Moderator: Tournament Directors
No, no, no. You mis-understand Son!cSon!c wrote:You Can’t Change the Rules Halfway Through the Competition. In a competitive environment, the rules need to be laid out ahead of time, and unless all parties agree to changing them, they should not be changed to remove an advantage or disadvantage that is affecting one or more player. Please protect the integrity and excitement of this league that is beloved by so many and keep it the way it has been.
Any 'Forced Home Map Changes' are done solely to inforce current rules or new rules that have been voted through by our fellow playersSon!c wrote:to force changing home maps with a simple poll
That is not the case at all. +1 is what you need in any democracy. In a population of 1M voters, if only 3 vote and 2 vote for a proposed change then that proposal is passed. Democracy does not cease to function because some people can't be arsed votingSon!c wrote:In a democracy you need a certain majority of voters showing up if you want to make constitutional changes.
And on banning other maps, we need to concentrate on what is practical to deliver. You cannot go just choosing one-off maps you want to ban.Son!c wrote:Im sure if you would made a poll on banning Stalingrad you will have a higher outcome because most find it too specialised. Much more specialized than Trafalgar anyway.

Clanlord Carl wrote:As a Scotsman Craig you know that first past the post is a horrible way to do elections. What if 51 people choose 27 but 50 people choose 20 and 50 people choose 22 ? Should the 27 win ?

Clanlord Carl wrote:As a Scotsman Craig you know that first past the post is a horrible way to do elections. What if 51 people choose 27 but 50 people choose 20 and 50 people choose 22 ? Should the 27 win ?
Son!c wrote:Quote: "And on banning other maps, we need to concentrate on what is practical to deliver. You cannot go just choosing one-off maps you want to ban."
Im absolutely against the idea of banning home player maps already in play, it was just an example how easy it would be to ban such a home player map.
And c'mon, that Trafalgar is "slower" then Rails South America is just plain silly.

Craig25 wrote:The Stats don't lie.
How many games on that spreadsheet, 18,000? Something like that?![]()
Top Minds are working on this thing, and you will be pleased to know, I do not include myself in that number!
Son!c wrote:Quote: "And on banning other maps, we need to concentrate on what is practical to deliver. You cannot go just choosing one-off maps you want to ban."
Im absolutely against the idea of banning home player maps already in play, it was just an example how easy it would be to ban such a home player map.
And c'mon, that Trafalgar is "slower" then Rails South America is just plain silly.

Craig25 wrote:But, the players dictating how long games last on maps is no answer to the question.
100% the slowest maps still need to be banned. It's a fast moving bing tournament. A season can't last a year.
Therefor, we still need the answer to 1 question.
How many maps should be banned to optimise speed of play and home map choice?
I am on fire today,!

Pugsl3yPPugf0rd wrote:If not to late, I want in this tournament. Will take reserve.
