Drawn games and other new ideas for LOEG . . .

[batesmotel]

Based on past expereince, I beleive LoEG runs best with a single individual responsible for decisions and overall authority for running the league. It's fine if the sincle person wants to recruit volunteers to assist in running the league or to solicit opinions about how it should be run but I beleive that consigning the league to be run by a committee is likely to result in the equivalent of a camel at best (rather than a horse) and the slow death of LoEG otherwise. Eric's melt down this time was unfortunate but I think both a result of Eric taking on too much responsibility running the league for a second season plus the Companion's Cup competition as well along with uncertainty about the forthcoming new version of FoG and an unusually high number of complaints and disputes recently.

I don't think the league has to always be run by the same person and it should be turned over when the person running it feels it is time, but a think any effort to formally run it by committee is likely to fail. The LoEG does not need its own equivalent of FIFA

Chris

[stockwellpete]

I beleive that consigning the league to be run by a committee is likely to result in the equivalent of a camel at best (rather than a horse) and the slow death of LoEG otherwise . . . any effort to formally run it by committee is likely to fail. The LoEG does not need its own equivalent of FIFA Chris

I am more optimistic than that, Chris. First of all I don't think it is particularly fair to recruit convenors to do the donkey work and then not give them a say in the running of the league. And secondly, by involving the convenors fully in the decision-making processes you would be broadening the organisational skills available to LOEG, and to all the other FOG competitions - because the convenors would be developing their organising skills as they went along.

[Morbio]

I agree with Chris. I think the problems are not due to the way the league is run, moreso it is related to some strong opinions and a clash of personalities within the league. I think the league would suffer greatly if the sources of friction were given positions of power.

[stockwellpete]

The one thing you havent included is appointment of secretary and convenors. Who will apoint the various roles? I think the Secretary should be appointed by majority vote from the players and then those who wish to be convenors put their names forward and the Secretary has the final say.Personally the Secretary should be someone who understands the game fully and has a diplomatic demina because we dont want a replay of this seasons debacle. Players are to understand that in no way are they to publicly air their grieviances as that is the boards job.

It is a good question. I know that Steve (pantherboy) has said that he does not have time now to run the game in the way that he used to, but maybe just to stabilise things as the competition moves into Season 11 (start date 1st October, maybe?) he might supervise the process by which either a new organiser is appointed (as under the old system) or a new committee is formed (which I am proposing). I do think that whichever system is chosen there does need to be some way for players to express concerns and make suggestions - and whatever way is chosen then that should be made very clear to all the players from the outset.

[Aristides]

I agree that 'democracy' can be cumbersome and sometimes slow. But I think the price is worth paying. So (if I had one) I would vote for SP's idea. Of course, the roles and responsibilities would have to be very clearly drawn...

I also agree that there should be a forum for discussion - perhaps a separate thread so the results threads don't get cluttered.

[stockwellpete]

I think the problems are not due to the way the league is run, moreso it is related to some strong opinions and a clash of personalities within the league.

I am sorry but I think there are acute problems with the way the league is being run at the moment.

Firstly, there was no adjudication at all at the end of Season 9 and this meant that league tables were left uncompleted. In some cases this meant that it was impossible to tell who had actually won the division. See Imperial B where one of three players still had the chance to win the league . . .

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... EUmc#gid=2

Or in Dark Ages B where any 2 from 5 players were still in danger of being relegated . . .

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... xZkE#gid=2

If I had entered either of these divisions then I would not have been very happy to have the league tables left like this. It just looks sloppy and it sends a signal to players that it does not really matter if you finish your game or not. This should not happen again.

Secondly, the competition rules have degenerated into a complete shambles. Just take a look at them and tell me why anybody would want to read them in their current state . . .

http://www.slitherine.co.uk/forum/viewt ... 13&t=41601

To pick at a few obvious problems -
Rule 3 is obsolete. The split-move rear charge is not possible now.
Rule 7 is a diabolical perversion of what the rule used to say about games incorrectly set up i.e. they had to be re-started.
Rule 8 is not actually a rule; it is a very long-winded account of how to enter your scores on the spread sheet.
Rule 10 is not a rule either; it is even more advice relating to what is currently in so-called Rule 8.
Rules 9 and 11 overlap in their content at the moment and should be amalgamated into one rule.

