CAP Server Mini-Tournament Rules Workshop

[DougJustDoug]

We don't need FOUR tiers of tournament staff. I'm not even sure we needed three (Tournament Director, Veteran TO, TO) -- but, what's done is done....

As for TO's, there are way too many bad ones. They aren't bad people or anything, but they are not good organizers. They can't deal with people, they can't control the tournament, they are flaky, they bicker amongst themselves over the stupidest little things, they can't spell -- basically, they suck. And there are LOTS of them.

At this point, it is making the server look bad. I have received complaints from MANY people on this issue. Having a bunch of immature idiots running around starting disorganized tournaments all over the place is NOT a good thing -- even if they are really nice people that are just trying to help.

I have mentioned this in the past to eric and others. I realize there was a recent "re-application" process for all TO's. But it doesn't appear to have helped very much.

So, here's the deal -- the tournament staff needs to figure out a way to get this situation rectified. If not, then I am going to "clean house" and reboot the whole tournament program. I don't like playing the heavy like this, but something has to be done.

 

[eric the espeon]

We don't need FOUR tiers of tournament staff. I'm not even sure we needed three (Tournament Director, Veteran TO, TO) -- but, what's done is done....

Personally I think Veteran TOs are very useful, otherwise its just me doing everything and running everything. And thats not going to work very well.
Maybe we don't need an extra level of TOs, but I think its a useful option to consider.

As for TO's, there are way too many bad ones. They aren't bad people or anything, but they are not good organizers. They can't deal with people, they can't control the tournament, they are flaky, they bicker amongst themselves over the stupidest little things, they can't spell -- basically, they suck. And there are LOTS of them.

I can see your point I have seen a few people a little like this myself, but I really don't want to be too harsh on them, MTs are only meant to be a bit of fun really, nothing to get serious about. However if they are being really stupid or someone complains directly about them I will de-TO them.

At this point, it is making the server look bad. I have received complaints from MANY people on this issue. Having a bunch of immature idiots running around starting disorganized tournaments all over the place is NOT a good thing -- even if they are really nice people that are just trying to help.

You have been receveing complaints? Thats interesting I have had a few but never any complaints about a specific user, Just a few people generally saying some TOs are not doing it right, if people want me to do something about someone they MUST tell me who it is why I should de-TO them. I have not had any of these.

If you are receiving complaints please tell those who are complaining to contact me.

I have mentioned this in the past to eric and others. I realize there was a recent "re-application" process for all TO's. But it doesn't appear to have helped very much.

True, there are still some bad TOs out there, but I think uite a fw people have not even become a TO, they are just doing tourneys cos they wanted to. This is a major part of the problem.

So, here's the deal -- the tournament staff needs to figure out a way to get this situation rectified. If not, then I am going to "clean house" and reboot the whole tournament program. I don't like playing the heavy like this, but something has to be done.

I don't think that is needed, anyway we will try to get it working better I think a complaints system and better guidelines for approving TOs would help this problem greatly.

 

[Captain]

You're receiving complaints...hmm. Wow, I've been largely kept in the dark about this. I heard about the problem and then we had the re-application thing and then it pretty much seemed to disappear. Exactly what times are these TOs on and who are they? The vast majority of TOs seem to be good to me but that doesn't mean we shouldn't eliminate the bad ones. I think we should edit the minitrounament thread to say at the beginning something about forwarding all complaints to Eric the Espeon or a veteran TO, considering we want to be informed about it, but don't want Eric to get swamped either.

Is there some time I can talk to both Eric and DJD about this starting sometime Thursday or Friday? I'd like to have more info on this.

Also, what the heck do you mean by not being hard on them Eric? Btw, I take the minitournaments rather seriously whenever I am involved.

Also about the tiers thing, Veteran TOs are obviously there to help eric but what harm exactly comes out of multiple tiers? Imo, adding tiers shouldn't be top of the agenda when bad TOs are around but I don't see a reason to make a big deal opposing it considering I don't see what harm it brings.

