Register    Login    Forum    FAQ

Board index » Community Discussion » Website Chat » Podcasts




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Pitch Invasion: A Blood Bowl Podcast
 Post Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:03 pm 
Kommissar Enthusiasmoff
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:24 am
Posts: 5614
Location: Swindon, England
In what sense?

_________________
NAF President Emeritus
Founder of SAWBBL, Swindon and Wiltshire's BB League @ sawbbl.uk
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitch Invasion: A Blood Bowl Podcast
 Post Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:45 pm 
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:39 pm
Posts: 173
To discuss NAF points, of course. :)

_________________
Image
2013 Challenge of Q'ermitt -- Best Team
2013 Lakeside Cup -- Best Team
2013 Chaos Cup -- Best Team
2014 Canadian Open -- Best Team


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitch Invasion: A Blood Bowl Podcast
 Post Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:50 pm 
Kommissar Enthusiasmoff
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:24 am
Posts: 5614
Location: Swindon, England
You haven't invited me.

_________________
NAF President Emeritus
Founder of SAWBBL, Swindon and Wiltshire's BB League @ sawbbl.uk
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitch Invasion: A Blood Bowl Podcast
 Post Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:43 pm 
Experienced
Experienced
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:42 pm
Posts: 102
TlawsonTim wrote:
I won't talk to you earlier points, but I feel you've been blinded by the light, both Kik and I did our research for that topic, quite a bit actually. So your comments are misguided and uneducated. Both Kik and are NAF members as we stated in episode 11.

We both feel the NAF has done an alright job but they have a lot of room to improve and a lot of things to explain. Have you looked at their financial report? It doesn't explain why there is an access of funds sitting in their accounts. As for the relationship with GW it's clear that there is zero relationship there, or the NAF would still be able to hive out block dice.

But we thank you for your feedback, we can only get better with both positive and negative feed back.

Cheers!

Tlawson Tim


Kikurasis wrote:
Hutch,

We're very sorry to hear you feel that way. You'd likely be surprised to know that we've gotten a lot of positive feedback. In fact, way more positive than negative. But, we knew then negative would be there -- this is a very divisive topic.

We didn't attack the NAF. We simply brought up issues that needed to be talked about. Most relationships don't work unless things are talked out, and this is no different.

In the end, the NAF -- and, frankly, all of us players -- have no vested interested in this game we love. We play it, that's it. Only GW and Cyanide have any rights to the game (as the owner and licencee, respectively). Anyone else is delusional about it, so when I see players talk about how and what should be done, it gets me going. The NAF has as much to modify and put out new rules as I do. Or you do. They can house rule whatever they want, and members can decide to accept it, but what about those that don't then? In that case, the NAF would be dividing the player-base instead of bringing them together, which is -- I believe -- its goal.

But, I could be completely wrong. However, feedback received shows I likely am not.


Thank you both for responding to what, in retrospect, was itself a bit of a rant. My more structured critique would be primarily the following two points:

1) In my opinion you presented a highly simplified caricature of the NAF and its actions. I feel it should be obvious that the NAF has a fairly narrow remit and an even narrower line to tread as far as representing its members in an environment over which they have extremely limited control. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the way the NAF is run or the decisions it has made, but criticising them without acknowledgement of the situation seems deeply unfair.

2) My biggest complaint, however, would be format. You are both paid up members of the NAF with access to any one of a dozen ways to contact them privately or publically, but instead you chose to air your grievances on a podcast without even the courtesy of asking for comment. This speaks volumes to me about your intent. If you had intended to enact change, initiate debate or provide feedback then why would you choose a broadcast medium which may not have even reached the people to whom you were supposedly trying to talk. It's the equivalent of trying to start a debate by scrawling obscene graffiti on a toilet wall. Worse, in fact, because at least then you would not be denying the other party the opportunity to respond in kind. Your actions are more consistent with attention seeking or self-aggrandisement at the expense of others. The fact that you have apparently since ducked any attempts to engage with the NAF over email or twitter reinforces the impression that you have no genuine interest in a debate.

