ICW5

[{Alpha} Kiwi]

I might participate in this ICW. I've participated off-and-on in the past, and I've always attended at least one battle per ICW.

Put me down as a maybe, and even if I do end up playing, I'l probably side with YAK again (retired from Alpha a few months back).

If you wanted to join Alpha for the tournament that would be most appreciated, even if you can't come to many battles it would definitely help us out.   


Also if anyone wants to join alpha for the tournament pm me. If someone could pm me a Member list from tcf and wusi (even if only a few members are joining) that would also be helpful.


Also, this is probably in the rules (but I didn't specifically see it when I looked over it) but I assume we all need to have the same tags? if so we will probably decide on that sometime soon, whether to just use alpha tags or something more inclusive of other people joining us for the tournament.

[BOB.LION]

I see many people talk about joining YAK. This is a worry. Join BOB

[Phobos]

I highly doubt that 212 will participate in this one, as yet again the host is in a participating clan, which is not very professional.. because c'mon guys, really, no way it will turn out fair or unbiased. Will not even start to point out all the obvious flaws with that in the past ICWs.. lol. If anyone needs a merc feel free to PM me, I will join YAK as last resort.

id disagree i think the tournament structure itself determines more the level of professionalism than who is hosting it. rules should probably be voted on more to prevent some of the flaws from previous tourneys. i thought joseph was going to host this but he delegated head admin role to Bomber, who just returned to FC after several months inactivity. id rather see something like an admin council than one person running the whole show.

[Shazam]

id disagree i think the tournament structure itself determines more the level of professionalism than who is hosting it. rules should probably be voted on more to prevent some of the flaws from previous tourneys. i thought joseph was going to host this but he delegated head admin role to Bomber, who just returned to FC after several months inactivity. id rather see something like an admin council than one person running the whole show.

I agree with Phobos.

Obviously a tournament can be ran by someone with clan ties; Oven/Joseph did it very well, despite being an active member of FC, as well (even though it was not known).  When it comes down to it, it's just harder to call a clanless admin biased towards a certain clan.

An admin council is an interesting idea that I think would work.  We could always try it for the first week and if it's not working, revert to the old leadership structure.

[Anyder]

What i dont get is why u made a division between lead admin and admins...  i think everyone should have the same "title"...

[Norwood]

When it comes down to it, it's just harder to call a clanless admin biased towards a certain clan.

An admin council is an interesting idea that I think would work.  We could always try it for the first week and if it's not working, revert to the old leadership structure.

While an Admin council is an admirable idea, and I think it might be helpful, but all of the Admins are still members of clans and thus that only solves part of the issue. You are going to have a hard time finding a clanless admin because most active players in this game, that have an interest in tournaments, are a part of clans for that very reason.

[Black Water]

I agree with Phobos.

Obviously a tournament can be ran by someone with clan ties; Oven/Joseph did it very well, despite being an active member of FC, as well (even though it was not known).  When it comes down to it, it's just harder to call a clanless admin biased towards a certain clan.

An admin council is an interesting idea that I think would work.  We could always try it for the first week and if it's not working, revert to the old leadership structure.

No, he did not do a very good job. Only reason 212 got some of the calls was for him not to be TOO obvious about it, having a council is a good idea though.

[Joseph]

I rather strongly disagree about the admin council. Councils and committees are extremely inefficient in my experience. (The main tool preventing corruption is transparency.) There should one leader, who is trustworthy enough to make good decisions, or else nothing will ever get done.

(Of course theres nothing wrong with voting on rules/etc. beforehand.)

Idk how well most people here know Bomber, so maybe its reasonable for you to withold judgement, but I would only have allowed him to use the pre-existing ICW "brand" if I thought he was capable of succeeding.

[Phobos]

What i dont get is why u made a division between lead admin and admins...  i think everyone should have the same "title"...

I agree. The rules don't explain the difference unless i missed something.

I rather strongly disagree about the admin council. Councils and committees are extremely inefficient in my experience. (The main tool preventing corruption is transparency.) There should one leader, who is trustworthy enough to make good decisions, or else nothing will ever get done.

(Of course theres nothing wrong with voting on rules/etc. beforehand.)

Idk how well most people here know Bomber, so maybe its reasonable for you to withold judgement, but I would only have allowed him to use the pre-existing ICW "brand" if I thought he was capable of succeeding.

It can go either way really. A council that is completely transparent and knows what they're doing would be more efficient than just one admin who met those requirements, especially if there were more players participating. Often times councils are more inefficient though, it depends on the structure and number of players.

Could you explain what convinced you that he is capable of being the new lead admin for the ICW?

[Joseph]

I introduced the division between (i) "lead" and (ii) "normal" admin in ICW4, to distinguish between people who

(i) have authority to make any decision if needed, even in novel situations.
(ii) only capable of adjudicating battles according to established rules, and deferring to lead admins in new/ambiguous cases.

For me, the distinction was worth making, though ultimately not needed in practice (IIRC) because ICW4 went so smoothly. I still think it's worth making, but it's Bomber's call.

Could you explain what convinced you that he is capable of being the new lead admin for the ICW?

I'll try.

When Bomber first agreed to run this, I was maybe only 60-70% confident, simply out of ignorance. The key pieces of info I based the decision on were

--an incident in ICW4. Bomber made a thread to complain about a match (or multiple) where the sides were highly unbalanced, pointing out (I think, correctly), that matches like this are unfair and pointless, despite being allowed by the rules. Now, this fact is pretty obvious, and retrospectively most people would likely agree. But it favorably impressed me that he was willing to make "an issue" out of it, where most people (unfortunately) would probably just try to rationalize or accept the rules. (NOTE - I now see wyo made the thread, and bomber supported him, still, this is what I originally remembered).

--he had tried to run a similar-to-ICW tourney in BF2, and also initially approached me asking about ICW5. Clearly he was motivated to make it happen.

By now, after talking with him a lot about details of the ICW5, my confidence is more like 90-99%, but I'm not going to relate everything we've talked about.

--------------------------------------------------

I can imagine a council being designed in many possible ways. Some of them will work, and others won't. It's probably best for me (and others) not to speculate on the merits of a council unless it's properly defined what role the council would have. A good council might look like this: There is a council member from each participating faction, and any controversy from a match between two clans, will have the outcome decided by council members not in that clan.

[Anyder]

Still, i dont see why dividing this position. ICW1 was cool and all admins even got an award for their job...

[Phobos]

For me, the distinction was worth making, though ultimately not needed in practice (IIRC) because ICW4 went so smoothly. I still think it's worth making, but it's Bomber's call.

--he had tried to run a similar-to-ICW tourney in BF2, and also initially approached me asking about ICW5. Clearly he was motivated to make it happen.

I can imagine a council being designed in many possible ways. Some of them will work, and others won't. It's probably best for me (and others) not to speculate on the merits of a council unless it's properly defined what role the council would have. A good council might look like this: There is a council member from each participating faction, and any controversy from a match between two clans, will have the outcome decided by council members not in that clan.

I noticed this too in particular.
The council idea would need to be defined more explicitly and might work better in a different tourney format, but since the ICW4 went so smooth, it makes sense to use similar rules in the ICW5.

[BOB.LION]

any news or updates? how are things going for everyone?

[Rayce]

How do Mercs work?

[~PFE~ Sam / Ply1]

~PFA~ Will soon add their list.