QuidditchBowl I, Cardiff, Sept 24/25 2016 - Cancelled

[Darkson]

Would love to attend (probably my best chance of getting a second NAF trophy ) but, even ignoring my self-imposed BB exile, can't book the weekend off due to others selfishly having holidays already booked.

Will post to our forum though, in case anyone else is free.

[Loki]

I agree with the basic principle that a win should not earn less than a draw but I'm not sure I agree that a tournament which is heavily influenced by the underlying desire to make a 'political point' should be embraced without comment.

Spence I don't think two wrongs make a right and ultimately if this is a genuine pre-cursor to play a tournament under the 'random tournament winner' rule pack you are only going to undermine the community rather than start some groundswell for change.

I would love to attend a tournament you run and that you embrace with your whole heart, I'm not sure this is it. D

[Dionysian]

I agree with the basic principle that a win should not earn less than a draw.

I assume you mean that WDL primacy should be maintained in standings? I ask only because the phrasing reminded me of what appears from the other thread to be the common mistake of TOs assuming their rulespack protects WDL simply by ensuring that a draw is never worth more than a win in an individual game. Obviously this doesn't solve the issue tho, because tournaments aren't one game long. The main issue being how easy it is for someone to accumulate enough arbitrary 'BPs' over the course of the tourney to outweigh the point difference between a win and a draw or a draw and a loss.

Spence I don't think two wrongs make a right and ultimately if this is a genuine pre-cursor to play a tournament under the 'random tournament winner' rule pack you are only going to undermine the community rather than start some groundswell for change.

I welcome all feedback, whether someone believes QuidditchBowl is a good idea or not. It genuinely warms the cockles of my heart that members of the community, especially respected tournament organisers (and I love me some Loki), are given pause by this event. The implication being that they still believe tournaments should crown a winner who was the most worthy player on that day/weekend.

Although I must wonder where such voices were the myriad times the issues caused by tournaments using 'bonus points' as tournament points instead of tiebreakers (and so perversely seeking to crown someone with an inferior record as the 'winner') has been brought up in the past and simply ignored? Where such voices were when these scoring systems were copypasted into new rulespacks by new TOs (sometimes being made even more egregious)? Where such voices were when these tournaments became NAF-sanctioned and awarded yet more NAF trophies in such a perverse fashion?

I'm sorry, remind me again which actions (or inactions) are the ones 'undermining the community'?

A tournament is, by definition, a competition (and far from the two things being mutually exclusive, this competition enhances the social aspect that we all enjoy so much).

The NAF-TD has already expressed a public belief that regulation in terms of minimum standards for awarding a NAF trophy isn't wanted by the community and that, in the name of inclusivity, all 'tournaments' should be NAF trophy eligible regardless of scoring system. If minimum standards to ensure a proper winner is crowned truly are unwanted by the community then that community shouldn't have any problem with the way that QuidditchBowl functions. If you do have a problem with QuidditchBowl, if you believe that tournaments should seek to crown a winner based on merit... then let the governing body know they have your support in taking steps to ensure that this is what actually happens.

Alternatively, if you're happy with continuing the current trend then support QuidditchBowl as the logical endpoint - at least this is far more honest about the ongoing transition of the NAF trophy from being a coveted reward for merit towards simply being a glorified participation trophy.

[Wulfyn]

Please count me in.

[Darkson]

I'm actually liking the expanded onus points, like the one added here. I think I might add the following to the ARBBL for next year, Pick'n'Mix this year:

I will subtract points from a coaches final score, based on the amount of moaning that coach has done on the subject of bonus points before and/or during the event. The amount of points deducted will be decided by me on the day and will be completely arbitrary based on how I feel and/or how close to the top I am.

[Dionysian]

I'm actually liking the expanded onus points, like the one added here. I think I might add the following to the ARBBL for next year, Pick'n'Mix this year:

I will subtract points from a coaches final score, based on the amount of moaning that coach has done on the subject of bonus points before and/or during the event. The amount of points deducted will be decided by me on the day and will be completely arbitrary based on how I feel and/or how close to the top I am.

Now that's what I'm talking about, baby!

For clarity, though, are you talking about bonus-points-used-properly-as-a-tiebreaker, bonus-points-used-in-small-proportion-to-TP-to-speed-up-calculating-final-standings-which-also-affect-the-swiss-but-have-zero-possibility-of-directly-overturning-WDL-primacy, or bonus-points-used-unchecked-as-TP-to-break-WDL-primacy?

Whew, that's a lot of work one simple two word phrase is doing having to maintain multiple, very, very different, meanings. While a shared lexicon would probably be helpful for making progress, the current situation of overloaded meanings is much more interesting (especially when one considers that it's an international forum).

