(Dec. 18, 2011 8:17 PM)th!nk Wrote: Good for those organisations. However, our tournaments are not run or organised by a body of staff, they're run and organised by members.
Here's my main point: I'm pretty sure a lot of us wouldn't bother hosting if it wasn't the ONLY way we got to compete, ever.
It's not a conflict of interest unless it's exploitable. The most they could do is rig the blocks or tournament order, which would become quite obvious after a couple of tournaments.
As long as no-one is judging any matches they are competing in (which is something I DO disagree with), and there are enough people looking on to call out anyone who makes a bad decision, it really isn't a big issue. Not big enough to justify the huge drop in tournaments we would see.
Sorry Fragbait, but we're not Wizards of the Coast, and as far as I can tell, you've never competed in a WBO tournament, let alone Organised one. I'm sure some people enjoy that, but it's the fun of being able to play a game we love that is the reason most of us end up hosting, and for a lot of people, the entire motivation for hosting their first tournament is just so that they are able to compete at all.
And before you point out (again) that you have judged tournaments, there's a big difference between judging and organising. Were the question "should people be judging their own battles" I'd certainly be on the No side, but for hosts competing in their own tournaments, at the very least you've ignored the practical aspects in a tradeoff for what you're "used to".
This counter, I feel, is really just paper thin. The only counter here seems to be, "Well, this is Beyblade."
I mean, Seriously? Why should Bey be any different.
But for a couple of your points specifically...
>However, our tournaments are not run or organised by a body of staff, they're run and organised by members.
Oh boy, here we go.
Let's see....
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=258525
NO KOAST v3. Hosted at a Con, Organized by one person, judged by one person.
http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/S...al_Inferno
This guy. THIS GUY. This guy WAS the Midwest Smash Scene. He organized, ran, paid for, and often times would run tournaments he intended on competing in.
http://shoryuken.com/forum/index.php?thr...11.127336/
Wichita Fight Night. Hosted at a gaming venue, organized by one person, costs paid from his own pocket. Series of tournaments that was only ended by closing of the venue.
Also, card game tournaments, on the local level, may be hosted at a store with a body of staff, as you say, but they are organized and ran by one person for the most part. Exceptions to this rule are high dollar tournaments such as the recent $250 draft held in my FNM spot.
So, with that out of the way...
>Here's my main point: I'm pretty sure a lot of us wouldn't bother hosting if it wasn't the ONLY way we got to compete, ever.
That's just disappointing. Then maybe someone else in your town should host something? Maybe you should travel to other cities for THEIR tournaments? If you want to be serious about a game, be serious.
>It's not a conflict of interest unless it's exploitable. The most they could do is rig the blocks or tournament order, which would become quite obvious after a couple of tournaments.
So...you argue it's not exploitable, but then you prove it is, using my own example?
fragbait, in previous post. Wrote:Judges have direct access to brackets (if applicable) seeding, statistics, and data on each player and game.
>As long as no-one is judging any matches they are competing in (which is something I DO disagree with), and there are enough people looking on to call out anyone who makes a bad decision, it really isn't a big issue. Not big enough to justify the huge drop in tournaments we would see.
And that's the thing. Without much digging through hundreds of threads in the Organized Play forum, it seems that the only large tournaments, with a few examples, happen in the same places they did pre-Hasbro MFB launch: New York, and Canada.
So, from what I've gathered from news posts, and how the committee practically BEGS for some new people to host (meant non insultingly), most of the tournaments are small, one host/Judge affairs, and they play both roles.
Furthermore, can you prove, with evidence, that there would be a drop in tournaments because of a ruling on this? Can you prove members like Deikalio, who have been part of this hobby before I knew that such a group like this existed, or people like our Committee, would stop hosting tournaments because of it?
I (and this is just conjecture based on time in other communities) believe this would give rise to a stronger judging and hosting base, one based in people that are happy to organize, learn fine details in rules, and to teach others. There's no true loss in having to step back, as I've said, and there's even a certain satisfaction in it.
Sure, certain smaller scenes will take a hit. But nothing that would cause a "huge" drop in tournaments. Besides, do you really want quantity over quality?
A few points on other things above that may be brought up:
-You may find me in the results for No Koast v3. I was entered into the competition, paid my fee, and didn't play. I was considered a Bye for most players, and I didn't even pick up the sticks. I was entered in to round out our numbers
-The Real Inferno's smash page talks about his history in tournaments. I didn't say, however, that the was a judge exclusively. Just the best one.
Quick, non-related question: What usergroup are you in that your username is italicized? >.> That's new.
(Dec. 18, 2011 8:22 PM)Raigeko13 Wrote: The Judge rules the tournament.
The Judge does not get an unfair advantage, he has the same amount as any other blader.
As one of the only people in my state to my knowledge, Judges not being able to compete would be a total letdown to me. I wouldn't be able TO EVEN PLAY. I would have to burden someone with the task of:
1. Getting a BB-10.
2. Getting a prize bey/beys.
3. Learning the rules.
I am wholeheartedly willing to host a tournament, if there is enough people. But why are the capable (and willing) people, not allowed to participate in their own creation?
That's my thoughts on it. Judges should be able to play.
Well, that's kinda what comes with being a judge. But the creative judge can ease some of this burden.
>Find a local game/hobby shop to sponsor the tournament. In exchange for a certain turnout, have the store guarantee certain prizes. They don't necessarily have to be Bey.
>Learning the Rules doesn't have to happen overnight. It can be split up, like any other study.
Also, why is it the JUDGE's responsibility to get the Attack Stadium? Surely someone else in your community has a stadium that's legal.
And you seem to be missing the issue at hand. As I said above, a Judge has access to all aspects of a tournament, including pairings, seeding, and Win/Loss records. If that isn't an unfair advantage, I don't know what is.