Finally, just to preempt, responding to someone's attempt to engage you in conversation by ignoring them whilst preparing another one sided broadcast does not qualify as debate, not even nearly. It is also rude to invite someone onto your show without asking them directly, for what should be obvious reasons, so I hope you can manage to at least extend that courtesy. I wouldn't personally expect anyone to accept at this point though.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitch Invasion: A Blood Bowl Podcast
 Post Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:09 pm 
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:39 pm
Posts: 173
hutchinsfairy wrote:
1) In my opinion you presented a highly simplified caricature of the NAF and its actions. I feel it should be obvious that the NAF has a fairly narrow remit and an even narrower line to tread as far as representing its members in an environment over which they have extremely limited control. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the way the NAF is run or the decisions it has made, but criticising them without acknowledgement of the situation seems deeply unfair.

2) My biggest complaint, however, would be format. You are both paid up members of the NAF with access to any one of a dozen ways to contact them privately or publically, but instead you chose to air your grievances on a podcast without even the courtesy of asking for comment. This speaks volumes to me about your intent. If you had intended to enact change, initiate debate or provide feedback then why would you choose a broadcast medium which may not have even reached the people to whom you were supposedly trying to talk. It's the equivalent of trying to start a debate by scrawling obscene graffiti on a toilet wall. Worse, in fact, because at least then you would not be denying the other party the opportunity to respond in kind. Your actions are more consistent with attention seeking or self-aggrandisement at the expense of others. The fact that you have apparently since ducked any attempts to engage with the NAF over email or twitter reinforces the impression that you have no genuine interest in a debate.

Finally, just to preempt, responding to someone's attempt to engage you in conversation by ignoring them whilst preparing another one sided broadcast does not qualify as debate, not even nearly. It is also rude to invite someone onto your show without asking them directly, for what should be obvious reasons, so I hope you can manage to at least extend that courtesy. I wouldn't personally expect anyone to accept at this point though.


The episode was about the "future of Blood Bowl". There is no way we can have that conversation without talking about the NAF.

Please see this thread: http://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=41419

In that thread, a NAF Media Officer (sann0638) states:

sann0638 wrote:
It would be great if we could have some focused discussion on that in this thread.

- Who would a new set of rules affect (i.e. where would they be used)?
- Who should be on the BBRC?
- How should the rule changes be decided?


In my opinion, the NAF as less right to modify the rules of BB than any of GW's licencees. They may want to bring about house rules for their tournaments (and leagues, if that ever becomes a "thing"), but that would further fragment the already small player base into those that want pure rules and those that like the house rules. Again, you can see this from the hate for BB2 rule changes from the purists. However, some of those purists think having the NAF change the rules is a good thing. Whodathunk?

The criticism of the NAF is done because if they can't take it, they shouldn't be running it. Everything in life has opposing views. I respect that some people think the NAF should form a BBRC and change the rules for the playerbase. I don't agree, because I feel that would fragment us too much, but I respect it. Bringing it up is the only way to deal with it.

As for the medium it was done in, how is that different than this forum? If I post something here, it's out there for everyone to see. Completely public. And our intent was to get people thinking about it in respect to the future of BB. NAF will go and do what the NAF deems it should do.

So much more things to say about this, but I guess we'll have to save it for another podcast. ;)

_________________
Image
2013 Challenge of Q'ermitt -- Best Team
2013 Lakeside Cup -- Best Team
2013 Chaos Cup -- Best Team
2014 Canadian Open -- Best Team


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitch Invasion: A Blood Bowl Podcast
 Post Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:48 am 
Veteran
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 9:25 pm
Posts: 249
I wanted to post after the last episode and the comments that you made about the NAF. I'm not always pro-NAF myself but really do appreciate the work that they do and through NAF tournaments I have made some good friends and played some great games. Your comments struck me as ignorant and small-minded but I didn't think it worth my time to write...

...However, I've just listened to your follow up episode and your response to Sann's email and I'm fuming about your handling of the situation and lack of respect and common decency that you've shown. Rather than allow Mike and the NAF to openly discuss the issues, you childishly read out an email in which he corrects your factual errors and offers to come on and talk through the others. Your frequent giggles and *humorous* comments were ill-judged and served to confirm my original opinion.