 

[Bass]

I wholeheartedly agree, part of the problem, I will admit, is that the application process doesn't necessarily weed out all of the bad TO's. The problem is people may end up being extra-careful when they test to pass, then when they start hosting real tournaments, they become lax and end up doing a half-assed job. The problem is just how much higher can we make the standards? After all, I have only failed a couple of people out of the many that I have tested, though I notice now that some people that did pass were doing a poor job. Should we administer multiple test? I am thinking that maybe we will need to be more strict, but specifically how is the question, since right now, TO's are only tested on the fundamentals.

 

[Captain]

I don't think a minor mistake or two during the first test is a big deal or anything assuming I'm optimistic about their future performances. But if the problem is determining how they will perform after the first test, we'll just have to be on our toes about complaints and how well they are doing when we aren't openly testing them. If we tell them openly that they have to take a test again, they'll just be extra careful instead of lax, I really don't see how to get over it.

I have a feeling I don't fully get what Bass is saying *sigh*. If I'm not helpful just tell me to shut up.

 

[IggyBot]

I don't see what good having someone run one four man tournament does. It's obviously not hard to say "Round 1, W vs X, Y vs Z" "FINALS X vs Z".

Having someone go through multiple 8 man tournaments (at least 2) as their testing period seems the best way to gain a good Tournament staff.

It's not hard to figure out why Doug has been recieving complaints. As a participant in many tournaments, I often find myself sitting, waiting 30 minutes for matches to end, only to find out the players haven't even started. Or the TO decides to leave halfway through the tournament, then shows up again later. Or giving people tournament spots, and then not giving them a match. Hell, I even participated in a 10 man tournament the other day.

All of these things show that tournaments are disorganized, and not fun in any way.

 

[Bass]

I don't think a minor mistake or two during the first test is a big deal or anything assuming I'm optimistic about their future performances. But if the problem is determining how they will perform after the first test, we'll just have to be on our toes about complaints and how well they are doing when we aren't openly testing them. If we tell them openly that they have to take a test again, they'll just be extra careful instead of lax, I really don't see how to get over it.

I have a feeling I don't fully get what Bass is saying *sigh*. If I'm not helpful just tell me to shut up.

What I am saying is pretty much what you said, and what IggyBot said above. Passing the test isn't rocket science. The real problem is that people aren't consistently doing a good job after passing the test and don't really seem to care.

I don't see what good having someone run one four man tournament does. It's obviously not hard to say "Round 1, W vs X, Y vs Z" "FINALS X vs Z".

Having someone go through multiple 8 man tournaments (at least 2) as their testing period seems the best way to gain a good Tournament staff.

It's not hard to figure out why Doug has been recieving complaints. As a participant in many tournaments, I often find myself sitting, waiting 30 minutes for matches to end, only to find out the players haven't even started. Or the TO decides to leave halfway through the tournament, then shows up again later. Or giving people tournament spots, and then not giving them a match. Hell, I even participated in a 10 man tournament the other day.

All of these things show that tournaments are disorganized, and not fun in any way.

I am not really sure if "Two Eight-Man Tournaments" as the test is necessarily going to fix this. I agree that TO's should get better as they get more experience, but if we do the test this way, we will severely have to limit the number of accepted applicants, because most Veteran TO's may not have the time to administer two tests per person given how high the demand to become a TO has been. Also, since "It's obviously not hard to say 'Round 1, W vs X, Y vs Z' 'FINALS X vs Z' ", I don't see how having two eight man tournaments is going to change that if that's all the test really does. Part of the complaints you seem to be mentioning are irregularities like 10-man tournaments and the TO leaving for some period of time. Ultimately, these people probably haven't read the guide, as it pretty much addresses to TO's what they should and should not be doing (ie, if there is a ten man tournament, the TO should disqualify the two participants that entered the latest). If these things happen, I suggest that they become REPORTED to a veteran TO, and that TO could be re-evaluated and possibly added to the list of users banned from starting tournaments.

