Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Thoughts on the tournament system?

debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 2:08:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At the beginning of Ore's presidency. Ore_ele and I worked with airmax to institute a system that allowed for monthly tournaments - charged with alleviating "tournament fever." The idea was that if tournaments were run monthly, users would be more engaged because multiple tournaments running at the same time causes some sort of burn out.

We've had this system for a few months, and via careful observation, I have come to the conclusion that it may have made the problem of tournament fever worse.

Think about it, tournaments can last up to three months if run all the way through. Monthly tournaments will inevitably lead to burn out because eventually, 3 to 4 tournaments will end up taking place at the same time. Thus, I would suggest a bi-monthly or tri-monthly tournament system over a monthly tournament system.

Keep in mind, this thread is *only* for discussion. I want to hear member's thoughts on this proposal before changes are actually made.
debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 2:09:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Instituting this system was beneficial, imo. However, there's nothing wrong with working to make it better.
lannan13
Posts: 23,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 2:10:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 2:09:17 PM, debatability wrote:
Instituting this system was beneficial, imo. However, there's nothing wrong with working to make it better.

We definately need to keep up the Beginner's Tournies. I've been seeing better quality debates in the Challenge section since we've enacted those.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 2:11:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 2:10:16 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/29/2015 2:09:17 PM, debatability wrote:
Instituting this system was beneficial, imo. However, there's nothing wrong with working to make it better.

We definately need to keep up the Beginner's Tournies. I've been seeing better quality debates in the Challenge section since we've enacted those.

This isn't about the beginners tounaments. It is about the regular monthly tournaments.
lannan13
Posts: 23,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 2:20:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 2:11:34 PM, debatability wrote:
At 5/29/2015 2:10:16 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/29/2015 2:09:17 PM, debatability wrote:
Instituting this system was beneficial, imo. However, there's nothing wrong with working to make it better.

We definately need to keep up the Beginner's Tournies. I've been seeing better quality debates in the Challenge section since we've enacted those.

This isn't about the beginners tounaments. It is about the regular monthly tournaments.

I know, but they're still involved in this program as well.

As for the regular tournies I think we should space them out to everyother month that way we are equally have enough debaters instead of everyone also forfeiting in the tournies.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 2:22:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 2:20:39 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/29/2015 2:11:34 PM, debatability wrote:
At 5/29/2015 2:10:16 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/29/2015 2:09:17 PM, debatability wrote:
Instituting this system was beneficial, imo. However, there's nothing wrong with working to make it better.

We definately need to keep up the Beginner's Tournies. I've been seeing better quality debates in the Challenge section since we've enacted those.

This isn't about the beginners tounaments. It is about the regular monthly tournaments.

I know, but they're still involved in this program as well.

As for the regular tournies I think we should space them out to everyother month that way we are equally have enough debaters instead of everyone also forfeiting in the tournies.

exactly - because FF's totally ruin tournaments :/
lannan13
Posts: 23,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 2:23:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 2:22:39 PM, debatability wrote:
At 5/29/2015 2:20:39 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/29/2015 2:11:34 PM, debatability wrote:
At 5/29/2015 2:10:16 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/29/2015 2:09:17 PM, debatability wrote:
Instituting this system was beneficial, imo. However, there's nothing wrong with working to make it better.

We definately need to keep up the Beginner's Tournies. I've been seeing better quality debates in the Challenge section since we've enacted those.

This isn't about the beginners tounaments. It is about the regular monthly tournaments.

I know, but they're still involved in this program as well.

As for the regular tournies I think we should space them out to everyother month that way we are equally have enough debaters instead of everyone also forfeiting in the tournies.

exactly - because FF's totally ruin tournaments :/

Yeah
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 2:24:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It seems as if when people sign up they either 1. Aren't taking it seriously or 2. They never sign back into DDO in order to complete the debates. There should be at least 5 back-up people who are actually eager and willing to participate in the tournament.
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 2:32:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 2:24:45 PM, Lee001 wrote:
It seems as if when people sign up they either 1. Aren't taking it seriously or 2. They never sign back into DDO in order to complete the debates.