I'm not going to list every error that you made or respond to all of the points, since the first item that you covered about the mandatory usage of GW or NAF dice is wrong, wrong, wrong. If some TOs want to do it then fine, but I've never had to do it and in the NAFC15 I played with and against many different dice. The NAF is a members organisation and if you don't like the way that the volunteers run it, then become more active and stand for election yourself. There was plenty of notice and communication for the recent League Director position. Yes, turnout was very low but that reflects on the membership and not the efforts put in by the candidates or the NAF Committee.

I wouldn't blame the NAF for not wanting to come on and speak to you now because based on this last episode I don't believe you would be receptive to what they have to say.

Pete

_________________
http://amanandhistoys.wordpress.com and https://twitter.com/amanandhistoys
TO of ExeBowl and Stunty Champion at Exiles 2014


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitch Invasion: A Blood Bowl Podcast
 Post Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:24 pm 
Rookie
Rookie
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 5
I recently started listening to this podcast and found this NAF discussion to be interesting. I am an outsider; never been a NAF member, haven't gone to any tournaments, and am only just beginning to make the transition from digital Blood Bowl to tabletop. So I am ignorant of most of the important details and should probably keep silent. But I have a question that I'm not sure there is an answer to.

Why is the NAF still the NAF? With my limited research into the current state of Tabletop "Fantasy Football" it seems most of the tabletop Blood Bowl fans have adapted to life without Games Workshop. They buy their miniatures from unofficial 3rd party sources who, in many cases, have to rename teams to avoid copyright issues. Lots of people enjoy playing unofficial races in leagues with house rules. And some have even moved to other games like Elfball, Dreadball, etc. Why has the NAF, as a fan service organization, not adapted as well? It might have to change it's name but in theory the NAF could do what it does for Blood Bowl for all of Fantasy Football, expand its membership base, and help bring fans of this niche tabletop game genre together.

I'm only just beginning to get into this hobby. I haven't put paint on my brush yet let alone fielded a team. But it seems to me that the biggest mistake you can make as a fan-based community organization for a niche game is to be exclusionary. I realize from the players' perspective they want to keep their rankings system clear-cut and easy to understand. You wouldn't want multiple games/rule sets muddying the situation. But I see no reason why the NAF couldn't have separate categories for ranking teams.

I don't know. Maybe there is a simple answer to all of this and I am just ignorant of it. Sorry if that is the case.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitch Invasion: A Blood Bowl Podcast
 Post Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:00 am 
Experienced
Experienced
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:42 pm
Posts: 102
Nufflemancer wrote:
I recently started listening to this podcast and found this NAF discussion to be interesting. I am an outsider; never been a NAF member, haven't gone to any tournaments, and am only just beginning to make the transition from digital Blood Bowl to tabletop. So I am ignorant of most of the important details and should probably keep silent. But I have a question that I'm not sure there is an answer to.

Why is the NAF still the NAF? With my limited research into the current state of Tabletop "Fantasy Football" it seems most of the tabletop Blood Bowl fans have adapted to life without Games Workshop. They buy their miniatures from unofficial 3rd party sources who, in many cases, have to rename teams to avoid copyright issues. Lots of people enjoy playing unofficial races in leagues with house rules. And some have even moved to other games like Elfball, Dreadball, etc. Why has the NAF, as a fan service organization, not adapted as well? It might have to change it's name but in theory the NAF could do what it does for Blood Bowl for all of Fantasy Football, expand its membership base, and help bring fans of this niche tabletop game genre together.

I'm only just beginning to get into this hobby. I haven't put paint on my brush yet let alone fielded a team. But it seems to me that the biggest mistake you can make as a fan-based community organization for a niche game is to be exclusionary. I realize from the players' perspective they want to keep their rankings system clear-cut and easy to understand. You wouldn't want multiple games/rule sets muddying the situation. But I see no reason why the NAF couldn't have separate categories for ranking teams.

