tournament organizer rating

[chapcrap]

I still support something like this.

Here is a very similar suggestion: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1&t=155893

[Dukasaur]

what i'd rather see than a rating system (since the current system is of almost no value imho) is more of an informational listing of TO's. a listing that would give all their stats such as tournaments started and finished. whether the have any abandoned tournaments. types of tournaments run, size of tournament, length of time to complete, and so on.
i think seeing this type of information would help a person determine if they want to participate in a particular TO's tournament, better than any rating system would do. think of it as CC's version of the Better Business Bureau, without the grading. my 2 cents.

The first half of those things are already in the Tournament Database and the second half are already suggestions for future updates of the database.

It's not in an easily searchable form -- at least not for the player. I assume you have better tools for searching the database among the TDs, but that doesn't do anything to help the players evaluate things.

[Dukasaur]

I still support something like this.

Here is a very similar suggestion: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1&t=155893

Considering the poll on that was 29-2, I don't know why that was allowed to die.

And yeah, essentially the same proposal.

[patrickaa317]

Apparently I originally loved the idea. With that kind of flip flop, I should be running for public office!

[koontz1973]

This is not a bad suggestion and should/could be implemented. Why not just have the ratings on the organisers hall of fame page next to completed tournies.

[DeluxeHazard]

Not to be mean but I don't really like the suggestion. This could discourage people and they may stop making tournaments. I wouldn't create anymore tournaments if there was a possibility of not even getting a medal.

[greenoaks]

Not to be mean but I don't really like the suggestion. This could discourage people and they may stop making tournaments. I wouldn't create anymore tournaments if there was a possibility of not even getting a medal.

that's right, if mid way through a tournament things happen and it gets neglected there is no incentive to finish it off as the players are likely to vote you were crap.

[koontz1973]

Not to be mean but I don't really like the suggestion. This could discourage people and they may stop making tournaments. I wouldn't create anymore tournaments if there was a possibility of not even getting a medal.

that's right, if mid way through a tournament things happen and it gets neglected there is no incentive to finish it off as the players are likely to vote you were crap.

And a quick PM to players explaining does nothing. Some players will just be bloody minded and rate you for that two week holiday you had.

[Night Strike]

Most tournaments are bracket tournaments where half the participants are eliminated in the first round. Especially depending on the size of the tournament (larger tournaments would take longer), why should half the participants be allowed to rate an entire tournament when they only participated in 1 round of it?

As for the tournament set-up criteria: if people don't like the way the tournament is set-up, why are they joining it in the first place? The only way this criterion would be valid is if the organizer made a mistake and had to change the set-up in the middle of the tournament, otherwise, if a player joined the tournament, then they agreed that the set-up is good enough to play.

[Dukasaur]

Not to be mean but I don't really like the suggestion. This could discourage people and they may stop making tournaments. I wouldn't create anymore tournaments if there was a possibility of not even getting a medal.

that's right, if mid way through a tournament things happen and it gets neglected there is no incentive to finish it off as the players are likely to vote you were crap.

I don't honestly believe most people would give you a bad rating because you had to take a break. I think, just like player ratings, that the opposite will be true: most people will give you five stars regardless of how much you suck. So, just like player ratings, a really good TO will have a 4.8 average, while a really bad TO will have a 4.6. Again, just like player ratings, people will learn to gravitate toward the 4.8s and steer clear of the 4.6s.

[greenoaks]

Not to be mean but I don't really like the suggestion. This could discourage people and they may stop making tournaments. I wouldn't create anymore tournaments if there was a possibility of not even getting a medal.

that's right, if mid way through a tournament things happen and it gets neglected there is no incentive to finish it off as the players are likely to vote you were crap.

I don't honestly believe most people would give you a bad rating because you had to take a break. I think, just like player ratings, that the opposite will be true: most people will give you five stars regardless of how much you suck. So, just like player ratings, a really good TO will have a 4.8 average, while a really bad TO will have a 4.6. Again, just like player ratings, people will learn to gravitate toward the 4.8s and steer clear of the 4.6s.

i suspect you are right on that, and many think we should do away with player ratings altogether. but that is a discussion for elsewhere.

if you haven't already guessed, i'm with NS on this. i don't believe we should change things because the OP has a problem with 1 TO.

[chapcrap]

To me, this isn't just about ratings, but rating tags. Being able to tag TO's as slow, fast, communicative, sends a lot of PMs, unorganized, uses invites, uses [to] tags for game invites, etc.