Newer users would be encouraged to join the beginner's tournaments, not the resgular tournaments. FF's tend to be a problem for beginner's tournaments though. I think that's partially due to inactive mentors.

There should be at least 5 back-up people who are actually eager and willing to participate in the tournament.

Agreed - most tournaments (and mafia games) have replacement sign ups
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA
Posts: 328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 3:01:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think it's a little silly for people to feel proud of being able to bullcrap the best in favor of a dumb opinion on a pointless topic that will change nothing in the world or in the minds of anyone important politically.

"oh look at me, I won an internet debate tournament I must be so smart daddy!"

"what did you change with your arguments and opinions?"

"I made other people on the internet feel stupid and inferior to me!"
hey b0ss ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;")
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 3:25:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The idea of trying to limit "burnout" at all seems ridiculous to me. If people want to try to bite off more than they can chew, trying to stop them is equivalent to saying that they don't know what's good for them. It's inherently overbearing and I don't think that DDO is a site that would benefit from that sort of micromanaging.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 3:42:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think a bi-monthly system is good.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 3:57:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 3:25:50 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
The idea of trying to limit "burnout" at all seems ridiculous to me. If people want to try to bite off more than they can chew, trying to stop them is equivalent to saying that they don't know what's good for them. It's inherently overbearing and I don't think that DDO is a site that would benefit from that sort of micromanaging.

If one policy causes more burnout than another, the policy that causes the least burnout ought to be favored for the good of the site.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 4:09:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 3:25:50 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
The idea of trying to limit "burnout" at all seems ridiculous to me. If people want to try to bite off more than they can chew, trying to stop them is equivalent to saying that they don't know what's good for them. It's inherently overbearing and I don't think that DDO is a site that would benefit from that sort of micromanaging.

Their attempts to prove that they aren't biting off more than they can chew, though, tends to result in ruined debates for other members who haven't over stretched themselves. Insofar as it ends up resulted in a non-debate for other members and a ruined experience, it should be our responsibility as a site to limit this harm to the greatest extent possible.

If the FFs only really harmed the person who FF'd, I'd probably be more sympathetic. But this question is about increasing the number of quality debates on tournaments, so results are irrelevant. A forfeit, therefore, would be an intrinsic harm to not only both debaters, but to the tournament as a whole.

But to respond to the OP, bi-monthly at least is a smart idea. I'd actually favor every three months over every two to really give the most reasonable wiggle room for tournaments to flourish.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 4:26:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 3:57:47 PM, debatability wrote:
At 5/29/2015 3:25:50 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
The idea of trying to limit "burnout" at all seems ridiculous to me. If people want to try to bite off more than they can chew, trying to stop them is equivalent to saying that they don't know what's good for them. It's inherently overbearing and I don't think that DDO is a site that would benefit from that sort of micromanaging.

If one policy causes more burnout than another, the policy that causes the least burnout ought to be favored for the good of the site.

Burnout is caused via member choice. Who other than the members should choose what they think is the best for the site? You can't really measure harm objectively like you're trying to do because of varying values.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 4:28:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 4:09:28 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/29/2015 3:25:50 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
The idea of trying to limit "burnout" at all seems ridiculous to me. If people want to try to bite off more than they can chew, trying to stop them is equivalent to saying that they don't know what's good for them. It's inherently overbearing and I don't think that DDO is a site that would benefit from that sort of micromanaging.

Their attempts to prove that they aren't biting off more than they can chew, though, tends to result in ruined debates for other members who haven't over stretched themselves. Insofar as it ends up resulted in a non-debate for other members and a ruined experience, it should be our responsibility as a site to limit this harm to the greatest extent possible.

If the FFs only really harmed the person who FF'd, I'd probably be more sympathetic. But this question is about increasing the number of quality debates on tournaments, so results are irrelevant. A forfeit, therefore, would be an intrinsic harm to not only both debaters, but to the tournament as a whole.

But to respond to the OP, bi-monthly at least is a smart idea. I'd actually favor every three months over every two to really give the most reasonable wiggle room for tournaments to flourish.

A debate is between two people who have each decided to challenge the other. If a member challenges someone else who is known to be likely to forfeit, it's both of their faults. The alternative is to not challenge those people / not let them compete, which is perfectly reasonable to do. If members do not do this, then they have decided that they don't care enough, in which case you shouldn't try to make them.

