UK 'Bonus' Points - TOs what are you trying to achieve?

[Dionysian]

It is not my goal to find new ways to exclude tournaments from the NAF rankings. On the contrary, I would like to see as many ranked games as possible

I'm curious where you think anyone anywhere has suggested that tournaments be excluded from NAF rankings in a new way?

[Purplegoo]

It is not my goal to find new ways to exclude tournaments from the NAF rankings. On the contrary, I would like to see as many ranked games as possible, so long as tournaments don't run afoul of the current restrictions regarding racial inclusion and core rules. Regardless, I still don't see how bonus points have anything more than a marginal effect on the rankings (in that some pairings might be slightly off).

It's incredibly reactionary to expect an international sanctioning body to change the rules for every tournament in the world because some unknown number of members in one (admittedly key) nation are suddenly upset by something. That might be a harsh way of putting it (your evident preference!), but that's the situation here.

If, as this thread suggests, most organizers don't recognize the implications of their scoring systems, why not simply attempt to educate them? The NAF's regional staff could certainly be helpful in that. Tournament series were mentioned earlier; setting scoring standards for those is actually quite sensible. Series are affected by the final standings, after all, whereas the rankings are not. My point is that local solutions should be explored before demanding that everyone everywhere be subject to new rules.

Hi Nate.

I’ve stayed out of this thread so far because I feel as if I’ve done this loop here and elsewhere a whole bunch of times, and because it’s unnecessary for me to agree with this or that and clutter the place up. I do think this is an interesting quote though, and since you’re here, it’s worth expanding the argument a little bit.

I agree with you that having the maximum number of events under the NAF banner is a good thing. I also do not want the NAF to suddenly start dropping draconian rules all over the place and disrupt tournaments that have been happily functioning for many years. I don’t think that helps anyone, and evolution by discussion rather than revolution by force is probably the best course of action.

But I do think it’s the NAF’s responsibility to ensure a NAF sanctioned tournament achieves a certain level of quality (and by ‘quality’ I mean it’s rules, not the venue, or the hard work of the TO, or whatever), and should serve as a rubber stamp that ensures an attending NAF member knows what to expect. Yes, that includes racial inclusion and use of core rules, but should it not also cover things like scoring systems? I am not for one moment suggesting that the NAF should lay down rules that say ‘2/1/0 or you’re out’, but Dionysian has very astutely made a point with his rulespack. A rulespack that has been NAF sanctioned. I always think the acid test for ‘is something OK’ is that if an out of town coach was sent to Cardiff on a Friday for work, if he noticed a NAF sanctioned event was happening on that weekend, he could show up with his miniatures and not be surprised by a rulespack he has not had time to read; safe in the knowledge the event is NAF sanctioned so it’ll be fine. I think, in this case, that coach would be surprised to learn a raffle will effectively determine the winner.

There is surely a middle ground here, and some form of words that leads to common sense winning the day. Perhaps if you’re an ongoing, yearly tournament, continue with what you’re doing and we’ll support you. But if you’re a new tournament or you’re changing your rulespack, please ensure that performance is directly proportional to final standings, and we reserve the right, after discussion, to ask that your tournament is listed as a ‘variant’ if it’s too far removed from that. That doesn't mean 'do 2/1/0 or else', just that the thing makes some sense and winning more games than someone else very probably (or certainly if you're of the opinion it 100 % should) means a higher standing?

That can’t be too far from a sensible solution, can it? I wouldn’t just include scoring systems in my ‘what a NAF member might reasonably expect’ list, by the way, but since that’s what we’re discussing, let’s start there and deal with surprise Khorne another day.

Cheers!

[nonumber]

As I've already said I'm all for equal variety on this subject, its just it seems like most the arguments against bonus points come across sounding like "oh no darling we mustn't let one of the plebs have a shield" if I'm honest.

I want it to mean something so that when somebody wins one for the first time it really feels great. I was so so happy when I got my first one, because it felt like an achievement. And let's be honest here, you don't see anyone calling anyone plebs here, I'm trying to make rational arguments. But you do see lots of comments all over TFF and Twitter about "powergaming scum" and in one case one of my friends getting booed when they won a 'local tournament for local people'. So let's not act like the wounded party here.

