Medal Round

[Custer]

I agree with Dib.

Top 7, throw em in the game as always. Random countries.

Winner, wins the Tourney. Use Dibs tie breakers.

Peace!

Smoke some of that pot in the peace pipe.

Custer

[boldblade]

Boldblade is right. The final 7 will vote on self-interest. Those is the middle of the seven (3,4,5) benefit from the current system. Whilst 1,2 ranked will be targeted and 7 ranked would need an epic solo to win. It's a terrible system, lol.

Aw... we've agreed on something after all these years.

I'm not in the tournament but hope the rules change.

[Jensen]

Dib, if I read the 2019 rules correctly, those tiebreaker are for determining who makes top board, not who wins the top board.

If there's a tie for 7th, I will go through the procedure set out by Malarky for breaking the tie. If the tie is not broken, sure I can use the 2019 rules.

[Jensen]

I have started a vote of my own.

I've sent the vote by PM to the 28 players still live in the tournament. If there is consensus from the top 7 players, then I am happy to make the rule change. If you don't think you'll make the top 7, then you don't have to bother responding to the vote (although I am still interested in your thoughts if you have anything to add). I simply sent it to everyone so that no-one can infer that I think they've got a good chance of qualifying for the Top Board.

Also, if you do not wish to participate in the medal round, please respond to my PM indicating so. Otherwise, I will include you.

To anyone else out there still following this thread, please let me know if you'd like to play a medal round game as a fill in or replacement. I would prefer to start with 21 or 28 different players rather than having people in multiple games to fill the last board.

thanks,
Jensen

[dib]

Good idea on the vote Jensen. I can stop the second vote now idea. Thanks for all the participated in the first. Thanks to Strategus for pointing out my deliberate loaded question And thanks to custer my SuperPastis No 2 and other supporters.

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

This wasnt the cause of my error - I will HOLD my hands up. I failed to see the R3 scores had been added.

I am only human after all - dont put the blame on me.

The double country thing however stands . Its an error but not by the TD. I will discuss this in private before issuing a further statement.

Faith in leadership in this quarter is restored.

Dib

[LilDipper]

I'm not playing rounds 3&4 and won't be playing the top board unless the withdrawal rate goes nuts But fwiw I don't think it's possible to avoid navel gazing / identity hunting / metagaming / whatever your term of choice is in a multiround Dip tourney, whatever the rules.

Could the current rules have an impact on the top board? Yes absolutely - eg the 'longest game ever' (https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/com ... _finished/) which was clearly dominated by off-board factors.

But a change of top board rules doesn't necessarily avoid this, and arguably just shifts some of the metagaming elsewhere. eg in last year's VDC, the final qualifying round saw two players who were essentially already guaranteed top board places run a gamelong 3-way alliance with a third player who needed a solo board top to qualify. (As it happens the third player, who was given the lone top, ended up overall champion.) There are always choices to be made, and player identity, tournament standings, past relationships, expected future encounters, etc all play a part. One of my games in this tournament featured plenty of identity hunting that undoubtedly had an impact on the outcome, including by one player who's been vocal about this potential rule change.

So by all means change the top board rules by vote if you want, but be realistic about how 'pure' it will make the tournament.

PS Jensen, I'll happily play the medal round if you need players to balance the boards.

[Jensen]

Thanks LilDipper, I'll mark you down on the reserves list.

Thanks also to everyone who has voted by private message. Unfortunately I am not in a position at this stage to announce anything definitive.

[Jensen]

I've had some correspondence with Malarky regarding the top board rules.

The top board was only meant to be the decider if there was a solo. But pragmatically, unless any player built up a 1400 point lead on 7th place, a solo would have you ahead on points anyway.

Assuming there was a draw, Malarky did not want SC count to be the determining factor of the winner. They preferred it to be best play across the tournament. Hence, scores from all 5 rounds would be the tie-breaker in the case of a draw. The philosophy was that if qualifying rounds have a place in deciding who should play in the final, why shouldn't they have some impact on the decision on who wins the tournament?

[Conq]

Let's go!

[Jensen]

Was this you Conq?

"Well I won't be in the final either, so there."