Medal Round

[Conq]

@Jensen you said you don’t agree with changing rules mid tournament.

But the rules were already changed.

Malarky created R1 Games with 1st turn NMR protection.
CaptainMeme “updated” the rules to allow for a player to play two games in the same round if they have missed a previous round. Also CaptainMeme created R2 with NMR protection
Jensen created R3 and R4 again with no NMR protection.

That's not a fundamemtal change, just housekeeping.

Now you're changing the rules about what counts as a change in the rules.

[Strategus]

@Jensen you said you don’t agree with changing rules mid tournament.

But the rules were already changed.

Malarky created R1 Games with 1st turn NMR protection.
CaptainMeme “updated” the rules to allow for a player to play two games in the same round if they have missed a previous round. Also CaptainMeme created R2 with NMR protection
Jensen created R3 and R4 again with no NMR protection.

That's not a fundamemtal change, just housekeeping.

Now you're changing the rules about what counts as a change in the rules.

Changing the rules about changing the rules is not changing the tournament rules.

[Conq]

That's not a fundamemtal change, just housekeeping.

Now you're changing the rules about what counts as a change in the rules.

Changing the rules about changing the rules is not changing the tournament rules.

Yes it is.

[Conq]

I don't really care too much, I just want to see a good game of Diplomacy and a true champion crowned.

A lot has changed in this tournament since it began. A lot has not gone to expectation. More than just "housekeeping."

My bet is that you get all seven finalists to agree on something. Good luck!

[dib]

Children children - dont fight. Just kidding I know its a healthy exchange of views

I do care. And I think you do too Conq and Strat.

This thread is descending into chaos.

Also people dont want to comment because as Dolph has pointed out it implies they think they may be in final. (Dolph is a user account that youu can post anonymously on the forum to help anonymous games and anonymous tournaments like this one work better)

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=62722

I think when the facts change Strat- me old mucker -change your opinions.

The rules written by the original TD are proving contravercial.

And the rules have changed each round and also within rounds...with each TD’s well intentioned but knee jerk reaction so for me the precedent has already been set. This has disadvantaged me in a serious way. But I am not in final through choice. (not really I got knocked out by better players ) Honest Gov’

Seriously I think the tournament has suffered from having single points of failure so also propose that future tournaments should have a structure.

Who am i?

I ran the SuperPastis on here for four years. I had a TEAM of people helping. A triumvirate works best. It was generally well received.

So it was Dib, Caldarius and Strategus. Pete the Great helped with scoring among others. You need a team. No one is the smartest in the room. The room is the smartest.

It also helps prevent mistakes. IMHO Thats the only way to work it, life always gets in the way but the show must go on. All future ODC should have governance and similar format otherwise we will get this chaos again.

I have just worked out not only have some players had the Same Countries but that the seeding system itself has been implemented incorrectly. One player has Austria twice. How many others? The seedings have also been messed up. Two pot 2 players in same game. Then there is the crossover - a simple spreadsheet indicates that each R4 game will have at least one player from your R3 game. But it doesnt have to have more. Mine has two. So three players same game.

We all make mistakes. But with a team there are fewer. Its not great. But the show must go on.

The current rules have IMHO been illustrated by Tanjan as having flaws... so that someone finishing 7th needs a solo to win. Well done Mr Tanjan for a case well argued.

I would say that we revert to the previous ODC rules but that decision is for after we decide whether to change them or not.

These are here:
https://sites.google.com/view/webdipinf ... authuser=0

You can read the rules from 2019 yourselves.

What ? Shock horror? Players reading rules. What is this sort of madeness

Here The tie breaker is based on

In the event of a tie of total points the following will declare the winner:

By the highest # of solos
By the quickest solo
By the highest score in any common games between the participants
By the quickest draws (ie player A finished her games in 1907 and 1905 and player B finished her games in 1908 and 1905 then player A gets through - If the added numbers are tied then it moves onto #5)
By random draw

Buy My opinion is just one in a crowd.

IMHO the only way to do ANY of this is via majority vote of the 28. Nothing else is fair or legal.

But I dont think the polling function on here can stop you voting or anyone. So its a strawpoll at best. But its all we have.

This is what will happen now.

So the first vote should be whether to change the rules or not.

The second vote if it happens will be to change the rules and what to.

I am officially withdrawing from the final so wont be in it so can help if asked to do so.. organise things from here.

As speed is of the essence and R3 and R4 are ending as we speak. I will set up the first vote now and this will last 5 days.

Anyone can suggest a package of rules in the second vote. If there is one.

There will be opportunity to say your two cents Anonymously or under your handle.

Addendum- The pots are ok - thats my mistake. There is howver more than one spreadsheet on the platform.

Dib

[Jensen]

Not sitting on my hands, just patiently observing and considering the opinions of others.

[knilgau]

First, Jensen, I think you've done a great job getting this tournament moving forward again and I thank you. I'm sure that everyone who is commenting feels the same way, regardless of how they feel about your approach to determining the tournament champion.

Second, I would appreciate hearing from Malarky why he made the rules the way he did. While I see the various points that are being made, it does make me wonder what rationale he had for choosing rules that several people seem to think makes no sense. Is it possible for someone to get in touch with this person and ask him to provide some sort of explanation (publicly on this forum, not via an intermediary)? I assume someone on here knows him on a personal level and could do that instead of someone like me who doesn't know him at all.

[Jensen]

I don't know Malarky personally but have messaged him anyway. He's responded to my tournament related queries in the past since his return to site.

[dib]

Not sitting on my hands, just patiently observing and considering the opinions of others.

Fair dincum as the Aussies say I have amended...
- Dib

[Jensen]

@Dib, can you please PM me the name of the player you believe has played Austria twice. I'm looking at my list of 8 Austrians in rounds 3 and 4 and I can't see any Austrian history amongst them.

Same for the 2 players from Pot 2 you see in the same game. I'm looking at my player lists and I believe my pots to be in order.

There is nothing in the rules preventing 3 (or even 7) players from a Round 3 game all being in the same Round 4 game. The only restriction is that no pairing meets more than 2 times. To my knowledge this has been avoided.