Nah totally agree Joe, I know the plebs comment was a bit tongue in cheek. I'm well on board with wanting the win to be deserved, and well fought, I just absolutely don't agree that bonus point systems don't enable that to happen. For me, they just change the way players take the tournament on. And that's what we should have on the tourney scene, same mechanics, different tactics.

[Glowworm]

Geeez... is this still rumbling on??

read the bit in bold... TO's what are you trying to achieve not assassinate anyone who's ideas are different to yours, here's the thing, I will resist any interference from the NAF on how I run my tournament scoring wise, its in its 5th year (so still relatively new in terms of longevity) however its grown year on year from 36 to 50+ now making it the biggest UK 1 dayer.... TBH, I'm lucky I live in an area saturated with BB tournament players, Ive never had or asked for assistance from the NAF, I get a shield because I meet the criteria which is great however I don't think it would hurt attendance if I didn't (which happened for the first 2-3 years IIRc before the rules changed to allow 1 dayers to award it) Ive used the same scoring system year on year, had no complaints and im always full 3 months before the event so IMHO im doing something right... "What am I trying to achieve??" Nothing I'm not achieving already, I'm not saying it cannot be better, I've already admitted that Ill consider geggsters points on awarding bonuses as he shed a new light on it ( from my perspective) but Im achieving my aim, which is to give something back to the community I enjoy (love) being a part of. Ask anyone who attends Crumb, for that day you are my guest, I try to ensure that everyone has the best experience possible, 4 years 1 complaint and that was something I had no control over.

**Rant over**

Guys, your all right, your way is better than his or her way..... for you, and if your happy with your attendance at a tournament your saying your happy with someone else's way surely....

[Greshvakk]

Well holy hand grenade batman this thread generated a lot more chat than I ever dreamed of! Thank you all again for contributing. It’s fair to say this thread has gone way beyond anything I ever imagined. I‘d like to echo Frogboy I’ve learned a lot and of course I’d ask everyone to take on board other’s views. Although personally I feel the thread has stayed within the bounds of good debate for the most part – I don’t feel like anyone’s views have been ‘assassinated’. I hope no one else does either. Picking up on a few things……

Thanks Nonumber for an impassioned plea for variety it’s an important consideration. For me variety only has worth if it is for some logic else it is a pointless gimmick and I see lots of fantastic variety in tournaments through TV, skills, roster construction, weather, special star players etc etc – as well as the venues and the people. I don’t see the points for TD and points for CAS systems encouraging or discouraging any particular style of play – columning dark elves or anything else. I also would contend whether any style of play needs to be legislated for – even if we had a way of doing it. There seems to be a general objection to good defending because it can be unpleasant to play against. But scoring has no worth without someone defending. And every time there is a kick off one of us is setting up to defend – surely we should all do it to the best of our ability. For me a scoring system has to be neutral to what anyone particularly enjoys about any game. We all have different views on what is fun.

I’d also turn around your plebs comment – I increasingly think if there is prejudice it’s the reverse of what you suggest ie bad scoring systems are being designed to stop the best players winning. As I already alluded to the only thing worse (to me) than getting beaten into second at every tournament I enter by Geggster would be standing up there in 1st with him second on a better W-D-L record than me and knowing that my ‘victory’ was completely hollow. Even dicing him into second place I’d find somewhat unsatisfactory although I would still rub the trophy all over my body while dancing provocatively in front of him and making a series of sexually suggestive gestures

Another point a few people have raised “you know what you’re getting into”. Just to be clear actually I didn’t. I attended a number of tournaments never paying attention to the scoring system as it was irrelevant to a noob, I vaguely noticed it was 2/1/0 at the NAFC and I assumed that W>D>L would be respected at every tournament. Even as I embarked on this year of attending ‘most’ UK tournaments I read the rules for a tournament with a BP system like the one I attacked in the OP – it never remotely occurred to me that points described as ‘bonus’ would be getting added into the score and affecting the Swiss. It wasn’t until a conversation at the tournament that the penny finally dropped. Until then I just naively assumed that W>D>L would be respected always and that anything described as ‘bonus’ would act as some sort of tiebreaker at the end. I read the rules for the tournament several times and felt I understood them. Obviously you may look at that and go “what an incredible noob” but that was my honest experience – I assumed scoring would be standard and was shocked when it wasn’t.

