set is obviously contentious (which is why William left). I have nothing against new teams signing up, and I'm glad they're showing interest, but they are a wildcard, and making decisions that are make-or-break depending on wildcards is questionable.

Where did the tiebreaker rules come from? They're atrocious in the sense that they lend themselves to further ties. I also don't see why there's such a restrictive limit on trading players in the season (it's no business of yours what tag someone wears, as long as they aren't hot-swapping as an emergency sub). The only admin on your team without a controversial/failed tournament to his name is the one you just signed on.

3. Not all teams can handle a 13 week tourney, and initial polling showed that teams didn't want a swiss system.
Where's your poll? All I found in the suggestions thread were posts in support of the Swiss system and some hashing out of details. Where are the people that didn't want it, and what's their reasoning for why?

I have one definite criticism about the tournament: lack of transparency. It seems to me like a lot of **** is happening behind the scenes when everyone should be kept in the loop. What I read in the board is contradictory to what changes have been made. I'm not saying everyone needs or should have a definite say when it comes to rules and administration, but everyone should at least be aware of changes before they are implemented. William tried, at least, and it's the community's own fault that they didn't respond to his request for input.

Speaking of community input, I saw little discussion about these new tiebreaker rules, and they're entirely different from what they were and what was being discussed (which is to say, the options for William's poll). Who decided on them? There's half a page of discussion in one thread, but no honest attempt at gathering input from the teams about their preference. There are literally four people that posted in support of it if you count Erminas' suggestion as support. The change isn't documented, it's just part of the rules now. It lends itself to ties in the sense that you are literally replicating the scenario that led to your tie in miniature. The amount of discussion that went into this rule change was equivalent to the amount of discussion regarding Williams' poll on tie rules, and while it frustrated him that so few people responded you think it's a sufficient amount of people to justify changing the rules? :roll:
 
Orion said:
The amount of discussion that went into this rule change was equivalent to the amount of discussion regarding Williams' poll on tie rules, and while it frustrated him that so few people responded you think it's a sufficient amount of people to justify changing the rules? :roll:

We can't do anything about the fact nobody is giving us feedback.

Kohath said:
Well, there should not be a admins meeting, but a captains meeting!

We're not dragging on the tournament for another two weeks. There'd be hardly anything to discuss anyway.

Orion said:
Where's your poll? All I found in the suggestions thread were posts in support of the Swiss system and some hashing out of details. Where are the people that didn't want it, and what's their reasoning for why?

I'm not sure if you're blind or deliberately being obtuse, but there was a solid page of discussion. Seriously. Look at the entirety of Page 7 of the Discussions page, and then Page 8 where the Swiss system was brought up as well. You are correct in saying a lot of teams are wildcards - hence the shorter tournament length and the divisions. The Swiss system is certainly interesting, but it came down to Swiss or divisions and Zaffa opted for the latter. I don't think that's particularly wrong, considering divisions had support.
 
Eternal said:
I'm not sure if you're blind or deliberately being obtuse, but there was a solid page of discussion. Seriously. Look at the entirety of Page 7 of the Discussions page, and then Page 8 where the Swiss system was brought up as well. You are correct in saying a lot of teams are wildcards - hence the shorter tournament length and the divisions. The Swiss system is certainly interesting, but it came down to Swiss or divisions and Zaffa opted for the latter. I don't think that's particularly wrong, considering divisions had support.

Discussion of divisions != discussion of the Swiss system. What was stated by Zaffa is that "initial polling showed that teams didn't want a swiss system." There's no polling to be found, and the only discussion on page seven pertains to divisions, which had four positive-ish responses and six negative responses from page seven on. By simple majority, it seems that divisions would be a no-go or at least something to bring up in a captains meeting for a full vote. The only system proposed which received literally zero negative feedback in the suggestion thread was the Swiss system, and yet Zaffa claims teams didn't want it. Where's the evidence? Who doesn't want it? Why not?
 
Eternal said:
Orion said:
The amount of discussion that went into this rule change was equivalent to the amount of discussion regarding Williams' poll on tie rules, and while it frustrated him that so few people responded you think it's a sufficient amount of people to justify changing the rules? :roll:

We can't do anything about the fact nobody is giving us feedback.

Kohath said:
Well, there should not be a admins meeting, but a captains meeting!

