Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

Scott/Jon,

I think I have the message saved at home, and will check if noone else
has it to hand. However, it was explicitly stated that anyone stating
they would not play in a Thurs-Sat NICT *would not be permitted* to
play in a Sat-only event were that to transpire.

As Mark says, I understand the basis for this; but that's the case.

Ewan

[Larry Essick]

Ewan,

I would like to see the message.

Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "ewanmcnay" <ewan.mcnay@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 2:58 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] NICT vote


> Scott/Jon,
>
> I think I have the message saved at home, and will check if noone
else
> has it to hand. However, it was explicitly stated that anyone
stating
> they would not play in a Thurs-Sat NICT *would not be permitted* to
> play in a Sat-only event were that to transpire.
>
> As Mark says, I understand the basis for this; but that's the case.
>
> Ewan
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[scott holder]

I have the email and I used words to that effect--that certainly wasn't the
intention. My rationale wasn't to threaten but as to make sure people replied
in such as way as to not hedge their bets as it were.

I'll be the first to admit, this isn't perfect. I'm trying to do the best I can
for the affected player base. Please give me the benefit of the doubt in this.
I don't have an agenda vis a vis a 2-day NICT. scott

-----Original Message-----
From: ewanmcnay [mailto:ewan.mcnay@...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 1:58 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] NICT vote


Scott/Jon,

I think I have the message saved at home, and will check if noone else
has it to hand. However, it was explicitly stated that anyone stating
they would not play in a Thurs-Sat NICT *would not be permitted* to
play in a Sat-only event were that to transpire.

As Mark says, I understand the basis for this; but that's the case.

Ewan




Yahoo! Groups Links

[scott holder]

Here's the bit that's rubbed Mark the wrong way:

"So, what I need from you is a statement of intent to play, complete with the
understanding that you might have to start on Thursday. This is a chicken/egg
thing in some ways but I'm simply responding to the poll I conducted of last
year's participants and this year's (to date) qualifiers who expressed a desire
for a longer NICT should we reach a minimum number of players (24). If you
can't play on Thu but can on Sat, that means your intention is NO. If we don't
have enough players *intending* to participate beginning on Thu to justify a
5-round NICT, then we'll start on Saturday as in the past but those players who
said "no" cannot compete."

Now, I struggled as to whether or not to include that last sentence. I talked
it over with Jon and Bill and we decided to keep it in. Again, this wasn't
intended as a threat, far from it. I just wanted players honest answers and not
something they might hedge.

Folks, I knew this would be an issue when I first emailed the players. I'm
doing the best I can (see Jon's email). I can't please all people all the time
and am simply attempting to try something that the affected player base has
indicated needs tweaking. If it doesn't work this year, it's not the end of the
world. We'll reevaluate post-NICT and see what's what.

scott

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/20/2004 2:58:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> Scott/Jon,
>
> I think I have the message saved at home, and will check if noone else
> has it to hand. However, it was explicitly stated that anyone stating
> they would not play in a Thurs-Sat NICT *would not be permitted* to
> play in a Sat-only event were that to transpire.
>
> As Mark says, I understand the basis for this; but that's
> the case.
>
> Ewan>>

Ewan, please find that mail if you can. That is not how I was asked or any of
the qualifiers I know around here. If that is the way it came out, Scott was
wrong (or least misspoke) and I will help you get it fixed.

Jon

[John Murphy]

Scott,

If I did not originally, please make sure you have me down as a "no
opinion" on this. I might have said 2-day because I know I will be
there anyway but I certainly think it is better to include more
people than to have an easier way to determine the winner. However, I
would prefer those really most likely to have a true shot at the
championship make the decision. And same with most of the rest of the
NICT questions that do not involve theme conflicts - which given your
commendable committment is probably all of them.

It doesn't sound like one vote is turning the issue here but just
wanted to be accurate for the record.

Thanks,
John

[Ewan McNay]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:

> Ewan, please find that mail if you can. That is not how I was asked
or any of the qualifiers I know around here. If that is the way it
came out, Scott was wrong (or least misspoke) and I will help you get
it fixed.

Scott's found it - thanks.

And I should note, I am not assigning any motive, malign or otherwise,
to Scott here. Mark noted a point, Jon stated he was wrong, I knew he
was right . [I'm surprised that Scott notes he discussed the
sentence with Jon, given this conversation, but as the posessor of a
poor memory myself not _very_ surprised.]

