Author Topic: Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Official Local Tournaments (Read 95016 times)

The Guardian · « **Reply #25 on:** September 18, 2009, 12:35:30 AM »

I think this sounds like a good idea, as long as it does not put a larger burden on Rob. I think there should also be a deadline so that players don't try and do a bunch of "short notice" tournaments during the major tournament (States/Regionals) season so they can rack up RNRS points before Nationals.

MrMiYoda · « **Reply #26 on:** September 18, 2009, 12:40:10 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on September 18, 2009, 12:26:17 AM

Or maybe you print your own winner sheet and sign-in sheet from the Cactus page, and mail that at your own expense, and he mails you the exact number of promos and prize packs. This option seems best to me.

Thank you!

We eagerly await Rob's post and how he might initiate an experiment out of all our ideas as soon as possible. I'm confident it's win-win for the bottom line for Cactus and it's win-win for existing playgroups who wish to expand quicker.

I encourage all other hosts to share their inputs if you haven't done so yet.

Godbless all!

FresnoRedemption · « **Reply #27 on:** September 18, 2009, 12:40:53 AM »

Personally, I also like this idea. The only reservation I would have about it would be the promos. I certainly don't have 10 of a particular promo just lying around that I can give to everyone who would show up. So would I just keep a list of everyone who showed up then send them a promo when Rob sent me the promos for the tournament?

MrMiYoda · « **Reply #28 on:** September 18, 2009, 12:52:57 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on September 18, 2009, 12:35:30 AM

I think there should also be a deadline so that players don't try and do a bunch of "short notice" tournaments during the major tournament (States/Regionals) season so they can rack up RNRS points before Nationals.

My 2 cents on this is to apply the rule that the proposed system be effective initially only for Local tourney level, and case-to-case basis on District level. Since the main purpose anyway is to gain more tournaments and improve player base, I'd be more than happy to host a Local tourney involving between 10-15 players, and deem it as a District if all of a sudden around 20 players attend. I guess Cactus can make a final judgment whether or not to validate a District depending majorly on attendance. I suggest that if tourney attendance (assuming honest count) is less than 10 (?), that it should be declared a Local. Just my thoughts.

More thinktank?

Godbless!

MrMiYoda · « **Reply #29 on:** September 18, 2009, 01:02:09 AM »

Quote from: FresnoRedemption on September 18, 2009, 12:40:53 AM

I certainly don't have 10 of a particular promo just lying around that I can give to everyone who would show up. So would I just keep a list of everyone who showed up then send them a promo when Rob sent me the promos for the tournament?

Your ideas are well taken. I myself would, say, gather my various (different) District promos and let players pick their preference. If a card of preference runs out, I can then keep a list of those cards and redeem them from Cactus.

Godbless!

LordStryfe · « **Reply #30 on:** September 18, 2009, 08:30:49 AM »

My thought is also how do you prevent fraud? Could not someone with money to waste and obsession for winning not just send in several apps at the end of the year all at once with the dough just to climb the stats?

NWJosh · « **Reply #31 on:** September 18, 2009, 08:51:46 AM »

An easy way to keep from someone trying to pile stats at the end of the tourney season is to limit these types of tourneys to one per month, and all paper work had to be send in with in a week of the tourney occuring. This encourages that hosts still plan tourneys in advance but also have the freedom to put a last second tourney together if the option arises. I'm not sure about having districts ran like this but I do like the idea of maybe saying there would have to be atleast 12 to 15 minimum players attending in order to have a "last second" district.

TheMarti · « **Reply #32 on:** September 18, 2009, 09:16:53 AM »

Another way to fix that is to only allow them to be locals. And remember, you can only have points from 5 locals and 2 districts (I think?)

~Marti

Gabe · « **Reply #33 on:** September 18, 2009, 09:20:22 AM »

From the perspective of a host with an existing playgroup I think this is a great idea. From a Cactus standpoint, what extra work does this create for Rob? I think that's the real determining factor.

I believe there would need to be restrictions on hosting an impromptu tournament:

Local tournaments only
Limit of one per month
No impromptu tournaments May-July (when State/Regionals take place)
Hosts are still limited to one (replacement) promo*

*Presently Rob only offers 1 unique promo card per tournament (ex: Goshen). Even if the host was giving out a variety of the available local promos I don't know how realistic it is to expect Rob to replenish exactly what you gave out (ex: Esther, Joab, Sampson and Panic Demon). If I were able to choose a variety pack from all available promos I'd be more inclined to host an impromptu tournament than a scheduled tournament and I don't think we want to encourage that.