I have actually written a new version of the rules and I will make them available on the forum on Thursday for due consideration. Steve already has an earlier version of this new document.

Thirdly, some of the more coherent competition rules are not actually applied at the moment. For example, Rule 4 states that players are likely to suffer the reduction of divisions they may enter in future seasons if they do not complete the majority of their matches. This rule does not seem to have been applied in Season 9. Also, Rule 11 regarding the deletion of player’s records when they drop out of the competition has also been ignored this season. In Season 9 a player did drop out after completing just one game and his record was correctly retained . . .

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... 5bEE#gid=2

Unfortunately there was no further adjudication so the league table looks rather odd now. According to the Rule 11 his un-played matches should have been awarded to his opponents.

Fourthly, the allocation of players to divisions did not follow Rule 1 which states, “Up to 10 players will participate in each division with excess going into another group”, and so the sections had a slightly uneven look about them. The actual make-up of the divisions was -

Classical 10-12-12
Imperial 11-11-12
Dark Ages 7-7-12
Medieval 10-12-12

So Classical, Imperial and Medieval are over-subscribed by 4 players each and Dark Ages is under-subscribed by 6 players. Maybe if the rules had been adhered to then it may have been possible to allocate some of the later applications to the Dark Ages section. Then if the A and B divisions of the Dark Ages had started with 10 players each, recruitment to Division C could have been left open according to Rule 1 which states, “If the lowest Division has less than 10 players than it will remain open for new entrants who do not have a league rating or are rated for the lowest division play.” In this way, I am fairly certain that Division C would eventually have been comprised of ten players as well.

The situation now is that Dark Ages A and B only actually have 6 players each as there has been a resignation from each division. This is a bit of a shame for the remaining players who have entered that section. One solution would be for the organiser/convenor to send a round-robin PM to each group of six players to see if they would like to play each other twice or whether they want to stay as they are. Playing each other twice would give them a playing season 10 games each, at least, and the season does not close until the middle of August, so there is still plenty of time to fit in those games.

Also if Rule 4 had been applied properly for non-completion of matches in Season 9 then some of those 11’s and 12’s in the Classical, Imperial and Medieval divisions would have been reduced to 10’s anyway. I actually see no problem with saying, “sorry, recruitment is closed for this section” because it means players will realise that they cannot take their participation for granted each time if they apply late, and particularly if they do not complete all of their fixtures in the previous season. It might also mean that they would seek to enter a section where recruitment was slower and there were vacancies available.

To sum up, some of this may seem unduly pedantic but I think tournament organisers have to be bound strictly by the rules. Otherwise decision-making can seem arbitrary to players and confidence in the organisers can quickly be damaged. From my own point of view I think this is what was at the root of the current disagreements.

[flatsix518]

I disagree completely.

It looks like out of 40+ players we had two who went out of bounds to create a false crisis. Now the same two who are responsible want to prescribe overly bureaucratic solutions. LoEG really only needs to have all 40 act as gentlemen gamers. Which is the bavior of the vast majority.

I am strongly opposed to giving any weight to any recommendations from the two who caused the most damage and disruption to the harmonious operation of the league this season. The best thing most of us can do is to sit down, shut up and enjoy the gaming.

John
"flatsix518"

[stockwellpete]

Erm . . . did you miss this post, John.

Let's keep the ideas rolling in guys.

[flatsix518]

I did read that post and, in case you missed it, I submitted my ideas. There are basically three.

1) this is a false controversy caused by a few misbehaved participants.

2) changes should be kept to a minimum.

3) I also think putting the miscreants in a position of influence or authority is a mistake.

So I put my three ideas into the pot.

John
Flatsix518

[stockwellpete]

3) I also think putting the miscreants in a position of influence or authority is a mistake.

Who is doing that, then?

[flatsix518]

Hasn't happened, yet. Hoping that it doesn't happen.

That's the essence of the third point.

John
Flatsix518

[Aristides]

John, I have tried to contact you privately, but I only got a sarcasic remark back.

I'm not 100% certain, but I'm fairly sure you're saying I and SP are miscreants and misbehavers, and to blame for all the recent kerphuphles.