Laissez-faire, man.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 4:29:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In other words, burnout only happens because the members let it happen. If that's their choice, then they obviously prefer it over the alternative, for whatever reason.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 6:59:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 4:28:59 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 5/29/2015 4:09:28 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/29/2015 3:25:50 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
The idea of trying to limit "burnout" at all seems ridiculous to me. If people want to try to bite off more than they can chew, trying to stop them is equivalent to saying that they don't know what's good for them. It's inherently overbearing and I don't think that DDO is a site that would benefit from that sort of micromanaging.

Their attempts to prove that they aren't biting off more than they can chew, though, tends to result in ruined debates for other members who haven't over stretched themselves. Insofar as it ends up resulted in a non-debate for other members and a ruined experience, it should be our responsibility as a site to limit this harm to the greatest extent possible.

If the FFs only really harmed the person who FF'd, I'd probably be more sympathetic. But this question is about increasing the number of quality debates on tournaments, so results are irrelevant. A forfeit, therefore, would be an intrinsic harm to not only both debaters, but to the tournament as a whole.

But to respond to the OP, bi-monthly at least is a smart idea. I'd actually favor every three months over every two to really give the most reasonable wiggle room for tournaments to flourish.

A debate is between two people who have each decided to challenge the other. If a member challenges someone else who is known to be likely to forfeit, it's both of their faults. The alternative is to not challenge those people / not let them compete, which is perfectly reasonable to do. If members do not do this, then they have decided that they don't care enough, in which case you shouldn't try to make them.

Laissez-faire, man.

Except that's not how tournaments work....at all...or even should work, for that matter.

For one, I don't really choose who I go against in a tournament. That's just kind of the nature of it being a tournament. So to say it's my fault for debating someone who is known to FF in a tournament is like saying it's my fault that it's raining outside; it just isn't. In that sense, there's no justifiable reason to allow this kind of harm to be allowed if it can be prevented.

For two, I still don't understand why this is even a point of contention. It should be fairly obvious that if we want to improve the site, minimizing the amount of ff'd debates is a good way to go about doing it. If we space out tournaments so that people don't unintentionally overschedule themselves and forfeit, therefore reducing the amount of forfeited debates in tournaments, why would we let them keep burning themselves out for "laissez-faire"?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 7:20:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 6:59:50 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/29/2015 4:28:59 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 5/29/2015 4:09:28 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/29/2015 3:25:50 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
The idea of trying to limit "burnout" at all seems ridiculous to me. If people want to try to bite off more than they can chew, trying to stop them is equivalent to saying that they don't know what's good for them. It's inherently overbearing and I don't think that DDO is a site that would benefit from that sort of micromanaging.

Their attempts to prove that they aren't biting off more than they can chew, though, tends to result in ruined debates for other members who haven't over stretched themselves. Insofar as it ends up resulted in a non-debate for other members and a ruined experience, it should be our responsibility as a site to limit this harm to the greatest extent possible.

If the FFs only really harmed the person who FF'd, I'd probably be more sympathetic. But this question is about increasing the number of quality debates on tournaments, so results are irrelevant. A forfeit, therefore, would be an intrinsic harm to not only both debaters, but to the tournament as a whole.

But to respond to the OP, bi-monthly at least is a smart idea. I'd actually favor every three months over every two to really give the most reasonable wiggle room for tournaments to flourish.

A debate is between two people who have each decided to challenge the other. If a member challenges someone else who is known to be likely to forfeit, it's both of their faults. The alternative is to not challenge those people / not let them compete, which is perfectly reasonable to do. If members do not do this, then they have decided that they don't care enough, in which case you shouldn't try to make them.

Laissez-faire, man.

Except that's not how tournaments work....at all...or even should work, for that matter.