I wish I hadn't already paid for Pick'n'Mix.... so that I could pay again immediately. The first time round was to show support for a much-needed team event in the south. This time would have been for joining in on the fun of demonstrating, reductio ad absurdum, that some regulation of scoring systems is needed. Perhaps we can also get Glow to finally follow through on his oft-repeated promise of adding/subtracting tournament points based on facial hair. After all, these are all perfectly eligible scoring systems for NAF events at the moment.

[Dionysian]

Added to original post:

DISCLAIMER (please read)

Following on from preliminary discussions with the NAF-TD I've agreed to consider amending the scoring system before the tournament takes place to comply retroactively with any NAF policy changes that may occur between now and September.

What this means for you is that if you are only interested in attending the tournament with the scoring system as stated in the body of this post then do not send money when payments open. Instead send me a PM stating such and, if necessary, I'll move your place reservation into a separate holding list when all other unpaid place reservations are wiped on June 24th.

[Loki]

I agree with the basic principle that a win should not earn less than a draw.

I assume you mean that WDL primacy should be maintained in standings? I ask only because the phrasing reminded me of what appears from the other thread to be the common mistake of TOs assuming their rulespack protects WDL simply by ensuring that a draw is never worth more than a win in an individual game. Obviously this doesn't solve the issue tho, because tournaments aren't one game long. The main issue being how easy it is for someone to accumulate enough arbitrary 'BPs' over the course of the tourney to outweigh the point difference between a win and a draw or a draw and a loss.

OK, you have opened the worm filled can; personally - and having no hats to wear I'm speaking purely for myself - I am truly committed to WDL over a 3/4/5/6/7/9 game tournament, however I run a tournament with Bonus Points rather than tie-breakers, the basic reason is in score I can input one formula and it works out the points. I may have misunderstood the Score entry and can do the same for 'tie-breaker' points. I will look.

However, playing devils advocate and using a point somewhere along a continuum including your Reductio ad absurdum; if a player wins 6 matches 2-1 and another 5 matches 4-0 and draws one 3-3 due to a dicing does that make the 6/0/0 automatically the best set of results? They will both have played good and bad players in the 6 (and obviously somehow manged to avoid each other but this is a hypothetical example for illustrative purposes).

Just for the record I have come third in tournament 4-1-0 (having drawn with the previous years winner) behind two 4-0-1's who I didn't get to play. Admittley no NAF trophy was on the line but it was a seriously organised and run tournament (WPS). You know what, you suck it up.

To address your other comment and again only personally, if I really thought I had seen a tournament that geniuniely set out to break the system rather than being a genuine attempt to in some way be inclusive or support middle or lower players then I would say so. I don't think any tournament I have attended, I don't tend to read the scoring systems for those i don't attend, has ever set out to genuinely undermine the primacy of the W/D/L.

What would be the suggested wording you would suggest for NAF to use to allow diversity in tournaments without being overly authoritarian?

[Dionysian]

You know what, you suck it up.

That doesn’t seem like particularly good advice for getting a problem fixed.

If you’re anti-Quidditch and don’t think it should award a NAF trophy with the current incarnation of its scoring system, then you agree that there is a problem with current NAF trophy qualification criteria (because Quidditch will easily meet that criteria).

Perhaps if there had been less ‘sucking it up’ in the past the problem would have been fixed long ago.

personally… I am truly committed to WDL over a 3/4/5/6/7/9 game tournament, however I run a tournament with Bonus Points rather than tie-breakers, the basic reason is in score I can input one formula and it works out the points.

Thank you for the example. Using tiebreaker-bonus-pts as tournament points in proportions small enough that they don’t overturn WDL primacy is effectively almost the exact same thing as using them as tiebreakers.

Applying tiebreakers during the Swiss rather than at the end has consequences which are either negative or ‘flavour’, depending on your viewpoint. However, in a small tournament the effects are mild anyway (as fewer people are ever on the same record), so this doesn’t really become contentious until you have a large tournament with a final (such as the NAFC).

The scoring system will be as follows:
• Win 15 points
• Draw 5 points
• Loss 1 points
• Bonus if more than 3 TDs scored +2 points
• Bonus if more than 2 TDs scored +1 point
• Bonus if more than 5 CAS caused +2 points
• Bonus if more than 3 CAS caused +1 point
• Bonus if lost by 1 TD +1 point
• Bonus for not conceding a TD +1 point

So let’s break this down to see whether there’s a potential problem.

There are a maximum of 20 bonus points on offer over the 4 rounds. The difference between a Win and a Draw is 10 pts. The difference between a draw and a loss is 4 pts. As it’s rare to score 4 TDs and cause 6 cas in the same match we can see that it’s somewhat unlikely for a better winning record to be overturned*. However, there’s a fair risk of an extra draw losing primacy.