NWJosh · « **Reply #34 on:** September 18, 2009, 09:25:39 AM »

The promo would be easier for me because I would give out the promos when they arrived from cactus. I see my players every week and sometimes twice a week so getting them there promos would be easy. I think this may be a bit easier on cactus from time to time because I wouldn't need to have the items sent to me right away. The tourney was already done so when Rob got around to it would be fine with me.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #35 on:** September 18, 2009, 09:50:13 AM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on September 18, 2009, 09:20:22 AM

Local tournaments only
Limit of one per month
No impromptu tournaments May-July (when State/Regionals take place)
Hosts are still limited to one (replacement) promo*

with all these limitations.

cdbany · « **Reply #36 on:** September 18, 2009, 10:17:41 AM »

On the surface, I like the idea, however, I have one concern

These would, in effect, be "closed" tournaments open only to those in the know. Because of this, only local tournaments would be eligible. My concern is that you could potentially get a small group (even 2 or 3 people) have a bunch of small tournaments and spam the RNRS. So my thoughts would be:

1) Only Local tournaments would be eligible
2) These would be limited to 1 per month per group
3) all paperwork/payment for previous tourneys must be resolved before the next one is allowed
4) set a maximun number of these tournaments per season/per group (like 6)
5) None of these tournaments between May 1st and Nationals
6) all paperwork must be turned in by May 15th or they are not eligible

or course it is ultimately all up to Rob

in Him
Chris

STAMP · « **Reply #37 on:** September 18, 2009, 10:27:29 AM »

I agree with Chris and I support it if it helps Rob and Cactus.

My personal opinion is that it would be great for the NW due to the constantly changing inclement weather and mountains. As NWJosh pointed out earlier, sometimes we know one week we will have nice weather and most of the players are available for a tournament. Everyone in the NW knows that planning something 6 weeks in advance anywhere in the NW is laughable, especially during the school year, and mostly during the winter.

NWJosh · « **Reply #38 on:** September 18, 2009, 10:40:22 AM »

Quote from: cdbany on September 18, 2009, 10:17:41 AM

On the surface, I like the idea, however, I have one concern

These would, in effect, be "closed" tournaments open only to those in the know. Because of this, only local tournaments would be eligible. My concern is that you could potentially get a small group (even 2 or 3 people) have a bunch of small tournaments and spam the RNRS. So my thoughts would be:

1) Only Local tournaments would be eligible
2) These would be limited to 1 per month per group
3) all paperwork/payment for previous tourneys must be resolved before the next one is allowed
4) set a maximun number of these tournaments per season/per group (like 6)
5) None of these tournaments between May 1st and Nationals
6) all paperwork must be turned in by May 15th or they are not eligible

or course it is ultimately all up to Rob

in Him
Chris

I completely agree with these and as Scott stated sometimes its impossible to plan tourneys in advance all the time. This last winter was a perfect example as the NW got hit with a long stretch of ice and snow and we were unable to do alot of traveling even with in the same city.

Putting limitations and guildlines for this idea is necesarry, but I still like the idea alot.

soul seeker · « **Reply #39 on:** September 18, 2009, 10:52:47 AM »

I was just recently made aware of this topic. Ironically, I was planning an "unofficial" tournament because my wife is due any day now and I can't plan out 6 weeks ahead for the next several months. I was going to give prizes to everybody (which I typically do anyway because I want everyone to get better.) What does this mean for Cactus? They temporarily don't get my business because of "life."
That is why I like this idea. "Life" can happen, and I can still support Cactus and encourage my playgroup with new cards. Much like, I think NWJon said it, I don't have the promos to support my group. However, they are patient and I see them frequently, so I would give them their promo/prizes when the support arrived.
Another advantage, we are trying to get new players to host. One of my teens is intrigued with this because of another thread. However, he doesn't have the money upfront. This would give NEW hosts a chance to get their feet wet without the burden of shelling out the money first. At least, for my group, a delayed payment with immediate results would give them more boldness to host.
As for it being a "closed" local, I know who lives close to me and I have all their emails or I can PM them on the boards. It would just take a little extra initiative on the hosts part to contact those people.
Finally, I have liked several of the guidelines so far that have been laid down by some wise and experienced hosts. This can be made to work. Are there people who will try to cheat the system? Probably, there usually are, but I would like to think that my extra business would cover that negative factor.