For one, I don't really choose who I go against in a tournament. That's just kind of the nature of it being a tournament. So to say it's my fault for debating someone who is known to FF in a tournament is like saying it's my fault that it's raining outside; it just isn't. In that sense, there's no justifiable reason to allow this kind of harm to be allowed if it can be prevented.
Living in Seattle if you hate rain is your fault. Joining a tournament that has an unreliable debater is your fault. You do not have to join anything if it doesn't meet your standards - if this principle was allowed to work, then, obviously, the quality of the site would be exactly what the majority of users want - something much more important than abstract notions of what's "good for the site" or not.
For two, I still don't understand why this is even a point of contention. It should be fairly obvious that if we want to improve the site, minimizing the amount of ff'd debates is a good way to go about doing it. If we space out tournaments so that people don't unintentionally overschedule themselves and forfeit, therefore reducing the amount of forfeited debates in tournaments, why would we let them keep burning themselves out for "laissez-faire"?

Improving it *by what standard*? If the members do not want to minimize forfeits themselves, they've made their choice. If they feel that they want forfeits, who are you to say that they shouldn't? You're assuming that values are possible without valuers. They aren't, and the valuers on the site should be the ones setting their own standards, not the mod.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 7:05:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 2:08:36 PM, debatability wrote:
At the beginning of Ore's presidency. Ore_ele and I worked with airmax to institute a system that allowed for monthly tournaments - charged with alleviating "tournament fever." The idea was that if tournaments were run monthly, users would be more engaged because multiple tournaments running at the same time causes some sort of burn out.

We've had this system for a few months, and via careful observation, I have come to the conclusion that it may have made the problem of tournament fever worse.

Think about it, tournaments can last up to three months if run all the way through. Monthly tournaments will inevitably lead to burn out because eventually, 3 to 4 tournaments will end up taking place at the same time. Thus, I would suggest a bi-monthly or tri-monthly tournament system over a monthly tournament system.

Keep in mind, this thread is *only* for discussion. I want to hear member's thoughts on this proposal before changes are actually made.

No way, leave it at monthly tournament system. I actually preferred the original system, but less tournaments than once a month will kill me.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
greatkitteh
Posts: 394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 7:19:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 7:05:51 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/29/2015 2:08:36 PM, debatability wrote:
At the beginning of Ore's presidency. Ore_ele and I worked with airmax to institute a system that allowed for monthly tournaments - charged with alleviating "tournament fever." The idea was that if tournaments were run monthly, users would be more engaged because multiple tournaments running at the same time causes some sort of burn out.

We've had this system for a few months, and via careful observation, I have come to the conclusion that it may have made the problem of tournament fever worse.

Think about it, tournaments can last up to three months if run all the way through. Monthly tournaments will inevitably lead to burn out because eventually, 3 to 4 tournaments will end up taking place at the same time. Thus, I would suggest a bi-monthly or tri-monthly tournament system over a monthly tournament system.

Keep in mind, this thread is *only* for discussion. I want to hear member's thoughts on this proposal before changes are actually made.

No way, leave it at monthly tournament system. I actually preferred the original system, but less tournaments than once a month will kill me.

It`s up for debate, I can`t say much because I never been in one. I propose a Tournament system in which Only members who don`t forfeit and at least has voting rights, So There is a gurantee that there isn`t any Forfeits.
debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 10:31:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 7:19:18 AM, greatkitteh wrote:
At 5/30/2015 7:05:51 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/29/2015 2:08:36 PM, debatability wrote:
At the beginning of Ore's presidency. Ore_ele and I worked with airmax to institute a system that allowed for monthly tournaments - charged with alleviating "tournament fever." The idea was that if tournaments were run monthly, users would be more engaged because multiple tournaments running at the same time causes some sort of burn out.

We've had this system for a few months, and via careful observation, I have come to the conclusion that it may have made the problem of tournament fever worse.

Think about it, tournaments can last up to three months if run all the way through. Monthly tournaments will inevitably lead to burn out because eventually, 3 to 4 tournaments will end up taking place at the same time. Thus, I would suggest a bi-monthly or tri-monthly tournament system over a monthly tournament system.

Keep in mind, this thread is *only* for discussion. I want to hear member's thoughts on this proposal before changes are actually made.

No way, leave it at monthly tournament system. I actually preferred the original system, but less tournaments than once a month will kill me.

It`s up for debate, I can`t say much because I never been in one. I propose a Tournament system in which Only members who don`t forfeit and at least has voting rights, So There is a gurantee that there isn`t any Forfeits.