I didn’t start this thread thinking of anything but finding out people’s logic and hoping to stimulate some thought. And I think it has achieved that some while ago so thank you everyone and to echo Frogboy special mention/thanks to any TOs who got some new thinking from the thread.

I certainly didn’t imagine appealing to the NAF or anything close to it! The more I think about it though I do think the NAF cannot ignore this issue – bad scoring systems do affect the integrity of the NAF ranking. Not specifically the system talked about in the OP but for example if I scored just for CAS that surely distorts the game play so much that those games cannot be ‘normally’ ranked even if the core mechanics haven’t actually been changed (technically). So I think there has to something in place - not sure what - but I would echo Purplegoo’s post for sure – he seems to have thought about it more than me and I agree with what he says. There is no need for Draconian rules but I feel the NAF should have some sort of stance on scoring.

To put my own twist on it I feel that badly thought out unclear scoring systems are a barrier to new players. We ‘get away with it’ because many (like me initially) won’t think about scoring at all but it’s still a potential barrier.

That’s my view anyway. But I would like to thank everyone once again and the variety of views has been incredibly refreshing and positive. Personally I am going to see if there is any more useful analysis I can do on the BP subject – or I might get a life, who knows

[Gaixo]

It is not my goal to find new ways to exclude tournaments from the NAF rankings. On the contrary, I would like to see as many ranked games as possible

I'm curious where you think anyone anywhere has suggested that tournaments be excluded from NAF rankings in a new way?

Fair point. It still speaks to my preference that the NAF be as inclusive as possible, though, and that extends to the awarding of trophies.

Good stuff.

Thanks for the insightful post, Phil. Perhaps I was too hasty in taking the Quidditch Bowl bait, but I suppose Dionysian and I were both trying to prove our respective points. Mine being that there is no precedent or stated authority for denying a tournament based on its scoring system.

I will readily concede that the tournament guidelines need some work, and this would probably include expansion of the NAF's expectations regarding rules and result reporting. While I'm still not sold on specifically addressing tournament scoring, a general "common sense" clause could cover any such miscellaneous items.

[Oventa]

To let you know the topic is indeed also interesting for non UK people,
so I try to make from my perspective a summery (very condensed ) of the first 7 pages:

- the initial question was if TO really are aware that the way some add bonus points may result in a person with a better (W/D/L) ratio to end up after one with the worse record but better bonus point. And if they are aware why they do this?

- so far main argument for bonus point were to have variety and to have something to strive for in games that are already long lost

-so far no TO claimed he did this on purpose to have this potentially higher ranked than W/D/L

- so far main argument against bonus points (if they can affect W/D/L) is that this has a bad aftertaste if there is now a "strange" winner.

- No one asked for only SoS to be used as tiebreakers in all tournaments, even though some/many? feel it is the best system we have right now.

- some ask for a more active involvement of the NAF on that topic (various levels of interaction)

My personal conclusion:
As long as they don't interfere with W/D/L no one has anything against BP. From my perspective the goal of variety and having something to fight for in each game is also still valid (even allowing most passes as BP , if that is what the TO wants)
As there no one spoke yet who actually did this on purpose to overrule W/D/L, I think this is mostly an accident. So this thread already helped some!
Though also I would welcome involvement of the NAF. Not as far as putting strict rules, but perhaps just as part of the TO package some guideline and caveats that if bonus points are used they should be calculated in full awareness and that it might be kind to mention in a rules pack that indeed it may affect W/D/L ranking and not just order within. As most would expect W/D/L to have highest precedence.
Cheers

[Darkson]

[Had promised myself I'd keep out of this on-going, but then I promise myself a lot of things...]

As most would expect W/D/L to have highest precedence.

Why?

Sport (football for example) doesn't rank by wins, it ranks by points. Under 3/1/0 (e.g. the Premier League) a 10/10/10 record is better than a 12/3/15 record. So surely if an event has a points system (with or without bonus points) the default view should be "right, so it's ranked by points unless stated othewise".