But what do I know, I'm just a noob.

Terry Markoff · « **Reply #40 on:** September 18, 2009, 11:15:27 AM »

I would have been able to host tournaments last year if this suggestion had been an option. My sister-in-law passed away 2 months ago after battling breast cancer for 3 years. This past year and a half has been rough on my wife and me. We made at least a dozen flights to New york to visit with her. Frequently, my wife and I did not know 6 weeks ahead when we would be called to her bedside. This prevented me from knowing with any certainty when I would be available to host a tournament. The result was that, with exception of a local or two, no tournaments were held in the South Central Region last year, and a player base was not added to, either.

I am pleased to report that we still have a number of Texas players ready and able to resume playing tournaments. Having this as an option can only help us out here in Texas.

TheMarti · « **Reply #41 on:** September 18, 2009, 11:25:27 AM »

I agree with most of the sentiments here. Bany made a good point- these would be "closed" tournaments, considering they would be invite only, and therefore could only be locals anyway.

Also, another thought I have is that maybe we should set a minimum number of players in the tournament to call it official, for example, we say there has to be at least 5. For most all of our playgroups, that number isn't a stretch. Then you don't have spammers saying "hey, we played all open events all day, just me and my friend/sibling/roommate/dog." (except the slobber may make TexP have some issues there... lol)

The limit of 5-6 "impromptu" tournaments a season sounds very fair, so once again, no point spamming.

No impromptu tournaments after May 1st. I have a random thought to throw in here, and if it gets shot down, it's cool. I know that sometimes I get together with my friends from my playgroup more frequently in the summer, especially now that we don't all live in Shippensburg. This is probably the case for some other playgroups too. Would there possibly be a way to say maybe you're allowed 1 during those months, and the points count toward the next season, and you're allowed to turn in the results after Nationals? Once again, just a thought, I could be totally off base with that idea.

I could see this giving Cactus a big boost, because I know tournaments definitely help with revenue there.

I'm glad that I could give a more intelligent answer than my earlier post: I'm fighting a cold and my knee's still buggin me, so I'm not totally here mentally.

In His Love,
Marti

Ironica · « **Reply #42 on:** September 18, 2009, 04:08:36 PM »

This idea would be a great help for us Fresnians. It is very difficult to know when the playgroup will be away with some school/family activity (especially since two of them are PK and their family is always busy). It's also difficult to know when I'll be busy (since stuff just seems to keep popping up). I'm with ya all who don't have a lot of extra promos (though I have some left over from my past two tournaments (since I'm also my playgroup's storehouse/deck creator)) however I also see most of my playgroup quite frequently so I too can just pass them out when I get them (or, like most time, keep them if it doesn't fit into their decks

). I think it would also help Cactus in the fact that they know exactly how many promos to send out (since last time I estimated over ten and only three showed up

).

One thing I would change with Marti's suggestion is the limit of people. For all of us with smaller playgroups, just missing three people would disqualify us from an official tournament. I was thinking that, since the top RNRS people seem to be able to get the points nicely already, maybe we can have it where you must have a certain number of players to earn the RNRS (that way, if we only have three people show up (excluding the judge since they can’t play anyways), we can still have an official tournament with promos and prizes but they won’t receive any RNRS points for winning (considering that the top people are already in good size playgroups). This would still encourage playgroups that have small numbers that are somewhat inconsistent in attendance to still host official tournaments and reward the people who actually showed up (I’m not bitter about my last tournament (all but one had good reasons why they couldn’t make it at the last minute), I just want to make sure the people who do show up are rewarded).

Also with Marti’s summer suggestion, maybe if there is a regulation that states that if the impromptu tournament falls on the same calendar week as another higher tournament, then it will be automatically rejected as an official tournament (for State tournaments, we can include the state it’s in plus the surrounding states tournaments).

Other than that, I completely agree with the other regulations to these types of tournament (once a month, black out dates between May-Nationals, etc). If this was implemented right now, I would have a local going in two weeks (since we were planning on meeting anyways).