The problem is that you can never guarantee members won't forfiet.
debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 10:32:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 4:09:28 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/29/2015 3:25:50 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
The idea of trying to limit "burnout" at all seems ridiculous to me. If people want to try to bite off more than they can chew, trying to stop them is equivalent to saying that they don't know what's good for them. It's inherently overbearing and I don't think that DDO is a site that would benefit from that sort of micromanaging.

Their attempts to prove that they aren't biting off more than they can chew, though, tends to result in ruined debates for other members who haven't over stretched themselves. Insofar as it ends up resulted in a non-debate for other members and a ruined experience, it should be our responsibility as a site to limit this harm to the greatest extent possible.

If the FFs only really harmed the person who FF'd, I'd probably be more sympathetic. But this question is about increasing the number of quality debates on tournaments, so results are irrelevant. A forfeit, therefore, would be an intrinsic harm to not only both debaters, but to the tournament as a whole.

But to respond to the OP, bi-monthly at least is a smart idea. I'd actually favor every three months over every two to really give the most reasonable wiggle room for tournaments to flourish.

I agree. I think tri monthly is the best, but bi monthly is a decent compromise.
greatkitteh
Posts: 394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 10:21:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 10:31:03 AM, debatability wrote:
At 5/30/2015 7:19:18 AM, greatkitteh wrote:
At 5/30/2015 7:05:51 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/29/2015 2:08:36 PM, debatability wrote:
At the beginning of Ore's presidency. Ore_ele and I worked with airmax to institute a system that allowed for monthly tournaments - charged with alleviating "tournament fever." The idea was that if tournaments were run monthly, users would be more engaged because multiple tournaments running at the same time causes some sort of burn out.

We've had this system for a few months, and via careful observation, I have come to the conclusion that it may have made the problem of tournament fever worse.

Think about it, tournaments can last up to three months if run all the way through. Monthly tournaments will inevitably lead to burn out because eventually, 3 to 4 tournaments will end up taking place at the same time. Thus, I would suggest a bi-monthly or tri-monthly tournament system over a monthly tournament system.

Keep in mind, this thread is *only* for discussion. I want to hear member's thoughts on this proposal before changes are actually made.

No way, leave it at monthly tournament system. I actually preferred the original system, but less tournaments than once a month will kill me.

It`s up for debate, I can`t say much because I never been in one. I propose a Tournament system in which Only members who don`t forfeit and at least has voting rights, So There is a gurantee that there isn`t any Forfeits.

The problem is that you can never guarantee members won't forfiet.

There never may be a gurantee, But only allowing people with at least voting rights may lessen the Forfeits.
debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 10:22:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 10:21:56 PM, greatkitteh wrote:
At 5/30/2015 10:31:03 AM, debatability wrote:
At 5/30/2015 7:19:18 AM, greatkitteh wrote:
At 5/30/2015 7:05:51 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/29/2015 2:08:36 PM, debatability wrote:
At the beginning of Ore's presidency. Ore_ele and I worked with airmax to institute a system that allowed for monthly tournaments - charged with alleviating "tournament fever." The idea was that if tournaments were run monthly, users would be more engaged because multiple tournaments running at the same time causes some sort of burn out.

We've had this system for a few months, and via careful observation, I have come to the conclusion that it may have made the problem of tournament fever worse.

Think about it, tournaments can last up to three months if run all the way through. Monthly tournaments will inevitably lead to burn out because eventually, 3 to 4 tournaments will end up taking place at the same time. Thus, I would suggest a bi-monthly or tri-monthly tournament system over a monthly tournament system.

Keep in mind, this thread is *only* for discussion. I want to hear member's thoughts on this proposal before changes are actually made.

No way, leave it at monthly tournament system. I actually preferred the original system, but less tournaments than once a month will kill me.

It`s up for debate, I can`t say much because I never been in one. I propose a Tournament system in which Only members who don`t forfeit and at least has voting rights, So There is a gurantee that there isn`t any Forfeits.

The problem is that you can never guarantee members won't forfiet.

There never may be a gurantee, But only allowing people with at least voting rights may lessen the Forfeits.

I agree, beginner tournaments being an exception.