 

[eric the espeon]

I am not really sure if "Two Eight-Man Tournaments" as the test is necessarily going to fix this. I agree that TO's should get better as they get more experience, but if we do the test this way, we will severely have to limit the number of accepted applicants, because most Veteran TO's may not have the time to administer two tests per person given how high the demand to become a TO has been. Also, since "It's obviously not hard to say 'Round 1, W vs X, Y vs Z' 'FINALS X vs Z' ", I don't see how having two eight man tournaments is going to change that if that's all the test really does. Part of the complaints you seem to be mentioning are irregularities like 10-man tournaments and the TO leaving for some period of time. Ultimately, these people probably haven't read the guide, as it pretty much addresses to TO's what they should and should not be doing (ie, if there is a ten man tournament, the TO should disqualify the two participants that entered the latest). If these things happen, I suggest that they become REPORTED to a veteran TO, and that TO could be re-evaluated and possibly added to the list of users banned from starting tournaments.

I agree with all of this, the best way to fix this problem IMO is not to block large numbers of people from becoming TOs (keep the application system though), but to have a complaints system to deal with those who are not up to standards.
I would like to add a Q/A like this:

Q: A TO has made a major mistake in a tournament (Leaving before the end, letting a tourney die out, not making participants start their battles, some other examples)
A: You should find record who they are and exactly what they did wrong, and find a Veteran TO on shoddy, talk to them via PM and give them full details on what happened. The TO will be warned, and if needed banned from starting Mini Tourneys.

I think this should mostly fix the problem, if people can be bothered to report bad TOs.

We also need a way to judge how long to ban people for, I think normally a warning is enough to start with, them go to a 2 week ban, opinions?

here is a PM Captain sent me:

I don't know if Aldaron would bother to send you this info but...

He claims Luna like ditched in the middle of his/her hosting of 5 tourneys. 0.o Assuming it's true, Looks like a de-TOing is in place.

Right I have received complaints about Luna before and given a warning, I think a 2 week ban on starting MTs and another warning should be the first step.

 

[tennisace]

I'd help weed through the list. I'd also suggest suspending all applications for the time being and making the test a bit harder.

 

[eric the espeon]

After speaking to Luna I have discovered that the MTs Luna left were quite some time ago, and I had already warned Luna about them. Since I spoke to Luna he has not left any MTs.
Luna is under a warning so if he leaves any more he will get a 2 week ban.

 

[IggyBot]

I am not really sure if "Two Eight-Man Tournaments" as the test is necessarily going to fix this. I agree that TO's should get better as they get more experience, but if we do the test this way, we will severely have to limit the number of accepted applicants, because most Veteran TO's may not have the time to administer two tests per person given how high the demand to become a TO has been. Also, since "It's obviously not hard to say 'Round 1, W vs X, Y vs Z' 'FINALS X vs Z' ", I don't see how having two eight man tournaments is going to change that if that's all the test really does.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently, all that has to be done to become a Tournament Organizer is you must run one 4 player tournament under the supervision of a Veteran Organizer. A 4 player tournament is extremely small, and easy to run. However, most tournaments played on the CaP server are 8 player tournaments. This is why I suggested AT LEAST two, not exactly two, but at least two or more "testing" tournaments. Eight player tournaments take much more organization on the hosts part, and this is when problems start to occur.

As to your statement about limiting the number of applicants accepted: Isn't that the whole test is all about? To weed out those who are bad at running tournaments so that they don't screw up? Obviously the current test isn't limiting enough players, hence the complaints. If you want everyone to be able to become a Tournament Organizer that easily, just lift the whole restriction on running tournaments completely.

I would rather have a smaller list of good tournament hosts who can run tournaments smoothly and quickly, and thus host more, than a huge list of mostly bad players who continuously screw up and make things difficult when they shouldn't be.

I agree with all of this, the best way to fix this problem IMO is not to block large numbers of people from becoming TOs (keep the application system though), but to have a complaints system to deal with those who are not up to standards.

You had better be prepared to make quite a few promotions to deal with the complaints then. I'm sorry that this is personal, but you can't even seem to keep the leaderboard updated with tournament winners and points, and now you want people to start PMing complaints to you? How exactly do you plan to keep up on all of this?

