Ladle 37 - Discussion Thread

[kyle]

Please take this as a discussion thread, and don't use it as a place to put your opinion's of how teams and players played ladle 36.

Lets take a look at the past history of the ladle, so that the newer people can understand where we've been and also give a refresher to the older players that were around back when it all began.

The ladle began as a self organized event. When you signed your team up you added yourself to the bracket. This worked well until ladle 13. In ladle 13 two players got bans from the wiki, Myself and Alex. This was due to Alex changing the position CT had signed up for with theirs the night before, and i changed it back, but added a little bit more to the X clan name. Anyway it was that ladle that brought us to the randomization of the brackets. Shortly after this began the ladle voting and discussion threads.

The discussion/voting threads work well for the most part, however even though they are supposed to be quarterly, they always tends to be some discussion and voting thread before each ladle. And some type of new problem that occurs after it. Almost 2 years have passed since the big revision to the ladle, the end of "100% self organization" and the start of a new phase. I think it is time for another new phase.

I think it is time that there is some sort of ladle committee, A small group of individuals that can take care of problems and come to some solution, hopefully before the incidences come to the forums. I'm not sure who exactly they should be or how much they should be able to do.

Please bring forward ideas on this. This should not be about what happed, but more of How to solve it for the future.

Edit: topic from "Ladle 36 - What went Wrong." to "Ladle 37 - Discussion Thread"

[Nelhybel]

Amen. Well thought out and very on point-with the issues.

I think it is time that there is some sort of ladle committee, A small group of individuals that can take care of problems and come to some solution, hopefully before the incidences come to the forums.

This idea has been popping up quite frequently recently - I hope it comes into being soon.

[PsYkO]

I personally don't like the idea because there is no accountability for those making decisions unlike now where you have leaders that have their constituents to please. I think a good idea to move into however is conversations between leaders and a select few people to discuss actions/grey areas/etc. To give an example, if this was implemented and flex were to bypass this even though it is a grey area and technically no rules are broken, then he and his team can face consequences. If he gets the graces from the committee and community uproar happens, then tough shit to try and call upon consequences.


On my phone, hope it makes sense.

[Titanoboa]

dlh seems to have had a similar idea as yours kyle.
"A smaller group of individuals may be selected to deal with future issues in a more time-sensitive manner."

I have nothing to add; I know you people (whoever 'you people' turn out to be) will make a good job.
I'm only posting to show my support (if by any chance that means anything).

[Lucifer]

I'm thinking that either you guys should just do what dlh is doing and see how that works out, or go to something more like electing somebody for each ladle to be the problem-solver. Where it has to be someone different each time, or at least someone who didn't serve last time.

You know, because I really dislike committees, and I think an elected dictator for each event that's different would work better than any standing committee.

[sinewav]

I guess it's worth a try. If it doesn't work, we can always revert. Maybe votes can happen every month, and in that vote is the election of an "official?" I don't have a problem with the same person(s) doing it every month if they do a good job. And if they fail, they get voted out immediately anyway. If the system includes accountability and transparency it could work out well. This same person(s) could also fulfill the duties of Global Moderator, a position Flex fought hard to adopt, and did successfully, but we never used.

Either way, I don't see Ladle going further without tightening the guidelines. I've warned that continued misbehaving/abuse would result in the guidelines reading like a legal document (example: the thing you agree to without reading when you install software... ), but if that's what it takes, then let it be. And the new, rewritten guidelines should have accountability built into them. (Also any officials we would elect need a detailed reference to make proper decisions.)

Let's be creative and explore as many possible solutions as we can. Also, is there any other successful online game tournament we can take inspiration from? How about with Quake, or COD? Anyone have experiences they can share?

[Desolate]

Well, there has always been a ladder style of play with many console games, and I even just found some ladders by searching around the quake live forums. http://www.esl.eu/eu/quakelive/1on1/ladder/ http://www.quakelive.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10684 console games = http://gamebattles.com/

I know that the gamebattles ladders change by the season, summer, fall, etc. Then once the season is coming to a close, the top teams, say top 16 or 32 or so get to participate in a playoffs. I don't know if this can really apply to our fortress teams that well, unless we make it more like a league where someone decides the matches that will be played. The way the matches are setup on gamebattles is that one team either challenges the other, or accepts a match with rules to their liking on the match finder. This method could obviously lead to some better teams only accepting challenges posted by the worse teams.

It seems looking at a quake live tournament, there is no real self organization, but set rules for the match that is to be played. http://www.esl.eu/eu/quakelive/news/130 ... mmer-2010/

Gamebattles tournaments: http://gamebattles.com/tournaments

If someone who plays quake live more often(dubstep, epsy) could further explain how those tournaments worked it'd be great.

[MrsKsr]

eh i'll leave that to epsy, or if you really want i can get the scouse on 'ere ^_^

[2020]

we do something amazing here
guys
no need to look for inspiration anywhere else...

the reason it has worked is because of player trust
and the decision we are always faced with is
do we trust each other
or do we trust a committee/structure/institution/organisation...?

this has been an experiment in trusting each other
and
quite frankly
phd students would do well to examine how it evolved/works etc

what you are suggesting
kyle
is the usual creep that sets in...
sorry...
if things get bumpy
the tendency is to deprive individuals of more personal responsibility
and invest our trust in some group or other or despotic leader
(however benevolent they may be lucifer)

imho
we don't quite make enough of team captains
and the trust relationship that might occur between them to sort out disputes...
team captains should not just be people who organise a team
but who are capable of engaging other teams for the benefit of all...
if this were the criteria players used to elect team captains
then we might have a chance of emergent leadership
which has quite a different flavour than a leader who got there through will

my 2c worth
(and in my country
that's worth nothing...)

[syllabear]

My 2c worth

I agree with what 2020 said. Team captains could be a good alternative, and in my experience, buerocracising (if thats a word) things just makes it less fun.

[sinewav]

Are you suggesting a forum for registered team captains only to manage the Ladle? Interesting. But can it be done in time sensitive situations?

[apparition]

Kyle, dlh, and the others have an interesting idea. After 3 lovely Ladle years, let's take a look at the future. I love the Ladle. Let's keep it alive.

Could we have a popular vote to decide something like...

Establish a Ladle committee? - Yes/No...

If no, then we keep the current way of doing things/If yes, then...

How many will serve on the committee? - 7/9/11...
Who will serve as committee members? - Anyone/Team Leaders/Ladle Community Members...
How long would members sit on the committee? - 1 month/3 months/6 months/12 months...

If a committee is established, further Ladle-related decisions could be made internally. Voting and public discussions could still be held out in the open so that we all can be involved and influence decisions. With the right people, votes and decisions could happen as needed and be finalized a lot quicker.

[PsYkO]

I am backing 2020's idea. I would like to add in some kind of bar that needs to be met by team captains. Something like, lead a team in 2 straight ladles to then be given permission to vote.

[apparition]

I didn't really understand what you wrote at first, but I think I do now. You're saying the responsibilities and standards that Team Leaders have should be increased/raised, right? If so, I agree because as of right now I don't think "captaining" a Ladle team on its own qualifies someone to make any real decisions or votes. TL's don't do very much. For example Owned and Gonzap don't do shit

That being said, until standards are raised and adhered to, I think it would be beneficial for the community to at least elect some trusted voices and clear headed decision-makers in order to stabilize and improve the longest running, most active competition in Arma history. What do you guys think?

[gawdzilla]

So maybe Z-Man can make a private section on these forums for ladle team leaders, we can discuss things in a less chaotic matter (not all the team members can butt in ; ). I also agree team leaders should have some more responsibility and say in things.