If you decide that you do want to ensure WDL primacy at BUBBA while having the exact same tournament to all other intents and purposes, you can do so by simply applying a multiplier x to your WDL points. You find x by dividing the maximum bonus points on offer over the course of the tournament (y) by the smaller of the differences between WD (a) and DL (b), adding the constant 1 and then rounding down.

x=⌊y/min⁡(a,b)+1⌋

So for BUBBA x= 20/4+1 = 6
(W=90, D=30, L=6 and bonus points remain the same)

*Note what can happen when a new TO copies your scoring system (after all it’s from a NAF event and they have no reason to suspect there might even be a potential problem) without understanding that the primary factor restraining that scoring system's effect is just how rare it is to gain some of these bonus points. If they then “put their own spin” on it by easing the bonus point conditions (or adding additional bonus points) the result is that WDL primacy gets nuked.

… if I really thought I had seen a tournament that geniuniely set out to break the system rather than being a genuine attempt to in some way be inclusive or support middle or lower players then I would say so. I don't think any tournament I have attended, I don't tend to read the scoring systems for those i don't attend, has ever set out to genuinely undermine the primacy of the W/D/L.

Malicious intent isn’t the issue. Failure to do (or sometimes understand) the math underlying the scoring system is the problem.

[Loki]

All very Black and White, so your contention is that 6-0-0 is always better than 5-1-0 no matter the actual results?

As you have pointed out at BUBBA would be very difficult for a 4-0-0 to be beaten by a 3-1-0, that is giving WDL primacy, I don't give it exclusivity, I live in a world of greys.

I think to some extent we are at cross purposes, I have thought about my points and even responded to comments (was previously 10 for win and I up'd it to 15 to protect Wins primacy) i.e. I have thought what I am trying to achieve and tailored it, rather than a blind application of points/bonus points/tie breaks

[Dionysian]

All very Black and White, so your contention is that 6-0-0 is always better than 5-1-0 no matter the actual results?

Yes. Apologies if you feel I ignored your point, but I felt my signature answered it well enough. It's there so I don't have to quote swathes of it in every post on the subject.

This sums up my feelings:

As there is no objective way to award bonus points for playing well rather than being lucky, my opinion is that they are best left out of the mix. They tend to just offer double rewards for good luck or random events.

To expand though, while I agree in principle that there might be some argument for a theoretical tournament design space to include BP-as-TP tournaments that stay within acceptable bounds of non-zero probability in terms of breaking WDL. Defining that space is going to be infinitely more complicated than simply stating that NAF events should have WDL primacy, and the 'gain' from putting that work in is minimal.

For example, while in theory rewarding 4-0 wins (as in your example) more than 1-0 wins might appear to have some merit, in practice the 4-0 wins usually happen not because of some feat of skill, but simply because someone had the good fortune to get drawn against a stunty team or learner.

As you have pointed out at BUBBA would be very difficult for a 4-0-0 to be beaten by a 3-1-0

However it's remarkably easy for a 3-0-1 to finish ahead of a 3-1-0.

[Loki]

Defining that space is going to be infinitely more complicated than simply stating that NAF events should have WDL primacy, and the 'gain' from putting that work in is minimal.

What would be the suggested wording you would suggest for NAF to use to allow diversity in tournaments without being overly authoritarian?

I would suggest that your approach is overlay authoritarian. As there is a difference between primacy and exculsivity, I would say my rulesest has the first but not the second, you appear to be arguing for the second so would rule out my thoughtout rulesest.

Edit: having reread and and had a think over lunch, I agree whole heartedly that the issue is primarily one of TO not nessessarily being aware of what the outcome of choices around this area. Possibly rather than the NAF dictating to TO's, when NAF sanctioning is applied for the prospective TO is sent an information sheet which they must acknowledge in some form which would include "Have you thought what your Bonus Points mean..."

[Joemanji]

Possibly rather than the NAF dictating to TO's, when NAF sanctioning is applied for the prospective TO is sent an information sheet which they must acknowledge in some form which would include "Have you thought what your Bonus Points mean..."

When I was NTO, this is exactly what I did with new TOs who came to me for advice. It was an seriously long process explaining from first principles what it has taken some experienced TOs here years and years to grasp (or at least bother to think about). Try having this discussion with people who in some cases have never been to a single tournament. I think we would be in a much better position if the NAF laid down some expectation for W/D/L primacy and then it fell upon a TO to ask for something outside that.

[sann0638]

The moral of the story - lunch is good.

[Loki]

There's that word primacy again, I would still suggest many tournaments have primacy if not exculsity on the W/D/L. Spence/Joe do you both mean NAF should mandate that unless dialogue is undertaken no tournament without using 2/1/0 would be approved?

As I know there is even debate around 3/1/0 vs 2/1/0?

I think the diversity should be recognised and included, don't start at a point of 'No' which sets the NAF up as repressive. I would like to see the NAF guiding and supporting rather than policing and repressing.