 

[Bass]

You had better be prepared to make quite a few promotions to deal with the complaints then. I'm sorry that this is personal, but you can't even seem to keep the leaderboard updated with tournament winners and points, and now you want people to start PMing complaints to you? How exactly do you plan to keep up on all of this?

eric isn't having trouble updating the leaderboard at all, in fact, if the leaderboard has not been updated, it is because the TO forgot to send eric the results. Again, this is an example of what TO's should not be doing. eric is more than capable of keeping up with such complaints.

 

[IggyBot]

Well then, that is another problem. Clearly the current Tournament Organizers aren't sending results in because there are hardly any visible changes in the leaderboard. I don't know how many people have been missed, as I only pay attention to my own score, but I've gained 10 tournament points that haven't been updated onto the scoreboard.

Again, this is why the current system needs a big reworking.

 

[Captain]

I keep track of my own leaderboard score and feels like there is often lag of a few days. However, I don't think I've ever had a 10 point jump. It is true that Eric's inbox gets full, but the vast majority of the time there is absolutely no problem sending the PM. It's only happened once. Hence, Eric is updating the leaderboard. I'm not sure exactly how fast, but he is doing it.

The TOs on the other hand, unless we were to unTO almost everyone, we need more info on exactly who are these bad TOs. Exactly who were the TOs that were involved with the winning of your last ten points, Iggybot? Information like that could really help us. However, saying "where's my 10 points" without anything more specific, really doesn't help solve the problem.

 

[eric the espeon]

I have not updated the leaderboard since yesterday, and I forgot to delete the messages from then so atm my inbox is full. I will update the scoreboard in a few minutes. If a TO sends me a result I do add it, the problem is not with me.

Iggybot this:

Exactly who were the TOs that were involved with the winning of your last ten points, Iggybot? Information like that could really help us. However, saying "where's my 10 points" without anything more specific, really doesn't help solve the problem.

If someone sais "I have not had X points, do something" well.... without full info... I can't do anything. Don't complain and expect me to be able to fix it unless you have names to back it up, I can't guess for you who did it wrong. And I will not add any results that come from non-TOs otherwise 1. people may lie, not saying I distrust you Iggy but if I trust one person its not really fair to say no to another. 2. If the TO also sends the result I may add it twice.

Should I add this to the start of the FAQ?

Some general advice to everyone, when an MT you are in ends always remind your TO to send the results, and take note of your score. If it is not added within a few days then contact a veteran TO, they will asses your complaint and if needed forward it to me (or in the case of the VTO being me, just judge the case myself) the case will be judged and the TO will be warned and possibly banned from starting MTs for a while.

 

[Bass]

Considering this problem is in the FAQ, I think this further supports my belief that the real problem is that people just are assuming they know everything they need to do when they take the test and simply don't read the guide. Then have no idea what not to do (ie forgetting to send results) nor understand how to deal with all of the other common problems people are complaining about.

 

[phalanx]

the main problem is, there is no distinct difference of what a TO comes up as in the names list, so its hard to spot one, and i am a TO myself but there is either loads of tourneys so i cant get a look in, and I don't think most have been held recently due to the new poke.
I shall start hosting some more but as I'm hosting I cant climb the leader board so expect other TO's to pull so weight so I can enjoy tourneys as both a player and a host.

 

[tennisace]

That's partially because of the previous "you can be a TO if you want" attitude. Everyone was let in, but now they just battle. We should make everyone re-apply within a certain period of time, and not take any more applications. All TO's then must make AT least one MT per month or they lose their spot. TOship should be first come, first serve, and a limit should be put on the number. If someone proves to be incompetent, they will be banned from TOship and they will be replaced. I think the limit should be 20, MAX. You really don't need more than that.

Next, I came up with a good idea for the test. You first watch them for a day to see how they act on the server and how active they are. Next, you quiz them on general knowledge on battling, the server rules, and MT rules. Then you have them make a 4 man tournament. Then the next day, make them do an 8 man tournament. This may seem lengthy, but it will help weed out bad TO's. For the re-application, just make them do an 8 player MT.