God Bless

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #43 on:** September 18, 2009, 04:26:38 PM »

I just wanted to quickly address the concern about "closed" tournaments. I know for me, I was thinking about planning events on a few week's notice, rather than 6 weeks. I would still announce my tournaments here on the boards, and at churches & bookstores. These "short-notice" tourneys do not need to be "same-day" tourneys.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #44 on:** September 18, 2009, 04:26:39 PM »

Quote from: cdbany on September 18, 2009, 10:17:41 AM

4) set a maximun number of these tournaments per season/per group (like 6)

I don't really like this limitation because of the headaches it would cause Rob. It would be very complicated to decide what constitutes a "group". If there are 15 people in a playgroup and 5 of them show up per tournament, and they kept rotating, it could mean it would take 18 tournaments for each player to participate in 6. But if there was more overlap, then their quota might be reached faster leaving some people out. Keeping track of that would be a nightmare.

I think it's better to let people have as many as they want. No one can get more than 10 RNRS points for the year out of them anyway, so I don't see any harm.

SirNobody · « **Reply #45 on:** September 18, 2009, 05:10:39 PM »

Hey,

Impromptu tournaments would without question be effectively closed tournaments. Only the people I tell about the tournament could attend so it would be invite only where the people invited are the people that are informed about the tournament (I can invite everyone to come to a closed local and it's still invite only). As such these would need to be restricted to local tournaments only.

I don't think we need an attendance requirement, a limit to the number of these tournaments per year, or a "black out" period during the summer. These are effectively the same as closed locals so if a closed local doesn't have any of those restrictions then these tournaments wouldn't need them either. (Although a 4 or 6 week dead period prior to nationals rather than the normal 2 week dead period would be reasonable considering the extra transfer of information and supplies that would happen after the event rather than before.)

I think a host should have to submit an application and be approved for hosting impromptu tournaments before they could host any of these.

I think the tournament fee for this sort of tournament should be slightly higher than the tournament fee for a normal tournament (say an extra $5) to encourage hosts to run conventional tournaments when possible.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

MrMiYoda · « **Reply #46 on:** September 18, 2009, 05:57:48 PM »

Quote from: Ironica on September 18, 2009, 04:08:36 PM

For all of us with smaller playgroups, just missing three people would disqualify us from an official tournament.

My 2 cents:
1. limit impromptu to a local tourney (open, not closed -- to abide by Cactus' ultimate aim of opening the doors to all)
2. set minimum to 3 players per category (maybe 2 per 2-player event, obviously)
3. do not limit number of tournaments since RNRS is maxed out anyway
4. allow impromptu beyond April but credit points to the next tourney season
5. add $5 to existing local tourney application fee to cover any inconvenience on Cactus
6. host may award more than one type of promo but must request Cactus for only one type to cover number of promos given away
7. urge Cactus to begin the 'experiment' as soon as Cactus concurs and rules are finalized -- "WE are itching to make this 'win-win' happen, Mr. Anderson!"

Thanks so much to all the minds that have contributed to this thinktank so far. Kudos to one and all!

Godbless!!!

Ironica · « **Reply #47 on:** September 18, 2009, 06:05:53 PM »

Something we have to consider. What is the reason behind the 6 week deadline and how would this affect it (even a closed local has to be applied six weeks in advance)?

MrMiYoda · « **Reply #48 on:** September 18, 2009, 06:32:03 PM »

Quote from: Ironica on September 18, 2009, 06:05:53 PM

Something we have to consider. What is the reason behind the 6 week deadline and how would this affect it (even a closed local has to be applied six weeks in advance)?

--- the thinktank is actually in order to eventually reach a conclusion that, at least, a local tourney could be allowed as an 'impromptu' event. I am sure that most hosts understand the valid reason for the 5 or more weeks allowance for a tourney to be approved. If approved by Cactus, impromptu Local tourneys would be exempt from the 5-6 weeks before tourney submission minimum.

So far, consensus disapproves the idea of impromptu for tourneys beyond Local level.

Godbless.

DaClock · « **Reply #49 on:** September 18, 2009, 06:48:24 PM »

Here is an idea. What if you applied to be a Pre-Application tournament host? Here's how I see it working.

You send in an application to become an Impromptu host for the year (along with the first tournament's fee).
Rob approves your application and sends you the promos/prizes for your tournament.
You decide to host your tournament at a later date and send in the results after the tournament. If you wish to host another you simply send the next tournament's fees in and the number of expected participants.

Rob's turnaround time would be the limiting factor for the number you could host in a year. This wouldn't allow you to host one every weekend, but I think if you have that kind of commitment in a group you can predetermine your tournaments anyway.

News:

Author Topic: Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Official Local Tournaments (Read 95016 times)

FresnoRedemption

LordStryfe

TheMarti

TheMarti

Ironica

Ironica