[Greshvakk]

Darkson, I think this has been covered many times in this thread so I will keep it brief. The Premier league 100% ranks by W>D>L loss you can see this because the system only awards points for those results. You never get a situation where Team A is ahead of team B in the PRem league but with a worse W-D-L record but because they had more freekicks - or some other nonsense factor. The Prem league weights a win as 3 times more valuable than a draw - that is a completely different subject to this thread. An equivalent in the prem league would be having 3/1/0 for W/D/L and then so called bonus points for goals scored. The league table would look very different and not at all logical.

I think Oventa was just summarising the general feeling of the thread (which I got too) that most people feel that W>D>L should take primacy (as it does in the Prem league) rather than W>D>L with a bit of nonsense, unpredictable factor. Which has been arbitrarily introduced and the effect of which hasn't been properly thought through.

And PS yes Oventa that is a good summary of how i see most of the discussion. Thank you for producing it.

[besters]

Stunned Greshvakk wrote this:

"Well holy hand grenade batman this thread generated a lot more chat than I ever dreamed of"

I thought we all knew what the reaction would be.

Although I am amazed at the number of people posting who weren't going to post.

This thread is almost as much fun as the game!

[Itchen Masack]

Threads like these serve to remind me that the world needs a slap from time to time

[Wulfyn]

Threads like these serve to remind me that the world needs a slap from time to time

Why?

[Geggster]

Threads like this serve to remind me that TFF does indeed occasionally have merit.

And to Glowworm - geez, yes, it does appear to be rumbling on. Dionysian's very interesting "rulespack" has spawned debate in many channels, not just here. That's a good thing - at least I think it's a good thing.

I rarely post anywhere these days - it's because threads devolve into outright bickering. Thanks to everyone involved for a thought-provoking debate.

[Dionysian]

there is no precedent or stated authority for denying a tournament based on its scoring system.

NAF sanctioning. NAF ranking. NAF trophy. NAF-criteria for tournament eligibility in both respects. To suggest that the NAF doesn't have the authority to add or amend a particular criterion is bizarre. You control your own sanctioning requirements (in respect to rankings, trophies, and anything else NAF-related.

Nothing is forced upon TOs. With any changes to NAF-criteria they would be, as they currently are, free to run a tournament using any scoring system they please with it being their personal choice whether or not to ensure it meets NAF criteria (and again it's the NAF's choice how different they want that criteria to be between simple eligibility for ranked games and awarding a NAF trophy. For example, possibly utilising a silver and gold standard to aid transparency for potential participants.)

While I'm still not sold on specifically addressing tournament scoring, a general "common sense" clause could cover any such miscellaneous items.

'Common sense' such as the following 'common sense' assumptions of one the new circuit players?

Another point a few people have raised “you know what you’re getting into”. Just to be clear actually I didn’t... it never remotely occurred to me that points described as ‘bonus’ would be getting added into the score and affecting the Swiss... Until then I just naively assumed that W>D>L would be respected always and that anything described as ‘bonus’ would act as some sort of tiebreaker at the end. I read the rules for the tournament several times and felt I understood them.... I assumed scoring would be standard and was shocked when it wasn’t.

Or the 'common sense' beliefs of a highly respected tournament veteran?

BPs are easily dismissed with a wave of the hand as just a bit of fun, but all too often they impact tournament results more than they should. Rather than adding transparency, we are too commonly left in a situation where the proper tournament winner on 5/1/0 is awaiting a handshake, only for the guy on 4/2/0 (or worse) that killed everything to become the shock winner, to the surprise of everyone following the top tables. Whilst no-one goes home and punches a wall, everyone looks at each other and says ‘well, that’s a bit crap, sorry buddy. See you in a month or so?’ ... It’s perverse that we go out of our way at tournaments to crown incorrect winners. Nothing in a rulespack is really sacred; skills packages, tiering systems, gold to spend should be, and are, all up for grabs. But intuitively, the scoring system should be the one thing that is bloody sacred. Bonus points for sendings off, indeed.

Such a 'common sense' clause may not be quite the panacea you imagine.

[Purplegoo]

I knew I'd done this loop somewhere before...

Whilst that is what I think (and I do consider it common sense), I do remember the context at the time being slightly different. I might not be so ranty seven pages into a very ranty thread!