I don't know. Maybe there is a simple answer to all of this and I am just ignorant of it. Sorry if that is the case.


I'm in a similar situation. Table top player from years ago just getting back into the game after finding my 3rd edition box in the attic. I think you make a good point about the potential future of the NAF. The trouble is that the NAF is comprised of a handful of volunteers who essentially spend their limited spare time trying to make sure that the game as it exists now has some centralised support.

They don't have resource nor mandate to start driving the game in a new direction. You can see the strong emotions that have been voiced over on the BBRC question thread here. A lot of NAF members categorically don't want change and I would be surprised if any other two could agree on what change they do want. There are even a couple of individuals who are so incensed by the NAF even daring to ask their members about a potential look at the existing ruleset that they have resorted directly to schoolgirl hissy fits and playground name calling without even attempting to engage with the NAF...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitch Invasion: A Blood Bowl Podcast
 Post Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:28 am 
Star Player
Star Player

Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 6:26 am
Posts: 718
Location: Adelaide, Australia
HairyPete77 wrote:
I wanted to post after the last episode and the comments that you made about the NAF. I'm not always pro-NAF myself but really do appreciate the work that they do and through NAF tournaments I have made some good friends and played some great games. Your comments struck me as ignorant and small-minded but I didn't think it worth my time to write...

...However, I've just listened to your follow up episode and your response to Sann's email and I'm fuming about your handling of the situation and lack of respect and common decency that you've shown. Rather than allow Mike and the NAF to openly discuss the issues, you childishly read out an email in which he corrects your factual errors and offers to come on and talk through the others. Your frequent giggles and *humorous* comments were ill-judged and served to confirm my original opinion.

I'm not going to list every error that you made or respond to all of the points, since the first item that you covered about the mandatory usage of GW or NAF dice is wrong, wrong, wrong. If some TOs want to do it then fine, but I've never had to do it and in the NAFC15 I played with and against many different dice. The NAF is a members organisation and if you don't like the way that the volunteers run it, then become more active and stand for election yourself. There was plenty of notice and communication for the recent League Director position. Yes, turnout was very low but that reflects on the membership and not the efforts put in by the candidates or the NAF Committee.

I wouldn't blame the NAF for not wanting to come on and speak to you now because based on this last episode I don't believe you would be receptive to what they have to say.

Pete


I just listened to the follow-up NAF podcast and I have to agree with you Pete.

I'm a NAF member, but definitely not a NAF fanboy (I found their stance on stopping the block dice and the "new" teams to be too conservative for my liking).

However, I found the general tone from both Tim and Kik as they went through Mike's email was very dismissive. Tim in particular sounded very disrespectful, often laughing and throwing in snide or sarcastic remarks.

I've only had brief interactions with Mike (sann) via TFF and AusBowl. However, I've found him to be a respectful and decent person who's just trying to do as much as he can to get people playing Blood Bowl. So for you to publically respond to his letter in the way that you did was pretty disappointing and left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

I also found some of your assertions to be drawing a bit of a long bow. For example, just because every tournament you’ve been to says you have to use the tournament dice or NAF block dice doesn’t mean that all tournaments are like that. Maybe it is just a US thing?

I run a tournament in Australia and have attended many tournaments in Australia. Never have I forced people to only use the tournament dice given to players at the start of the tournament. Similarly, I’ve never limited people to only using NAF block dice. Similarly, I’ve never attended a tournament where this was the case.

The coach’s pack for CanCon, which is the 5th Blood Bowl major (a point I’ll come back to) says this in regards to dice:

Quote:
Official NAF Blocking Dice are preferred but custom Blocking Dice can be used if opponent agrees to their use. Home made dice, using d6’s as block dice or any dice modified or alterations in anyway are not allowed.


So even the Blood Bowl major here in Australia doesn’t stop you from using whatever dice you want, so long as you’re using dice that have symbols like the GW block dice and not regular d6’s.

Now just because Australia doesn’t force you to use the tournament dice and/or NAF block dice doesn’t mean that is what happens in Europe. I don’t know what they do. However, you should not mistake your experience for what happens elsewhere in the world.