Having that information about TOs is good to know. Overall, it's hard to mess up a simple bracket tournament.

[DoomYoshi]

Is there a big problem with users being consistently poor tourney organizers? If so, I fully support. Sounds like a great idea. If not, then it's just a question of whether this is worth it. I think the system needs tweaking though. Just like the 5-star system we have for ratings, your idea should probably be reduced to a Poor, Satisfactory, Excellent system or something similar. 5-star ratings systems don't really work well.

That encompasses everything I wanted to say.

agentcom is my multi. I am reporting him.

[GoranZ]

Not to be mean but I don't really like the suggestion. This could discourage people and they may stop making tournaments. I wouldn't create anymore tournaments if there was a possibility of not even getting a medal.

that's right, if mid way through a tournament things happen and it gets neglected there is no incentive to finish it off as the players are likely to vote you were crap.

If the tournament is organized badly then the TO should not receive a medal, IDK why this is a problem for you two. Btw only 10 yearold can be mad if TO announces that he didn't sent out invites for 2 weeks because of RL problems, but not for a grown up man.

Most tournaments are bracket tournaments where half the participants are eliminated in the first round. Especially depending on the size of the tournament (larger tournaments would take longer), why should half the participants be allowed to rate an entire tournament when they only participated in 1 round of it?

Everyone participant in a game can rate other players even he was eliminated before taking his very first turn(Example 8 player game, 8-th player eliminated from 7-th in Round 1 etc...). I see no problem in this, he participated.

As for the tournament set-up criteria: if people don't like the way the tournament is set-up, why are they joining it in the first place? The only way this criterion would be valid is if the organizer made a mistake and had to change the set-up in the middle of the tournament, otherwise, if a player joined the tournament, then they agreed that the set-up is good enough to play.

The problem is not this... The problem is: Make one criteria for the Tournament and do something else in reality, or change the tournament criteria in the middle of it without need for such change.

if you haven't already guessed, i'm with NS on this. i don't believe we should change things because the OP has a problem with 1 TO.

My proposal is about quality control, nothing else. Less work for Tournament Directors(the general public will influence the quality of the tournaments), higher quality tournaments and ultimately better game experience.

quality TO's already fill tournaments quickly, poor or new TO's struggle.

this suggestion will not add anything.

Since you are clearly against my proposal for unknown reason here a tricky question... How do you know if some TO makes quality tournaments, you bring that conclusion based on what?

[Night Strike]

Most tournaments are bracket tournaments where half the participants are eliminated in the first round. Especially depending on the size of the tournament (larger tournaments would take longer), why should half the participants be allowed to rate an entire tournament when they only participated in 1 round of it?

Everyone participant in a game can rate other players even he was eliminated before taking his very first turn(Example 8 player game, 8-th player eliminated from 7-th in Round 1 etc...). I see no problem in this, he participated.

You may not see a problem, but I do. Under your proposal, an organizer could be barred from getting a medal, even if a disgruntled player barely participated in the tournament. Poor ratings in a game don't keep a player from getting a win/points/medal, so it's not a valid comparison.

if you haven't already guessed, i'm with NS on this. i don't believe we should change things because the OP has a problem with 1 TO.

My proposal is about quality control, nothing else. Less work for Tournament Directors(the general public will influence the quality of the tournaments), higher quality tournaments and ultimately better game experience.

Actually, it would probably mean more/delayed work for the Tournament Directors. Currently most tournaments get processed as completed in 24-48 hours of when they finish. In your system, you would have to have a way to notify all participants that the tournament finished to give them an opportunity to leave a rating, then you would have to give them 5-7 or more days to leave a rating, then the TD would have to see if the ratings were high enough to grant a medal in order to finish processing it. Each of those would take actions by a TD to initiate/complete. Then, if an organizer doesn't get a medal, the TD will then have to exchange PMs with the disgruntled organizer complaining about why they didn't get a medal and trying to have the TD remove bad ratings if they believe that a player rated their tournament poorly for a stupid reason (like rating the organizer poorly if the organizer defeated that player in a game and knocked him out of the tournament). And then the TD will have to decide if it's a valid complaint for removal, possibly get information from the player that left the rating, and then another TD or even an admin would have to deal with further complaints/appeals from whichever side loses the decision resulting from the original complaint.

Overall, I see no way for there to be less work for Tournament Directors and medals for successful organizers would be massively delayed (causing other complaints). The best quality control for tournaments is for people to not sign up for tournaments where the setup or organizer is questionable as well as closely following the progress of each tournament the player is in and quickly pointing out any issues when they arise.