But even if our disagreement on slow-play/draws were to blame, how does that mean that an idea put forth by SP should not be considered? A good idea is a good idea, even if it comes from someone we disagree with about other things.
I spent much time disagreeing with SP, and we're pretty different, but he has good ideas (creating this thread, for example), and I support them for themselves.
Also, if you think our discussion on Medieval caused problems due to being too acrimonious (I assume), why post public statements that can be construed as insulting? Might it not create the very type of situation here you blame us for creating there?

Moving back on topic, aside from the personalities involved, do you think a commitee is a poor idea in itself? And what about a seperate thread for discussions?

[flatsix518]

I think it's rather poor form to one sidedly publicize a private conversation and to mis-characterize and criticize its content. Such things can damage ones trust level and degenerate the general civility of the conversation. I asked a legitimate question.

Flatsix518

[Aristides]

maybe i got the wrong end of the stick - will answer privately...

[stockwellpete]

John, can I just make it clear that I am not expecting to be invited to help run LOEG at any time soon. However, I have contributed a fair bit to this forum over the last two and a half years and just because I have had a barney with someone I do not feel that this disqualifies me from participating fully in the discussions that is taking place here now. I took a six month break from the game until April this year and during that time I drafted up some ideas that I thought might be useful for LOEG in the future. I was one of the people who ran the competition in Season 8 so I feel that I have a good understanding of the issues involved.

I have a background in the trade union movement where rules-bound behaviour is the norm - I was branch secretary in a London university. I also took a degree in history as a mature student (in my 40s) and to pay my way through the course I was a football referee where again rules-bound behaviour is the norm. So this is where I am coming from in these discussions about LOEG.

[bagration1812]

I'm sorry, but that's rich. Rules-bound behavior indeed! You publicly insulted me on the forum TWICE (incompetent and negligent) and you are allowed to continue playing after Eric tossed you. I will never accept an LoEG game, or any other for that matter, with you as you, sir, do not exhibit gentlemanly behavior in contravention of the rules behind which you like to hide.

[stockwellpete]

I'm sorry, but that's rich. Rules-bound behavior indeed! You publicly insulted me on the forum TWICE (incompetent and negligent) and you are allowed to continue playing after Eric tossed you. I will never accept an LoEG game, or any other for that matter, with you as you, sir, do not exhibit gentlemanly behavior in contravention of the rules behind which you like to hide.

Which rule have I breached? Please quote me the relevant text to justify your assertion.

EDIT: Sorry, I am on a break at work and I was called away from my PC. I am obviously suggesting that organisers should run tournaments according to the rules, that's all. Do you not agree?

[batesmotel]

For what it's worth, I think that the current state of the rules is primarily the result of season 8 which essentially run by committee ( of which Pete and I were both part). As a quick thought, I think the league overall needs far fewer rules and while the person(s) responsible for running may have some aditional guidelines they will use to resolve unplayed games and similar issues at the end of the season, these do not all need to be spelled out in gory detail for the participants. This isn't an organized sport's league or a union contract so I think that running thing informally, preferably with one individual with final responsibility for decisions.

Chris

[stockwellpete]

For what it's worth, I think that the current state of the rules is primarily the result of season 8 which essentially run by committee ( of which Pete and I were both part).

It looks as if bits and pieces have been added over the last three seasons to me, Chris. Whatever has happened, they certainly need tidying up now.

As a quick thought, I think the league overall needs far fewer rules and while the person(s) responsible for running may have some aditional guidelines they will use to resolve unplayed games and similar issues at the end of the season, these do not all need to be spelled out in gory detail for the participants.

Agreed. I have written a version of the rules that I will post tomorrow - I think you will find them pleasingly minimalist.

This isn't an organized sport's league or a union contract so I think that running thing informally, preferably with one individual with final responsibility for decisions.

I think you need to be a bit more formal than that, but players do need to feel comfortable with the culture of the league. It is our hobby after all. If there is another pantherboy among us then one person can do it, otherwise a committee would be better, I feel.

[flatsix518]

Pete,

Please be sure to include the following rule:

"No food fights are allowed in the cafeteria." We apparently need this rule since some players are too immature to understand comportment and without a specific rule will feel they have done nothing wrong.

I'll leave it up to your vast rules bound culture experience to define a proper punishment.

John