So, nothing to be fixed except the way in which the vote and its
results are portrayed. I actually think that Scott's to be commended
for attempting to meet a perceived need (for a longer NICT) of which I
was, I think, one of the chief proponents (personally, I vote for
playing rounds continuously from 10 p.m. Fri to say noon Sun. That
would give at least seven rounds which would be enough for a good
spread of scores. And I bet I'm the only competitor with prior
experience of such a format ).

E

[scott holder]

So, nothing to be fixed except the way in which the vote and its
results are portrayed. I actually think that Scott's to be commended
for attempting to meet a perceived need (for a longer NICT) of which I
was, I think, one of the chief proponents (personally, I vote for
playing rounds continuously from 10 p.m. Fri to say noon Sun. That
would give at least seven rounds which would be enough for a good
spread of scores.

>All of this is a balancing act. For example, Mark's posted in here before
about altering the NICT format. There are many "interests" (down time,
shopping, fatigue, playing loads of games, spread of scores, etc etc etc) that
don't always get along with each other, hence, I balance. And the result is
that no one is satisfied but that we generally meet the needs of the greatest
number of gamers, be they NICT players or Open gamers or whatever. It's not
perfect, never has been but at least this time, I'm attempting to get better
data for what we want or need to do and then proceeding from there.

>I simply wanted the preliminary invitees to give me an honest answer about
whether or not they could commit to a Thu/Sat event. I had polling results
which I didn't want to invalidate by the same X number of guys saying "I ain't
gonna play" then knowing full well we wouldn't have enough players to
realistically justify a 5 round NICT and thus, back to square one with a
Saturday/Sunday AM tourney with 30 or so guys just like last year.

>My wording of that last sentence in the preliminary invite wasn't great, I knew
that when I drafted it. However, I couldn't think of any other way to get a
straight up player reaction to the situation. Look, I don't want to shrink the
Warrior NICT in terms of player participation. OTOH, I also want to ensure that
we have an equitable format for the number of players involved and that's
something that's been problematic over the last two years. Furthermore, I went
back and looked at player participation on Thur at Hcon and determined that the
vast majority of players had arrived to play on Thu anyway.

>Again, it's a balancing act. I apologise if it doesn't meet everybody's needs.

Scott

[joncleaves]

>
> And I should note, I am not assigning any motive, malign or otherwise,
> to Scott here. Mark noted a point, Jon stated he was wrong, I knew he
> was right . [I'm surprised that Scott notes he discussed the
> sentence with Jon, given this conversation, but as the posessor of a
> poor memory myself not _very_ surprised.]>>

I don't mind. You're right, I'm wrong - the original one does sound like a
threat. Sorry for any confusion.

Scott did have to make this hard choice - if he said to everyone hey, just vote,
he would not have found out who could really make it and differentiate between
those who really supported this idea and who was hedging their bets. I do
remember this original mail and the discussion it engendered. I agreed with him
that if there were anything less than a clear majority (meaning only one or two
people MAX who could not make a thursday start) then he'd pretty much have to
leave it one day (and obviously there wouldn't be anyone kept from
competeing...) as there was no other day combination that worked.

Out of 35 qualifiers, exactly two responded with 'no, I can't start on
Thursday.'

So, then he double checked with folks to make sure they were not sweating the
small stuff - the mails and conversation I and others remember clearly, but I
guess that was a set of general conversations and not a complete re-contact of
all the qualifiers. Soemthing we might look at for the future.

Given that out of the 35 qualifiers, only two said they could not make a
thursday start, and given the strong stated desire to try and better resolve a
clear winner, I am not sure he could have done this better. There is simply NO
WAY to please everyone and trying would put us in a continuous do-loop until
long after the HCon program and tables ahd to be set - the deadline that is
imminent.

> So, nothing to be fixed except the way in which the vote and its
> results are portrayed. >>

I agree - and I am a culprit. For my part, I will keep an electronic record of
the whole process next year and only speak on such issues after referring to it.

<< I actually think that Scott's to be commended
> for attempting to meet a perceived need (for a longer NICT)>>

I agree wholeheartedly.

<< (personally, I vote for
> playing rounds continuously from 10 p.m. Fri to say noon Sun. That
> would give at least seven rounds which would be enough for a good
> spread of scores. And I bet I'm the only competitor with
> prior
> experience of such a format ).>>

Hardly...lol

J

[Larry Essick]

> Now, I struggled as to whether or not to include that last sentence.
I talked it over with Jon and Bill and we decided to keep it in.
Again, this wasn't intended as a threat, far from it. I just wanted
players honest answers and not something they might hedge.
>

(LE) But, Scott, it was a threat. I have more to say that is likely
too political for this forum.

(LE) Thanks Mark and Ewan for bringing this to light.

Larry