Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

A place for threads related to tournaments and the like, and things related too.

Moderator: Light

Post Reply
User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6322
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by sinewav »

Concord wrote:There's no advantage to signing up early.
Let's say only 12 teams have signed up by the time the bracket is randomized. That leaves 4 bye spots. If it happens that a great team like Speeders signs up late (as they sometimes wait until the last day anyway), there is no incentive for any team with a bye to allow them to play. Now 12 great players miss out on Ladle, and everyone feels like the event was a little hollow.

Absurd scenario you say? Not everyone who plays this game knows a week in advance if they will be around for Ladle. And I still think there will be massive edit wars. So-and-So claiming "hey I talked to Member-X of your team and they said it was Ok to switch" when in reality no such conversation can be tracked down in a log anywhere.

I shudder to think about all the messed up negotiating that will happen in the week before Ladle and the panicky edits in the last few hours as teams join forces and gang up on other teams. It sounds like you should just go play Diplomacy instead.

Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting idea. I'm not speaking against it as much as trying to expose potential problems to address. But I'm guessing if there were issues with this type of system when only 8 teams played Ladle, I can't imagine it being better with 16.

Concord
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1661
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:24 pm

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by Concord »

sinewav wrote:
Concord wrote:It used to be that captains just put themselves on the bracket.
And here is the event that led us away from that system. Good old unlucky #13. Not that I'm superstitious in any way. It's a good read; a critical moment in Ladle history.

There were a few bad boys who made changes by shuffling two teams around after the deadline. The justification was that the rules were not clear enough (I seem to remember something similar happening just 6 months ago :wink:). So, if you really want this as an option, I would suggest you take the time to write up a very, clear, concise set of RULES regarding the process. Make it as airtight as possible.

I have a couple issues with what sine.wav writes here and feel they are worth mentioning. Calling Rico and Kyle "bad boys" seems more than bit overreaching. Both have contributed to the community (more so than most) and neither is destructive. The initial event arose from a lack of communication and the actual incident seemed to follow this misunderstanding.
Similarly, the events of 6 months ago occurred because a group of people in Speeders understood the guidelines in a different way than a large amount of other people. Because those others saw it is as rule-breaking they condemned the act (mistakingly in my opinion). In both cases a lack of communication and misinterpretation of rules caused incidents. In neither did someone intend to cheat. This is worth noting.

We ought to put a higher priority on captains communicating and taking care of their end than putting the burden on rules which both allow for misinterpretation and then lead to bystanders condemning the actors. Captains used to join the armagetron.tourneys channel an hour before the Ladle to talk and make sure everything would unfold in an agreeable way. Now we just assume everyone else interprets the rules the same way we do and, when they don't, we get angry at them. The self-organizing principle was central to the Ladle, it seems we have moved away from it.

User avatar
kyle
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1866
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe, Multiverse
Contact:

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by kyle »

I'll be honest, I liked it best when it was simple and teams added themselves to the challenge board, But that yielded other problems.

First, we had that X-******* edit I did. This was because X had traded places with CT in the challenge board without asking. Basically would have to have more rules preventing that.

Also, I feel bad for weaker teams, I don't want a powerhouse team to just keep placing their name next to the weaker team. This would hinder the growth of the ladle.

finally, Durka rigged the servers :) (ok maybe not really) But this may be something that should be brought up again anyway. In all fairness servers could be rigged for the 4 known seeds. Anyone making the challenge board now knows where they are placed, so they can place whatever server they want on them. I don't believe in truly randomizing them, because there are extra servers, I believe that teamsh should have the ability to pick their favorite 4 Euro and 4 US servers out of the ones on the challenge board and denote one as top for each, then fill in the brackets backwards. http://tourney.crazy-tronners.com/bracket.php shows you have this idea can work when you refresh and see the server changes.

So Even though i do like Concords idea, I don't think it is feasible anymore, however we should focus more on how servers should be placed rather than how seeding should work.
I think current seeding system is most logical approach, I guess we could do away with it altogether :)
Image

owned
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 876
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by owned »

Concord wrote:Since sine.wav seems to really want to label whatever idea I advocate as mine, I'll suggest an adjustment to the original method. Teams are randomized a week before the Ladle and placed on the brackets. They are then free to trade spots with any willing trading partner. Additionally, a match up of teams can trade opening round server assignments with another match up of teams.
The thing that is bad about this is it gives multi-teamed clans a huge advantage. What clans can do is just place their teams on completely different parts of the bracket, and then choose their best team to be on the easiest part so they have the best chance of winning.