We're not dragging on the tournament for another two weeks. There'd be hardly anything to discuss anyway.
So, instead of making a fun tournament for the community that everyone will enjoy, you are doing a crappy one that noone will enjoy because you are lazy and want to rush things?
 
Aura (Zaffa) said:
All polling is conducted the same way last minute polling was conducted last season: by contacting people in steam and ts. This feedback is more direct and cuts out the bs of the boards. Whether you recognize it or not, many have stopped visiting or atleast stopped posting on the boards because of the pointlessness of doing so. Save for a few forum warriors, most public opinion never makes it online.

For this reason, my polling is done by contacting captains and players directly, getting a sense of their hopes and expectations,  and coming back to the admin panel with that information.

As was said in S2, the brackets are posted, and the tourney starts next week. There is no need to delay this tourney longer than we already have. No matter how much you delay, some will always have another argument to make and want more time. It has come to the point where we simply need to get things rolling.

Shouldn't the polling be done in a captains meeting instead, where representatives from all teams are present, to make it more official? You can't really expect reliable results when individually contacting people on steam because you might be talking to them at an inopportune moment for them. At least in a captains meeting, people already reserved their time for it, and thus, would be more focused on the topic.

Reading back in the suggestions thread, there is still a pretty big disagreement regarding whether to have divisions or not, and some discussions of the Swiss system. There is absolutely no reason to rush into this tournament when there're still major things that need to be resolved and agreed upon by all captains and admins. The reason why S1 was successful was because all captains agreed and accepted the ruleset and format of the tournament. Plus, your controversial state within the WB community definitely doesn't help the situation either. So it might be better to get a date/time for another captains meeting to sort this out and delay the tourney a little bit.
 
It seems that, at this juncture, it would be more prudent to host the captain’s meeting that people are clamoring for and delay the start of the tourney until some of these issues are resolved.  In defense of the admins and to Eternal’s point, there’s been limited input (and a lot of general *****ing) from the community up to this point.  It would seem, however, that people have finally taken notice of this tournament and are interested in providing feedback.

There appear to be quite a few dissenting opinions regarding the rule set and the integrity of the decisions being made.  While I’m not a big fan of management by committee, this tournament doesn’t have the community engagement required to be successful.  Trying to force this through anyway isn’t going to accomplish much, other than people saying “**** this I’m out” (i.e. NANL).  There’s no magic in the May 21st Start Deadline, so there’s no reason to hold so tightly to it.  If we have to choose between getting this done fast and getting this done right, we all know which is the smart choice.

We have a lot of decisions to make and details to iron out before this tournament gets off the ground.  Why don’t the captains and admin team hop in wK mumble this Friday at 6PM PST, and knock some of this stuff out?  Send a team rep if you can’t make it.  Assuming we can reach consensus on some of these issues, we might even be able to leave the May 21st Deadline intact.
 
WilySly said:
It seems that, at this juncture, it would be more prudent to host the captain’s meeting that people are clamoring for and delay the start of the tourney until some of these issues are resolved.  In defense of the admins and to Eternal’s point, there’s been limited input (and a lot of general *****ing) from the community up to this point.  It would seem, however, that people have finally taken notice of this tournament and are interested in providing feedback.

There appear to be quite a few dissenting opinions regarding the rule set and the integrity of the decisions being made.  While I’m not a big fan of management by committee, this tournament doesn’t have the community engagement required to be successful.  Trying to force this through anyway isn’t going to accomplish much, other than people saying “**** this I’m out” (i.e. NANL).  There’s no magic in the May 21st Start Deadline, so there’s no reason to hold so tightly to it.  If we have to choose between getting this done fast and getting this done right, we all know which is the smart choice.

We have a lot of decisions to make and details to iron out before this tournament gets off the ground.  Why don’t the captains and admin team hop in wK mumble this Friday at 6PM PST, and knock some of this stuff out?  Send a team rep if you can’t make it.  Assuming we can reach consensus on some of these issues, we might even be able to leave the May 21st Deadline intact.

Would this meeting be recognized by the admins?
 
The tournament is going to be fine like this. I am expecting a quick, fun and competitive tournament, and I think the ruleset and tournament format work well together in that regard. The time for complaints was when there was time for foresight and fixing. Now I personally at least don't want any more delays because there's some nit to pick or someone wants to commit to a tournament for 4+ months.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom