Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Rob Turnball]

On NICT, it appears based on the two day format that I will not be able to
make nationals this year. Obviously I would prefer a shorter format, but even
excluding myself, I think we will lose a lot of participation with this format.
My discussions in the NE indicate 0 in favour and at least 5 against the new
format. That is advance thinking, if things happen as normal we will have at
least another half dozen no-shows at the last minute. If we look at normal
attendance at Cold wars and Historicaon, Saturday sees a much higher
attendance,
this will test whether we will hurt the hobby or help con three day
attendance.
In any case, I think it will be of value to look at attendance accross the
three days to see how much lower it is compared tp previous years, when the
society evaluates the new format.
All the best
Robert Turnbull


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

As an NICT qualifier, I would hate to see Robert not be able to compete and
would be willing to be flexible to do whatever is required to make this thing
work with the greatest number of people. I just hate to see Robert who is a
great competitor and super person not be able to compete is all.

kelly wilkinson

lilroblis@... wrote:
On NICT, it appears based on the two day format that I will not be able to
make nationals this year. Obviously I would prefer a shorter format, but even
excluding myself, I think we will lose a lot of participation with this format.
My discussions in the NE indicate 0 in favour and at least 5 against the new
format. That is advance thinking, if things happen as normal we will have at
least another half dozen no-shows at the last minute. If we look at normal
attendance at Cold wars and Historicaon, Saturday sees a much higher
attendance,
this will test whether we will hurt the hobby or help con three day
attendance.
In any case, I think it will be of value to look at attendance accross the
three days to see how much lower it is compared tp previous years, when the
society evaluates the new format.
All the best
Robert Turnbull


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[scott holder]

This is a year by year basis thing. To date, I have had only 2 people indicate
they won't be playing because it's a 2-day format.

Please let me remind everybody that the most affected player base (the NICT
qualifiers and participants) voted almost 2:1 in favor of a 2-day NICT if
certain criteria are met. As of right now, those criteria are met (23 players
have accepted).

We'll see how things go. I'm committed to evaluating this, and other aspects of
the NICT, after each year's tourney.

And if anybody can come up with an alternative scheduling idea that doesn't have
us playing late on Sunday, playing across from the Theme, or moving the theme
into anything other than a 1600 pt format, I'm all ears. Not for this year,
it's too late, but for possible use next year.

-----Original Message-----
From: lilroblis@... [mailto:lilroblis@...]
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 6:13 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] NICT - two day format


On NICT, it appears based on the two day format that I will not be able to
make nationals this year. Obviously I would prefer a shorter format, but even
excluding myself, I think we will lose a lot of participation with this format.
My discussions in the NE indicate 0 in favour and at least 5 against the new
format. That is advance thinking, if things happen as normal we will have at
least another half dozen no-shows at the last minute. If we look at normal
attendance at Cold wars and Historicaon, Saturday sees a much higher
attendance,
this will test whether we will hurt the hobby or help con three day
attendance.
In any case, I think it will be of value to look at attendance accross the
three days to see how much lower it is compared tp previous years, when the
society evaluates the new format.
All the best
Robert Turnbull


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





Yahoo! Groups Links

[Mark Stone]

--- On April 20 Scott Holder said: ---

> This is a year by year basis thing. To date, I have had only 2 people indicate
> they won't be playing because it's a 2-day format.
>
> Please let me remind everybody that the most affected player base (the NICT
> qualifiers and participants) voted almost 2:1 in favor of a 2-day NICT if
> certain criteria are met. As of right now, those criteria are met (23 players
> have accepted).

Scott, I hate to say it but I think you're being a little bit misleading here. I
was never asked to choose between these options:
(a) A 2-day format
(b) A 1-day format with known issues in producing a clear winner above 20
players.

Had I been given that choice, I would have chosen (b).

The choice I was given was:
(a) Accept a likely 2-day format, and maybe a 1-day format if enough people
decline
(b) Decline the 2-day format, and thus disqualify myself even if the NICT ends
up being a 1-day format.

This is rather a skewed choice. Of course I chose (a). Both choices are guided
by the same principle: maximizing my chances of getting to play in a 1-day
NICT.

Look, I understand perfectly well the rationale behind the 2-day NICT. I also
understand that given all of the factors that have to be considered, it
probably is the best route to go.

But I don't appreciate having this presented as an overwhelming majority
preference when nothing like a fair question was asked of this year's NICT
qualifiers.


-Mark Stone

[scott holder]

I'm not trying to mispresent anything here. Please look at the archives for the
questions and the full polling results. The questions I asked weren't designed
to be leading or skew anybody in any particular direction. They were simply my
most sincere attempt to characterize the situation. scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone [mailto:mark@...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 10:37 AM
To: warrior
Subject: [WarriorRules] re: NICT - two day format


--- On April 20 Scott Holder said: ---

> This is a year by year basis thing. To date, I have had only 2 people indicate
> they won't be playing because it's a 2-day format.
>
> Please let me remind everybody that the most affected player base (the NICT
> qualifiers and participants) voted almost 2:1 in favor of a 2-day NICT if
> certain criteria are met. As of right now, those criteria are met (23 players
> have accepted).

Scott, I hate to say it but I think you're being a little bit misleading here. I
was never asked to choose between these options:
(a) A 2-day format
(b) A 1-day format with known issues in producing a clear winner above 20
players.

Had I been given that choice, I would have chosen (b).

The choice I was given was:
(a) Accept a likely 2-day format, and maybe a 1-day format if enough people
decline
(b) Decline the 2-day format, and thus disqualify myself even if the NICT ends
up being a 1-day format.

This is rather a skewed choice. Of course I chose (a). Both choices are guided
by the same principle: maximizing my chances of getting to play in a 1-day
NICT.

Look, I understand perfectly well the rationale behind the 2-day NICT. I also
understand that given all of the factors that have to be considered, it
probably is the best route to go.

But I don't appreciate having this presented as an overwhelming majority
preference when nothing like a fair question was asked of this year's NICT
qualifiers.


-Mark Stone




Yahoo! Groups Links

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/20/2004 11:36:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

> The choice I was given was:
> (a) Accept a likely 2-day format, and maybe a 1-day format if enough people
> decline
> (b) Decline the 2-day format, and thus disqualify myself
> even if the NICT ends
> up being a 1-day format.>.

Mark, I am totally sympathetic - there just isn't a way to go that pleases/gets
all the players. I will say though that the questions above are not exactly
what was asked. We weren't asked to decline the 2-day and thereby disqualify
ourselves, we were asked whether we would be able to play and/or support a 2-day
format. Scott's in a hell of a fix here. If we go with 2-day, we will lose
some people thereby probably dropping the number of attendees below the number
that makes sense for a 2-day - catch 22.

If we choose not to risk even a single player not coming, then we are saying it
is a 1-day event de facto. The theme simply *has* to be on friday and it is
sacrosanct - no one wants, after all the work we have done, to reduce the amount
of historical match-up gaming in favor of more open events. Scott has been
looking at every conceivable mix of schedules that might permit a 2-day NICT and
a theme at the same con - the options are many, but essentially boil down to
three main issues -
1. Using friday eliminates the theme or reduces it below 1600 and less people
(if played on thursday)
2. late sunday is a no go due to airplanes/departures and work on monday.
3. A Thursday-saturday NICT, which is quite likely to lose one or more players
due to not being able to get to the con on thursday.

All have problems.

Support for a 2-day is high, but support for thursday is not so high and we need
to sort out what is important to us.

If we lose more than about 1-2 players, nothing about 2-days is worth going to
Thursday start - that's my opinion, and why I voted against.

But we were not asked to vote ourselves out of qualification...lol

Jon

[scott holder]

Support for a 2-day is high, but support for thursday is not so high and we need
to sort out what is important to us.
If we lose more than about 1-2 players, nothing about 2-days is worth going to
Thursday start - that's my opinion, and why I voted against.
But we were not asked to vote ourselves out of qualification...lol

>Nice summary. Thanks. Another thing to keep in mind is the recent email I
sent out to this year's qualifiers asking about participation. If I had 10 guys
come back saying "I can't do this", I woulda rethunk the issue despite what the
polling said. However, that's not been the case. I have 23 people so far
saying "yeah, my intention is to be there" and I'm aware of at least another 3-4
potential qualifier tourneys that have players intenting to play a Thu/Sat NICT
should they qualify.

>Let me stress that nothing would be easier than to keep the status quo.....and
hear people bitch and moan about this and that which happens whether or not we
change anything or keep everything the same. I started this limited polling
process in order to quantify as best I can some of the issues involved and the
amount of player support (or lack thereof) for possible changes in an effort to
be more responsive to player desires.

>This year's format isn't something that's written in stone for the next ten
years. We have a need, we have strong support (thus far), hence, it makes sense
to at least try this and see how things go. If we start to lose out on
participation, believe me, I'll be the first to either go back to the current
format, or we figure out some better ways to do bidness.

>My act is a balancing one. This year, I'm tilting the seesaw a bit because
that's what the polling suggested I do. If it doesn't work out, we're wiser and
can proceed accordingly.

scott

[Ewan McNay]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:

> Scott, I hate to say it but I think you're being a little bit
misleading here.
> The choice I was given was:
> (a) Accept a likely 2-day format, and maybe a 1-day format if enough
people
> decline
> (b) Decline the 2-day format, and thus disqualify myself even if the
NICT ends
> up being a 1-day format.
>
> This is rather a skewed choice. Of course I chose (a). Both choices
are guided
> by the same principle: maximizing my chances of getting to play in a
1-day
> NICT.

I am not sure that I care about playing in a 1-day NICT (in fact,
likely I don't). I *am* sure that Mark is right - that is, the
explicit threat was that declining to commit to a 2-day NICT meant not
being *permitted* to play in a 1-day NICT. [Bizarre, as I told Scott
at the time]. I very much doubt that many of the invitees considered
an option which included their exclusion.

> But I don't appreciate having this presented as an overwhelming
> majority preference when nothing like a fair question was asked of
> this year's NICT qualifiers.

What he said .

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/20/2004 2:45:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> I *am* sure that Mark is right - that is, the
> explicit threat was that declining to commit to a 2-day
> NICT meant not
> being *permitted* to play in a 1-day NICT.>>

Scott, would you mind clearing this up. Certainly Ewan and Mark felt
'threatened', but I know when Mike and I were asked there was nothing implicit
or explicit about not being able to play if we could not commit to a 2-day.

J

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 4/21/2004 8:50:54 AM Central Standard Time,
Eaglewars@... writes:
Scott,
Not trying to stir up worms but if Jon voted against it, I voted against it
(with caveats) and Robert voted against it, that would make at least 3 votes.
Now Mark is saying he is against it. At least I think he is saying that.
Perhaps there is more opposition out there than we thought. Anybody else?
Jacob
Guys,
I would put this to bed like yesterday. It is only detrimental to debate
this course once the decision has been made. See how it goes this year and then
discuss for next year. I am not playing in the nationals so have no dog in
the fight so to speak, but this seems to only have an eventual negative outcome.
The poll went out, the results tallied, decision made. Perhaps in the
future if an issue arises with the phrasing of a question in a poll the point
should be raised at that time; as opposed to after the results are tallied and
reported.
Chris


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jake Kovel]

Scott,
Not trying to stir up worms but if Jon voted against it, I voted against it
(with caveats) and Robert voted against it, that would make at least 3 votes.
Now Mark is saying he is against it. At least I think he is saying that.
Perhaps there is more opposition out there than we thought. Anybody else?
Jacob

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/21/2004 9:41:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Eaglewars writes:

> Scott,
> Not trying to stir up worms but if Jon voted against it, I voted against it
(with caveats) and Robert voted against it, that would make at least 3 votes.
Now Mark is saying he is against it. At least I think he is saying that.
Perhaps there is more opposition out there than we thought. Anybody
> else?
> Jacob>>

Jake

Just to be clear - and not make the same mistake that was made yesterday -

Scott has both informally and formally canvassed the relevant folks several
times trying to best please as many as possible. When he *originally* asked me
my opinion on a two-day split, I felt I had to come down against because as much
as I agree that we get a better theoretical result from adding a round, I am
personally not into losing even a single person to do this. As an aside, having
played in well over a hundred tournaments in a couple dozen game systems, I am
not convinced that extra round really produces that much better a result. There
are occasional anomalies to be sure, but at that level of play, you have to win
three games big to play on sunday. Given our scoring system, this really won't
produce potentially invalid results until after the group grows to 40+ or even
more.

In any case, I did say I *would* attempt to attend a two-day when I received the
mail copied here yesterday. This is because I agreed with Scott's controversial
but constrained need to get as valid an answer as possible and because of the
data on who both is both qualified and also routinely shows and plays on
Thursday.

It is nigh frickin' impossible to have a format that pleases all the qualifiers
(let alone those who aren't even playing in it, but that is a subject best left
to NASAMWList). Scott is doing as good as anyone in his position could.

As I am retiring in July, it is moderately possible that I will, for the first
time, not be able to get enough days off from my new job to be able to attend.
But I said yes to a two-day, not because of any 'threat', but because we need to
support Scott and give him our best possible answer whenever he canvasses us.

J

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/21/2004 10:09:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cncbump writes:

> Guys,
> I would put this to bed like yesterday. It is only detrimental to debate
> this course once the decision has been made. See how it
> goes this year and then
> discuss for next year.>>

good point.

My recommendation to Scott would be to form an NICT yahoo group after the event
this year. He could keep results and army lists there for anyone to jump in and
look at, it would have polling functionality and the archives would be easier to
search as the messages would only be NICT related. Members would be by
invitation of the moderator and limited to qualifiers, but the
files/archives/poll results would be open to all.

J

[scott holder]

I posted the polling results. They are in the archives.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eaglewars@... [mailto:Eaglewars@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 8:42 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] re: NICT - two day format


Scott,
Not trying to stir up worms but if Jon voted against it, I voted against it
(with caveats) and Robert voted against it, that would make at least 3 votes.
Now Mark is saying he is against it. At least I think he is saying that.
Perhaps there is more opposition out there than we thought. Anybody else?
Jacob





Yahoo! Groups Links

[Kelly Wilkinson]

In response to Jacob,

Jake,
I truly do not wish to do a 2 day event if it means that a truly excellent
player like Robert Turnbull is not going to be able to make it. Robert is one of
the absolutely best players in this country and to not have him present in the
NICT will make hollow any tournament victory for me and I'm sure that goes for
others as well. Therefore, as an NICT participant, I would rather opt for a one
day event. And as has been the case lately, I agree with Jon's assessment that
additional games will NOT change the results much as Scott's scoring system is
excellent. Although I will be at historicon the day before the con starts and
therefore will be available for any format that is chosen, I prefer to use the
format that INCLUDES rather than EXCLUDES. Besides, a one day tournament will
allow me to play one more game on Thursday (3 in the mini as opposed to 2 in the
NICT)!

Respectfully

kelly Wilkinson
JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 4/21/2004 9:41:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Eaglewars writes:

> Scott,
> Not trying to stir up worms but if Jon voted against it, I voted against it
(with caveats) and Robert voted against it, that would make at least 3 votes.
Now Mark is saying he is against it. At least I think he is saying that.
Perhaps there is more opposition out there than we thought. Anybody
> else?
> Jacob>>

Jake

Just to be clear - and not make the same mistake that was made yesterday -

Scott has both informally and formally canvassed the relevant folks several
times trying to best please as many as possible. When he *originally* asked me
my opinion on a two-day split, I felt I had to come down against because as much
as I agree that we get a better theoretical result from adding a round, I am
personally not into losing even a single person to do this. As an aside, having
played in well over a hundred tournaments in a couple dozen game systems, I am
not convinced that extra round really produces that much better a result. There
are occasional anomalies to be sure, but at that level of play, you have to win
three games big to play on sunday. Given our scoring system, this really won't
produce potentially invalid results until after the group grows to 40+ or even
more.

In any case, I did say I *would* attempt to attend a two-day when I received the
mail copied here yesterday. This is because I agreed with Scott's controversial
but constrained need to get as valid an answer as possible and because of the
data on who both is both qualified and also routinely shows and plays on
Thursday.

It is nigh frickin' impossible to have a format that pleases all the qualifiers
(let alone those who aren't even playing in it, but that is a subject best left
to NASAMWList). Scott is doing as good as anyone in his position could.

As I am retiring in July, it is moderately possible that I will, for the first
time, not be able to get enough days off from my new job to be able to attend.
But I said yes to a two-day, not because of any 'threat', but because we need to
support Scott and give him our best possible answer whenever he canvasses us.

J


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]