Slickster
Round Winner
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by Slickster »

owned wrote:
Concord wrote:Since sine.wav seems to really want to label whatever idea I advocate as mine, I'll suggest an adjustment to the original method. Teams are randomized a week before the Ladle and placed on the brackets. They are then free to trade spots with any willing trading partner. Additionally, a match up of teams can trade opening round server assignments with another match up of teams.
The thing that is bad about this is it gives multi-teamed clans a huge advantage. What clans can do is just place their teams on completely different parts of the bracket, and then choose their best team to be on the easiest part so they have the best chance of winning.
Maybe try like only 1 clan team can trade?

owned
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 876
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by owned »

It's best not to make rules specific to clans. People can always get around them by just making a team by a different name.

Concord
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1661
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:24 pm

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by Concord »

it's best not to make rules at all, I'd say

PokeMaster
Match Winner
Posts: 639
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:36 am

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by PokeMaster »

that's an ideal conc. sure it would be great to be able to trust* everybody, but that'll never happen. Why are there laws and legal systems?

*I don't mean trust as in trusting somebody not to do something they know is wrong, but to understand your definition of right and wrong.
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6322
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by sinewav »

By the way... In case you didn't know, I actually ruined Ladle with voting and crazy rules I made up on the wiki. For that, I apologize. I've undermined the self-organizing nature of the competition and soiled the spirit of TRONIC. I'm walking away from my self-appointed responsibility of continuing this charade of democracy.

I thought the system was working correctly. But out of nothing came this beast of a thread with arguments from every direction over the entire scope of the game. The catalyst? The very existence of a voting discussion thread.

We should abandon annual votes (and voting altogether) and tackle problems as they arise rather than looking for them. It will be just like the good old days.

Ah, yes. The good old days. *sigh of relief*

wildcat
Average Program
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:26 pm

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by wildcat »

I would say 95% of ppl like how the ladle is now. Poll: :D

THEred
Core Dumper
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:04 am

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by THEred »

wildcat wrote:I would say 95% of ppl like how the ladle is now. Poll: :D
+1
red

BTD
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:34 am

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by BTD »

THEred wrote:
wildcat wrote:I would say 95% of ppl like how the ladle is now. Poll: :D
+1
+1
=
+2
Image

User avatar
Eckz
Core Dumper
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:27 am

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by Eckz »

BTD wrote:+1+1 = +2
+x = +2x
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
compguygene
Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 2336
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:09 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by compguygene »

sinewav wrote:By the way... In case you didn't know, I actually ruined Ladle with voting and crazy rules I made up on the wiki. For that, I apologize. I've undermined the self-organizing nature of the competition and soiled the spirit of TRONIC. I'm walking away from my self-appointed responsibility of continuing this charade of democracy.

I thought the system was working correctly. But out of nothing came this beast of a thread with arguments from every direction over the entire scope of the game. The catalyst? The very existence of a voting discussion thread.

We should abandon annual votes (and voting altogether) and tackle problems as they arise rather than looking for them. It will be just like the good old days.

Ah, yes. The good old days. *sigh of relief*
Sine, before you can "abandon your responsibility" you, me, concs, etc should organize a vote to upend the whole thing, perhaps. If you all remember, Z-man made some very solid arguments for simplification of the rules to avoid the whole "rules craziness" we are now getting into. Perhaps what is truly needed is a complete simplification and rewrite to show an alternate, simpler path, in the true spirit of "Tronic". We do need more rules than we started with. But perhaps we don't need to keep making it more complex. If we keep making this more complicated in terms of rules, in 2 years, the wiki page will run several pages of convoluted typewritten text that nobody can really make sense of. Where we failed is very simple. We decided to react to every incident with rules. This is a FAIL! Gah, I supported this mess. Concs and sine are right. We need to get back to where this whole Tronic Progression started.
Edit: After IM'ing with sine, I wanted to change the end of this post I will leave the above, since i did submit it. But, I see that what I have said above is just wrong. The rules are probably as simple as they can be.

Let's just end this, get on with voting, and play the game. .
Armagetron: It's a video game that people should just play and enjoy :)
https://bit.ly/2KBGYjvCheck out the simple site about TheServerPharm

User avatar
INW
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1950
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by INW »

Eckz wrote:
BTD wrote:+1+1 = +2
+x = +2x
x=400 so 2x = 800

Post Reply