Sign Up For The First Debate Tournament Of 2009!!

Vote: 1 Tournament 4 All

reply to post by Skyfloating


I second that!

Wow Vagabond, you want me out?

Edit: I know it's a lot of work for the mods, but I still think bumping the numbers up to 32 is the best way to go.






[edit on 30 Jan 2009 by schrodingers dog]

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.

reply to post by The Vagabond


If you look at what happened in the last tournament...more than half of the newcomers dropped out of their debate or didnt even show up for it.

I recall us having about 6 Debates of the first round hanging in the air or seeking substitute debaters.

In order to "keep it together" you need a certain amount of debaters you know you can rely on.

Thats why my vote goes for 1-4-all.

But if we get votes for the other thing, thats fine too.

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?

reply to post by OzWeatherman


It goes by seeding from the ranking system.

Another option would be, for every two extra people who want to debate over the original 24, one additional ranked fighter gets a buy.

reply to post by The Vagabond


Ooooh, The Vagabond is creating class-divisions in the FCP.

I am all for it!

Well, as long as Sdog stays on the short-bus too as will be the ones having all the fun!

If we do go down that road, I think who ever wins the 'Challenged-Fighter' tourney should

a) get a shot at the Fancy Folk winnner

b) get an extra five point bonus for taking the shot and

c) TAKE THE TITLE and TEN POINTS if they win

Now who doesn't think that sounds like drama, fun and good marketing?

Also, I would like to announce that I will be an 'official' Bookie for the tourney however it plays out (T&C permitting of course) and I am in the market for one partner in this endeavor who would like to do something with these useless points, while perhaps gaining many more (looks at SDog) and would assist in setting the odds.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
reply to post by The Vagabond

 

Also, I would like to announce that I will be an 'official' Bookie for the tourney however it plays out (T&C permitting of course) and I am in the market for one partner in this endeavor who would like to do something with these useless points, while perhaps gaining many more (looks at SDog) and would assist in setting the odds.

I'm feeling a strange new emotion I have never felt before. Is it love when you care for a female for reasons beyond mating?

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

reply to post by schrodingers dog


I’m thinking horse racing lingo is the ideal for odds-setting descriptive, i.e.:

Skyfloating – Consistently in the money on this track, but has yet to grab The Cup. Most comfortable when he sets the pace out of the gate, stalks after the second turn, then goes all out in the stretch.

Heike – A 'plodder' who has made quick work of Grade II stakes and is moving up a class. Recent work-out times make her one to watch and an upset contender.

Ian McClean – One of the best at running an instinctive race, but has been off the track since his stunning debut with with a series of scratches and no significant work-out times to attest to his fitness. Gate position may be key for this formidable Fall ’08 Champion who is looking to defend his title in a crowded field.

etc., so on and so forth...

Shout me out if you are in ...





[edit on 31-1-2009 by TheWayISeeIt]

reply to post by The Vagabond


reply to the page 4 post from Vagabond


Not that my opinion matters or anything But I think that maybe 2 tournaments would better one for the newcomers maybe a junior tournament and something like a senior tournament for the experienced guys I think that would be pretty cool then the newcomers get some pretty valuable experience and are able to compete in experienced tournaments then surely it would be good to see aswell a tournament where the top 2 guys go head to head aswell and also pretty good to know which newcomers are the best aswell.

Also what I would just love to see if the winners of both junior and senior champions go head to head in something of a “friendly match” not necessarily for any awards just for a psychological edge maybe I mean imagine that a lowly newcomer in his first debate over comes someone like sky floating of Ian McLean

Just an idea I had hope I helped in deciding anything

AG


[edit on 31/1/2009 by Anti - Government]

reply to post by Anti - Government


Hi Anti: opinions always matter. I agree with you that the 'seeding' layout can be kind kind of brutal (although I am amused that my name has become a 'killing word').

Actually, in tennis they don't use an exact seeding system; the seeding is much more complex (computer calculated).

It seems the limiting factor, in deciding how to do the tournament, is the number of judgings that will have to be made at one time (for each tournament round). That makes sense, and pretty much ensures a single-elimination tournament. I suppose we could stagger rounds, but that would make the tournament (which is already quite a marathon) stretch out too much, and people are always impatient to hear whether they've won or lost.

Interesting Wikipedia article:
en.wikipedia.org...

I've been reading up, but have as of yet no fair alternative to offer, that doesn't extend the opening round beyond eight matches. As S-dog mentioned, we could increase the bye count to accommodate more fighters, at the expense of increased second-round judging work. I think that everyone who has expressed an interest should have a chance to compete.

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.