Vote: 1 Tournament 4 All

Actually I assumed that you'd just challenge somebody and beat them if you had to.

But so far I'm not hearing any support for two tournaments, and if there isnt any we can go ahead with one.

Though if that's the case, some people will have to scramble to secure their place in the tournament with a quick win before it starts.

My vote would be the first one too

But what if we get 32 competitors? Then that would be a nice even number, right?

Also, how are the opponents chosen? Do you draw names out of a hat?

If I'm not too late, then lets have at it!

1 for All.

Throw me in at the deep end boys - I'm shark bait

I did one a few years ago here. I would be game again, as I am laid off and have nothing but time on my hands.

If ya need me, let me know

Alright...

I WANNA SIGN UP!

I dislike the idea of people being excluded, however with the transformation in the debate forum where it is wide open year round, it might not be a bad thing that a slight ranking is required to get into a tournament. As it evolves, the likelihood of all debates in the first rounds being completed increases drastically as to gain entrance to the debate, one would have to be relatively experienced.

It prevents the hit-and-run type that sign up and never peak back.

If the debate forum was tournaments only, I'd oppose anyone being excluded. But with our current format where anyone can debate at any time, making tournaments somewhat restricted is a positive.

One tournament for all.

Those that are left out who wanted to participate, gain experience and keep your eyes opened next time.

That's my .02

I think I'd go with one tournament, 24 seats. And plan on two of those per year.

I'm worried about judging issues if there are more than that going on, for one thing. If every fight needs at least 3 judges to be assigned, and we have two tournaments going simultaneously, that's a lot of judging.

And I have found good judging to be one of the most helpful things in my brief Fighter career. I'd hate to see the newcomers not get the kind of feedback that I've been able to get, just because there were too many fights and not enough judges.

Here's another thought – between the two "championship" tournaments we could think about doing smaller "themed" tournaments. Not just fun ones like the Holiday Skirmishes, but themed to ATS forums, say.

Those might be easier to get into, since not all fighters would necessarily want to participate in a Metaphysics tournament or an Economic Policy tournament

To any newcomers who are still reading after all that: I joined the debate forum just after the last tournament ended, and I think that was about the best possible time. I've got 3 fights under my belt now, so I'm one of the least experienced of the ranked fighters, but it's enough so I know what I'm getting myself into. If you do get cut from this tournament, I really recommend looking for a challenge match as soon as things calm down post-tournament and getting your feet wet

I can't deny that I feel somewhat ill-equipped to opine on the best course of action. The ranking and categorization of fighters has always been something of a non-issue for me. I just like the exposition of ideas.

But it seems unfair to burden our most esteemed organizers with such a monumental task. I suspect the splitting of our membership into two different categories might be a bit kinder and less stressful, especially considering the pains they must go through when we see the no-shows or 'debatus interruptus'.

Sorry to go against the general grain, but in the interest of a 'kinder gentler' tournament experience for our facilitators, I think perhaps we should split it into two venues.

I just saw this today at the top of myATS and have now scanned through the thread.

It looks like the pool is full, but I'm interested in participating also if an opportunity develops.

Please contact me if a slot opens up !

I'd like to thank those that run the debate forum for opening this up to the membership for input.

Classy move.