How does this sound everyone? If this doesn't work, I'd have to say we should clean house and start over.

 

[eric the espeon]

How about do this, every 2 months do a "clear out" of all TOs and make everyone reapply.
Maybe have a couple more Vet TOs so that we can test everyone within a few days.
Only test people who you know of as active, and preferably have been in a couple of your MTs so you know how they act, if they have not ask if someone you know can vouch for them.

The test would be something like:

Before the test give them a link to the FAQ and tell them to read it IN FULL, give them time and say that they can take the test another day if they don't have time to read it.
1. Battle them. They would not have to win (or even do well at all), just prove that they had a general grip on the game and are not a total n00b. If they fail here direct them to the Smogon analysis, and apprentice program.
2. Ask them to do a 8 player MT. Watch the tourney and give them advice on what to do if something goes wrong. If they make small mistakes but listen to your advice let them pass, if they don't listen or make big mistakes fail them. Whether they pass or fail tell me, if they fail I will put them on a "may not reapply until X date" list.

sorry this is a bit rushed I will reply to people later.

 

[sbc]

Maybe there could be a quota on the number of TOs, once the current list has been filtered for those who are on the whole inactive or not good at it.

I'd say that TO applications should be suspended whilst the filtering process goes on, as there are enough competent TOs atm so there wouldn't be any massive disruption.

Then hopefully, there would be just fewer TOs that are both active and competent and then we would see how we would do with that number. Then, we'd re-allow applications and then approve more TOs if the number was inadequate. This is where the quota comes in, we would find the optimum number of TOs and then set that number as the quota. People would still be allowed to take the test, but instead of being added straight away would be added a waiting list if they passed.

Every two months, TOs would be re-tested and then if a person is not active enough nor competent then they would be suspended from organising tournaments and replaced with someone from the waiting list.

The only thing is that I am not sure about the logistics of testing a large number of TOs so regularly or finding out if the person is active enough to justify being a TO.

 

[tennisace]

I mean test them all ONCE, then test new ones ONCE. The quota would be 20 max. Bass and I have already stopped with applications, im not sure about Eric.

 

[eric the espeon]

I think it would be much more simple to not have a maximum number of TOs, it does not make sense to me why we should limit the number of people, what we should do is increase the level of skill we require from TOs.
Testing new TOs is major part of being a VTO, until we have all agreed that applications should stop I would like all you to keep testing people when you have time, use your discretion as to who it is worth testing (you don't need to bother with those who are not active in MTs, or idiots). You should also increase the quality needed to pass.

Having a total clear out every 2 months and makeing everyone retake the test, is simple logistically than finding out how long it was since each TO did a MT.

Filtering should be done in this way: If someone complains about a TO the VTOs look into it and if needed de-TO that person until the next clear out. We should also inform the public of the need for their help in this process.

Next, I came up with a good idea for the test. You first watch them for a day to see how they act on the server and how active they are. Next, you quiz them on general knowledge on battling, the server rules, and MT rules. Then you have them make a 4 man tournament. Then the next day, make them do an 8 man tournament. This may seem lengthy, but it will help weed out bad TO's. For the re-application, just make them do an 8 player MT.

It looks too long and complicated to me, this looks more manageable:


Who to test:

Only test people who you know of as reasonably active and preferably have been in a couple of your MTs so you know how they act, if they have not ask if someone you know can vouch for them.

The TO test

Before the test give them a link to the FAQ and tell them to read it IN FULL, give them time and say that they can take the test another day if they don't have time to read it.
You should also check that they have an Activated Smogon account so they can give me results.

1. Battle them. They would not have to win (or even do well at all), just prove that they had a general grip on the game and are not a total n00b. If they fail here direct them to the Smogon analysis, and apprentice program.

2. Ask them to do a 8 player MT. Watch the tourney and give them advice on what to do if something goes wrong. If they make small mistakes but listen to your advice let them pass, if they don't listen or make big mistakes fail them. Whether they pass or fail tell me, if they fail I will put them on a "may not reapply until X date" list.

3. Those who pass will be able to do MTs until the next clear out, but if someone complains about them they are liable to lose that ability.

 

[tennisace]

there gets to a point when all the good people have been given TOship, and all applicants are n00bs. There should be a cutoff point. Also, i never said bimonthly clearouts, i said a clearout NOW. as i look at the bottom of the to list i see a few names that have failed before for some reason. Im still not administering tests because i believe that there should be a limit, and that we've hit it. I'd like the other veteran TO's to weigh in on the matter, as well as Doug+the mods and smogon veterans. This whole process needs to be revamped, and sooner rather than later.

 

[Captain]

Testing new TOs is major part of being a VTO, until we have all agreed that applications should stop I would like all you to keep testing people when you have time, use your discretion as to who it is worth testing (you don't need to bother with those who are not active in MTs, or idiots). You should also increase the quality needed to pass.

In case you didn't notice, some time ago Tennisace stopped testing applicants. Then he asked Bass to do it, and Bass pretty much agreed. I've been doing the same thing Bass has been doing. Really, this controversy over TO quality makes one hesitant to just test people in general and we have plenty of people as TO already. So 3/5th of the veteran TO staff pretty much agrees with blocking applications. Btw, I haven't seen Hybrid comment on any of this.

Having a total clear out every 2 months and makeing everyone retake the test, is simple logistically than finding out how long it was since each TO did a MT.

Filtering should be done in this way: If someone complains about a TO the VTOs look into it and if needed de-TO that person until the next clear out. We should also inform the public of the need for their help in this process.

It looks too long and complicated to me, this looks more manageable:

I really agree with this. Of course, if we believe it's good information we should look into it. Also, testing everyone every two months will be a major pain that's probably unnecessary.

Who to test:

Only test people who you know of as reasonably active and preferably have been in a couple of your MTs so you know how they act, if they have not ask if someone you know can vouch for them.

agreed. Being a good MT participant can help one be a better TO. Though it's not an excuse to not read the guide.

The TO test

Before the test give them a link to the FAQ and tell them to read it IN FULL, give them time and say that they can take the test another day if they don't have time to read it.
You should also check that they have an Activated Smogon account so they can give me results.

In general, I don't want to TO someone who doesn't have a activated Smogon account. The only people I'd do with otherwise is if I'd contact Eric for them...which is completely outside of my responsibilities of Veteran TO. Of course, I've only done it temporarily for Goldsaber so far.

1. Battle them. They would not have to win (or even do well at all), just prove that they had a general grip on the game and are not a total n00b. If they fail here direct them to the Smogon analysis, and apprentice program.

I don't know what to say about this.

2. Ask them to do a 8 player MT. Watch the tourney and give them advice on what to do if something goes wrong. If they make small mistakes but listen to your advice let them pass, if they don't listen or make big mistakes fail them. Whether they pass or fail tell me, if they fail I will put them on a "may not reapply until X date" list.

Using my methods an 8 man isn't much harder than a four man if it is any harder after accounting for length but I guess that's against the point. I guess it can be much harder with worse methods. Also, I don't think you should pass them by simply saying they pass in chat. Use the Smogon PM system, First. PM that they "passed" after they send the results. The "sending results" part has historically not been part of MT testing and I think it should be given a certain complaint.

3. Those who pass will be able to do MTs until the next clear out, but if someone complains about them they are liable to lose that ability.

Didn't you just say a 2 month clear out is bad? ?_? I don't get it.

 

[Infiltrator]

I agree with Captain He has made a good point,we already have a quite alot of TOs .We should only Re-approve the TOs that have not re-apply yet .And we should only test people who are online regularly or often.We should not test players who don't have a smogon account, if they want to become a TO they should be an member of smogon and come back for the test.And when we don't test them they keep annoying you over ,and over, and over,until they finally run you mad and burst!!!
that's all i have to say right now.