How could a new BBRC work?

[Shteve0]

That's pretty subjective, and entirely depends on your starting point. You could equally see it as a strength of the ruleset that people continue to attend tournaments without feeling the need to see rules reform. To play devils advocate, if people were drifting away from tournaments because the rules were broken or unstable, and the NAF stood by and did nothing, then that would be more of a failing. We're supposed to serve the community, not direct it.

Edit: yep, I've just seen the irony in ending my post "... not direct it", then having the title "League Director" in my signature.

[Darkson]

[Edit - At Dode's post on P.7, not Stheveo's above]

Some/many just don't care, they want to sit down at a table from an opponent and roll some dice (and normally in the case of my lot, lose at the end of it ).

[Purplegoo]

Surely everyone involved in NAF-sanctioned tournaments would know about it?

Whilst my league may be dead, there are still about 6 or 7 BB'ers near me who go to NAF tourneys and I am the only one who knows about this debate.

If people going to NAF tourneys aren't aware of it isn't that a failing of the NAF?

I always think, in any fantasy / nerd game 'community', that it's worth separating people actually getting on and enjoying the game (the majority) from the people talking (or sometimes, ranting) about it for hours on the Internet.

Joe's right, there are an awful lot of Blood Bowlers unaware of this oft trodden path, either genuinely or by design. There are those happily getting on with it, and there are a few of us hugely fatigued with this sort of thing (or any recurring BB forum thread - see ClawPOMB or matchmaking as examples you're very aware of) popping up over and over again. If the rules changed tomorrow, by Sunday there would be another thread about changing them back - the online noise always comes from those wanting change. The satisfied shut up pretty early. It's a lot more time and stress efficient to just get on and enjoy Blood Bowl than engage in the same discussion again with what is a small, perhaps frustrated, percentage of the community. TFF is an English language forum that chunks of the English community don't use outside of the tournament section. It doesn't exactly scream full and well represented debate, does it?

Should the NAF get to a point where they were going to think about or establish a new BBRC (I'll leave my own opinion out of it - I think I discussed this in one of these threads on one of these forums a few years ago, and getting back into it wouldn't be good for my sanity), I'm sure that we'd all know about it, and I'm sure they would engage the wider community, whatever language they spoke. I don't think it's a failing they aren't physically pointing people at an ongoing, niche debate that's been in progress for literally years when the game appears to be in rude health. They've some pretty huge Blood Bowl to point us at, as they did today.

[Darkson]

They've some pretty huge Blood Bowl to point us at, as they did today.

Off-topic, but what did the NAF point us at today? Genuine question, as I've had no emails/FB notification/twitter.

[Purplegoo]

I got a World Cup e-mail. It went to my 'promotions' folder, so perhaps check, or perhaps it came only to those of us going. Just an example.

[dode74]

While its entirely true that there is a silent majority, to assume that silent majority is also a happy majority seems a logical leap too far. While I've no doubt a lot of people are quite happy to play the game as is, I also suspect many of those same people would be quite happy to play with whatever ruleset they are told is official or whatever set of house rules the tournament they are attending imposes.

I guess my point is more aimed at NAF members rather than simply people attending tourneys: are NAF members aware and, if not, why not? Does the NAF actually attempt to garner opinion on matters from its membership at all, or does it merely assume we are all content? And does that mean that even if there are some voices of discontent that the NAF can point to that silent majority and simply say "well they're ok with it" and ignore those voices? Is the NAF even interested in change given the change that is happening around it? A 12(?) year old charter has seen some major upheavals.

I'm not here demanding change, btw. I'm exploring the mechanism for it.

[Regash]

Surely everyone involved in NAF-sanctioned tournaments would know about it?

Whilst my league may be dead, there are still about 6 or 7 BB'ers near me who go to NAF tourneys and I am the only one who knows about this debate.

If people going to NAF tourneys aren't aware of it isn't that a failing of the NAF?

No, it's not.
This is TFF forums, not NAF forums.

[dode74]

Is the debate restricted to these forums?

[Purplegoo]

Is it a leap too far? I talk to an awful lot of happy people. We're straying into the realm of the theoretical and opinionated. There are plenty of democratic methods via which NAF members can voice any discontent if they so choose.

Anyway, before it goes around and around until my head spins off, I'll pop off. Blood Bowl to play this weekend.

[dode74]

Well yes: it's assumption based on only your experience, and rather ignores the point that people are simply happy to play the game regardless of the rules in place at a particular tournament. We hit "theoretical" when you claimed they were all happy

Enjoy your weekend

[dode74]

Ooh, I just found the poll on the NAF forums about the need for a new BBRC: http://member.thenaf.net/index.php?name ... pic&t=6487

Seems the NAF membership feels there may be a need, too (79 of 128 votes yes). Or is that just the NAF membership which bothers to look at the forum and is therefore not representative of all the other members who are clearly happy and should therefore be assumed to be "no" votes?

[Purplegoo]

Hehe, that's strong forum work above. Not exactly what was said.

I shall indeed. Out!

[sann0638]

Does the NAF actually attempt to garner opinion on matters from its membership at all, or does it merely assume we are all content?

Yes. Yes it does. And will do so a lot more over the next few weeks, no doubt!

And does that mean that even if there are some voices of discontent that the NAF can point to that silent majority and simply say "well they're ok with it" and ignore those voices?

Definitely not. We try and engage people as much as possible (see my sig).

Is the NAF even interested in change given the change that is happening around it?

Yes. And it's always good to remember (to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher) there is no NAF, there are BB players.

[dode74]

No disrespect, sann, but I don't think I've ever been asked anything in my capacity as a NAF member.

[Shteve0]

While its entirely true that there is a silent majority, to assume that silent majority is also a happy majority seems a logical leap too far. While I've no doubt a lot of people are quite happy to play the game as is, I also suspect many of those same people would be quite happy to play with whatever ruleset they are told is official or whatever set of house rules the tournament they are attending imposes.

I agree. But I'm not making that leap - for a start I said I was playing devil's advocate, but further to that, the fact is that I don't think it's reasonable to assume that changes are needed to the ruleset at this stage. Where's the evidence that there's a problem that needs to be solved? It's not in droves of tournament players abandoning the scene.

I guess my point is more aimed at NAF members rather than simply people attending tourneys: are NAF members aware and, if not, why not? Does the NAF actually attempt to garner opinion on matters from its membership at all, or does it merely assume we are all content?

Well, precisely. In short my personal take is that the NAF is hyper aware of the issues faced by the community (because we're not distinct from that community, we're coaches ourselves), is sensitive to the progress/stability debate, and is actively working to ascertain both what the future holds and the views of the player base in order to inform its own position.