[Metsfanmax]

I still support something like this.

Here is a very similar suggestion: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1&t=155893

Considering the poll on that was 29-2, I don't know why that was allowed to die.

And yeah, essentially the same proposal.

There's an important difference in that this proposal has a rating after every tournament, whereas the other proposal is more general and could in principle allow anyone to vote on TOs, regardless of number of tournaments participated in.

[chapcrap]

I still support something like this.

Here is a very similar suggestion: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1&t=155893

Considering the poll on that was 29-2, I don't know why that was allowed to die.

And yeah, essentially the same proposal.

There's an important difference in that this proposal has a rating after every tournament, whereas the other proposal is more general and could in principle allow anyone to vote on TOs, regardless of number of tournaments participated in.

I think that another essential difference between the two is that the other one just advocated rating/rating tags of some kind. There was no talk of medal deprivation.

[greenoaks]

medals are not decided by the community.

lets not start doing so here.

[Dukasaur]

I still support something like this.

Here is a very similar suggestion: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1&t=155893

Considering the poll on that was 29-2, I don't know why that was allowed to die.

And yeah, essentially the same proposal.

There's an important difference in that this proposal has a rating after every tournament, whereas the other proposal is more general and could in principle allow anyone to vote on TOs, regardless of number of tournaments participated in.

I think that another essential difference between the two is that the other one just advocated rating/rating tags of some kind. There was no talk of medal deprivation.

Yeah I don't think the medal deprivation was in the OP the first time I read it. I see the OP has been edited multiple times, so I think that was added after I first posted my agreement. For the record, I am NOT in favour of the medal deprivation part of it. (Not that I think some people don't deserve to be deprived, but because I know the TDs would be scapegoats every time someone got upset over it, and it isn't fair to saddle them with that kind of headache.)

I didn't worry too much about the specific details, because most proposals don't get implemented precisely as posted. Rather, I see it as more important that there be agreement in principle that something along this line should be done.

If we are to delve into details, I largely agree with chapcrap's earlier post, that having attribute tags like [Fast] or [Slow] is the most useful thing we can hope for here. I would very much like to add that those kinds of tags are not inherently pejorative. Speed demons may think that [Fast] is a compliment and [Slow] is an insult, but some of us who like a laid-back game may in fact think the opposite. Ditto for the difference between [Grandiloquent] chatterboxes and those who [Breviloquent] love brevity.

Finally, @Night Strike: I would only agree with something like this if it was entirely automated. I'm definitely not in favour of something that creates a big headache for someone to manually update.

[NoSurvivors]

i don't believe we should change things because the OP has a problem with 1 TO.

I was waiting for someone to say that.

[Funkyterrance]

i don't believe we should change things because the OP has a problem with 1 TO.

I was waiting for someone to say that.

Then why didn't you say it?

[NoSurvivors]

i don't believe we should change things because the OP has a problem with 1 TO.

I was waiting for someone to say that.

Then why didn't you say it?

Because it would have been complete baiting if I said it. xD

[agentcom]

Wherever this is going, keep it civil. I don't know who the TO in question is, but that information doesn't need to be posted here. Suggestions stand and fall on their own merit, not on the motives of the suggester.

[WILLIAMS5232]

i'd sure like to see something like this suggestion happen. instead of all the clunky adjustments on game finder page. ( which irritate me to no end )

for the record i am against taking away a medal for a succesfully completed tournament.... no matter how badly it was run. RL stuff happens and where would the line be drawn. some of my tournaments are pretty wild in style and i'm not sure how to set them up. so it's kind of like a trial run to make adjustments for a "better" sequel.

so. i support a ratings system. just not having people strip you of a medal just because they did not get what they expected out of the tourney.

[chapcrap]

i'd sure like to see something like this suggestion happen. instead of all the clunky adjustments on game finder page. ( which irritate me to no end )

for the record i am against taking away a medal for a succesfully completed tournament.... no matter how badly it was run. RL stuff happens and where would the line be drawn. some of my tournaments are pretty wild in style and i'm not sure how to set them up. so it's kind of like a trial run to make adjustments for a "better" sequel.

so. i support a ratings system. just not having people strip you of a medal just because they did not get what they expected out of the tourney.

Would you rather have the rating be attached to the tournament or the tournament organizer? Or both?

In my view, I think rating a tournament is the way to go and have it be reflected on the TO. So, you could rate every tournament you play in, even if the same TO has ran many of them.