I also dispute that all tournaments follow what the majors do when setting the rules for their tournament. I can’t speak for others, but what rulings CanCon makes with their tournament has no impact on me when I organise my tournament. So it is just plain wrong to say that all tournaments follow what the majors are doing.

Secondly, there are actually 5 Blood Bowl majors, not 4 as you state on the podcast. Over the last 12 years Wood Elves have won 7 out of the 60 majors held (I went and found out the BB major winners from 2013-15 which you omitted from your count). That puts them third in terms of most number of majors won. They are only behind Skaven (8) and Undead (9) in terms of number of majors won.

I also disagree your claim that the NAF committee is not diverse. When you have 5 different countries represented on the NAF I’d consider that to be diverse.

I also disagree with your claim that most, if not all tournament players are league players. I think that leagues are definitely the lifeblood of Blood Bowl. In order for Blood Bowl to survive you need to get people playing in Blood Bowl leagues.

However, not all players that attend Blood Bowl tournaments play in in leagues. I personally don't play in a league. I have run a tournament since 2009 and have regularly played in tournaments since 2008, but I just don't have time to commit to playing in a league. I played one season of a tabletop league back in 2011 and I've played a few season in the SWL league on FUMBBL, but the last season I played was back in 2012. Even when I got back into Blood Bowl in 2008 (having not played since the late 1990's) it was via a tournament.

I also know of many people that have played in the tournament I run that haven't played in a league before. Yes, most of them have played in a league, but it is definitely not "most, if not all of tournament players" as you claim.

_________________
Image


Last edited by Olaf the Stout on Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitch Invasion: A Blood Bowl Podcast
 Post Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:28 pm 
Star Player
Star Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 8:02 am
Posts: 581
Location: Kicking off in stadiums around the Old World
There is nothing of quality I can add to HairyPete77 and Olaf the Stout. I fuly agree with both of them.

_________________
Image
"This game is too good not to be played!" - Coach Pauli
Blood Bowl Beginner Kit
Saebelsultan's BB Dugouts


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitch Invasion: A Blood Bowl Podcast
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:02 pm 
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:39 pm
Posts: 173
Episode 13 is out!

We chat with Mike Davies of the NAF about the role of the NAF and all things NAF-related. :)

_________________
Image
2013 Challenge of Q'ermitt -- Best Team
2013 Lakeside Cup -- Best Team
2013 Chaos Cup -- Best Team
2014 Canadian Open -- Best Team


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitch Invasion: A Blood Bowl Podcast
 Post Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 6:45 am 
Rookie
Rookie
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:17 am
Posts: 16
Classy interview from both parties. It's nice to see that people in this community can have differing viewpoints while still being respectful to one another. Good work gentleman, and looking forward to hearing more from Mike in the future.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitch Invasion: A Blood Bowl Podcast
 Post Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:50 pm 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:34 pm
Posts: 396
Location: Long Island, NY
I enjoyed the interview immensely. Mike is professional as always and the PI guys kept it respectful and light.

Well done.

_________________
"I reserve the right to change my predictions when they are no longer true. I am The Media." ~ Snob Costas
libloodbowl on Twitter
Long Island Blood Bowl League
Empire Cup
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitch Invasion: A Blood Bowl Podcast
 Post Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:53 pm 
Kommissar Enthusiasmoff
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:24 am
Posts: 5614
Location: Swindon, England
Thanks chaps, it was a pleasure.

_________________
NAF President Emeritus
Founder of SAWBBL, Swindon and Wiltshire's BB League @ sawbbl.uk
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitch Invasion: A Blood Bowl Podcast
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:05 am 
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:39 pm
Posts: 173
Thanks! Mike is welcome any time he wants to be on. Other than having to edit out most of his "uhm"s, it was a pleasure. :D

_________________
Image
2013 Challenge of Q'ermitt -- Best Team
2013 Lakeside Cup -- Best Team
2013 Chaos Cup -- Best Team
2014 Canadian Open -- Best Team


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Board index » Community Discussion » Website Chat » Podcasts


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to: