TAFI Town Hall

[DinoInstitute]

Some general thoughts:

I still fail to realize what reducing from 10 to 5 accomplishes. A smaller group with essentially the same role doesnt lessen the "involvement" of said group in any way. I dont particularly care either way, I just dont see what it gains aside from an even smaller group representing the larger one. Just because there are less peole doesnt equate there is less of a role.

Rather, if the complaint was (and it was) that the group had "too much influence", then Id consider aboloshing the concept alltogether to prevent this coming up again in 8 months when people are dissatisfied with THAT group for one reason or another. Aside from tweaks here and there, everything Im seeing isnt really that much of a change.

Elections occuring more often (though I think every two months is a bit much. Id say once a quarter at the most, but I like twice a year myself). The reality is there isnt much to say or do there. You set the schedule, you maintain whatever the points sytem is, you coordinate elections and any end of quarter / end of year activities. Its closer to being a den mother than Mussulini and his supporting oligarchy.

What I am saying is perhaps we take a different tack.

As far as elite eight becoming sweet 16, again, the issue is time. That would add another what, 3 weeks (one for mass proposals and a mass elimination to the final 16, and two more bracket rounds). This basically closes down the slot after SA to a five weeks slot. Meaning one less slot to host a long comp per year. Just something that should be considered.

I think I agree with you about convos size. It doesn't really make a difference. If anything, having less people gives the ones in it more power.

Also weren't there 11 before?

 

[spacemt354]

For example, these are the people who have already indicated they want to host next year.

RM wants TSI - 12 weeks
IDI (and I assume space is back for another ride) wants his comp - 12 weeks
JDM wants his comp - 12 weeks
Sam and I want to do 30 Days - 4 - 6 weeks
One slot should go to SYWTBAI for Tiki - 12+ weeks
Some sort of finisher (Elite 8 / Sweet 16) 5 - 8 weeks
Matt may want to do his comp again - 10-12 weeks

And, I may be forgetting someone, and that doesnt include anyone who may have their own ideas but havent come forward yet.

Do the math...not enough time.

Hence the idea of "Tiers" so some comps could slightly overlap (or completely overlap in the case of a smaller one like 30 days)

Just recently we had 3 different comps running simultaneously with no issue. Different comps have different contestants which equals a larger imagineer community if they all count the same.

That's why I suggested have all comps be "ICS" if they have enough contestants

 

[Matt7187]

Just recently we had 3 different comps running simultaneously with no issue. Different comps have different contestants which equals a larger imagineer community if they all count the same.

That's why I suggested have all comps be "ICS" if they have enough contestants

What would the cutoff be though, how many people would have to be involved for it to be considered "ICS"?

 

[spacemt354]

What would the cutoff be though, how many people would have to be involved for it to be considered "ICS"?

I'd say 6?

I'm literally just making that up though. Granted a winner of a 2 person comp winner wouldn't receive as many points as a 16 person comp...so regardless of the number its all the same relative points

Which would further my point that a comp is a comp, we shouldn't exclude comps by designating them non-ICS. Everything should count

 

[Matt7187]

I'd say 6?

I'm literally just making that up though. Granted a winner of a 2 person comp winner wouldn't receive as many points as a 16 person comp...so regardless of the number its all the same relative points

Which would further my point that a comp is a comp, we shouldn't exclude comps by designating them non-ICS. Everything should count

Maybe the convos could ask them if they want it to count, and if they do, then it can be added to the website and te points applied

 

[englanddg]

I think I agree with you about convos size. It doesn't really make a difference. If anything, having less people gives the ones in it more power.

Also weren't there 11 before?

Not that I recall. I could be mistaken, but 10, a number that was basically set by the PM thread limits, was all there ever were. There was no elected "group" before the ones now last year. The previous year there wasn't a "convos", rather the ICS/ACS/TAFI stuff. And that was never really an official "group" (something we attempted to rectify and formalize for this year with elections instead of a group of buddies with a common interest). We wanted something more democratic and inclusive without the politics that had marred previous groups. And for that, we turned to the community at large (which, as I noted before, the group at the time grossly represented the active community at large, as there were only 15 or so regulars at the time, now it's closer to 20 - 30, and growing.

All of this is in the public threads I posted as well as the early parts of the convos thread from this year.

 

[englanddg]

Maybe the convos could ask them if they want it to count, and if they do, then it can be added to the website and te points applied

So, that begs the question, how do you apply points.

Simple and easy to track needs to be key, but also there needs to be provisions that keeps people who choose to compete in long comps from accruing less points than those who choose to compete in shorter ones.

This is why short format points were suggested to have half the value of long format comps. The format of the comp should drive the points available to be earned, imho. Winning SA is a LOT more of a challenge than winning 30 Days Around the World.

Another concept (and this was thrown around) was a third tier that was participatory only comps. It was squashed pretty quick, but that would basically mean comps that are for "fun only", but do confer "participating points" or something of the like. We decided pretty on that is getting complex fast, and brought it back down to two tiers before posting the suggested schedule for next year.

I hope you all are starting to see why it's a tough nut to crack.

 

[Voxel]

The reason the tier system has votes against it was the fear that contestants would focus on competitions with a higher possible point outcome thus ignoring the smaller comps unless they have too. I am for tier comps as long as that can be prevented

Also 9 ppl is a good number. When we had 15 active members 9/10 seemed to be a high number where as now it's a fair representation of the active community.

 

[englanddg]

The reason the tier system has votes against it was the fear that contestants would focus on competitions with a higher possible point outcome thus ignoring the smaller comps unless they have too. I am for tier comps as long as that can be prevented

Also 9 ppl is a good number. When we had 15 active members 9/10 seemed to be a high number where as now it's a fair representation of the active community.

That makes sense, but it also doesn't account for the fact you can run twice as many short run comps as the long run ones.

So, I guess what I'm suggesting, lets separate "point tiers" from "schedule tiers". As @spacemt354 pointed out, we don't have to wait until next year (as we thought we may) to find out if multiple comps can run successfully and concurrently. I'll just remind everyone, this was a concern, because last year we couldn't even get stand alone comps to come to term, so there was no need to anticipate that this year would see so many come to term (though it is a reflect OF that planning done last year that they have, just as a side note).

For point tiers, it would be strictly based on a simple algebraic formula based on the length of the comp and the number of participants. Easy peasy, and allows for a flexible format for all. MAYBE include some sort of mathematical provision to account for team vs individual play? That one is a bit murkier.

But, that way it's easy. Basically, you want to run a comp? You say how many people you are going to let sign up (say 15), you say it's going to be 14 weeks long of various challenges. 15 = x, 14 = y do the math, BAM, points calculated.

 

[Voxel]

So, that begs the question, how do you apply points.

Simple and easy to track needs to be key, but also there needs to be provisions that keeps people who choose to compete in long comps from accruing less points than those who choose to compete in shorter ones.

This is why short format points were suggested to have half the value of long format comps. The format of the comp should drive the points available to be earned, imho. Winning SA is a LOT more of a challenge than winning 30 Days Around the World.

Another concept (and this was thrown around) was a third tier that was participatory only comps. It was squashed pretty quick, but that would basically mean comps that are for "fun only", but do confer "participating points" or something of the like. We decided pretty on that is getting complex fast, and brought it back down to two tiers before posting the suggested schedule for next year.

I hope you all are starting to see why it's a tough nut to crack.

This is how a tier system should work ideally. I don't believe we ever got to the point to convey that they should be based on the amount of time required to compete/effort. One of the original tier purposals suggested only we'll know and prior competitions can be teir one which shouldn't necessarily be true. Like you said tough nut to crack

 

[Voxel]

That makes sense, but it also doesn't account for the fact you can run twice as many short run comps as the long run ones.

So, I guess what I'm suggesting, lets separate "point tiers" from "schedule tiers". As @spacemt354 pointed out, we don't have to wait until next year (as we thought we may) to find out if multiple comps can run successfully and concurrently. I'll just remind everyone, this was a concern, because last year we couldn't even get stand alone comps to come to term, so there was no need to anticipate that this year would see so many come to term (though it is a reflect OF that planning done last year that they have, just as a side note).

For point tiers, it would be strictly based on a simple algebraic formula based on the length of the comp and the number of participants. Easy peasy, and allows for a flexible format for all. MAYBE include some sort of mathematical provision to account for team vs individual play? That one is a bit murkier.

But, that way it's easy. Basically, you want to run a comp? You say how many people you are going to let sign up (say 15), you say it's going to be 14 weeks long of various challenges. 15 = x, 14 = y do the math, BAM, points calculated.

Agreed make it simple, you want to make it possible that someone who competes and gets top 4 in all teir two has a higher chance to go into the finals as someone who gets 5th in all the teir 1

 

[englanddg]

This is how a tier system should work ideally. I don't believe we ever got to the point to convey that they should be based on the amount of time required to compete/effort. One of the original tier purposals suggested only we'll know and prior competitions can be teir one which shouldn't necessarily be true. Like you said tough nut to crack

I think I'm starting to see some of the confusion though, and I think we should, as a group discussion, separate the two issues (maybe even with a different term?)

There are scheduling tiers (and we may just decide, as space suggested, lets just scrap a schedule alltogether and just make it free for all. Let hosts run what they want, as long (or short) as they want and whenever they want, and work out between themselves what is considered "too much" of an overlap.

The other are the point tiers. Which I think everyone can agree are a mess, and we all knew that. So, if we come up with a simple and easy to calculate method here, then it's done.

That would basically mean that there is no "convos" and no need for them, and really all we may wish to have is a small group (for this 4 - 5 would work perfectly) of people who volunteer to crank out a monthly newsletter or something. And that group can grow and change as much as we like. Including a monthly "sign up" or something. "hey guys, we need to do the march newsletter (posted in Feb)", who wants to help!? sort of thing.

We would also need someone to TRACK the points through the year. But, again, that could be a rather small secretarial group that can change as much as we want it to, as there is really no discussion to be had. Monthly, things get tallied and a newsletter goes out. Second week of the month people can sign up to be in the next group, with a max of 10, but it can be as little as 1 or 2...whomever is interested, first come first serve. Third week of the month that group scours the forums to come up with the newsletter articles, fourth week the newsletter and current tallies go up. Rinse and repeat.

No elections, no politics, no complicated processes and rules. No comp submission process, no comp voting process. Start a comp whenever you like, and just say you want it rated, and it will be based on the points algorithm. Unfinished comps (host bails and doesn't set up someone to take it over) will go unfinished and points evenly divided amongst the remaining contestants.

The only "elections" we'd have would be the year end awards, which were always public.

Like I said a few posts ago, perhaps the best way is to take a different tack, because otherwise I predict this issue will come up again in the future. Lets think of a way to completely eliminate the convos, as that seemed to have caused the heat that made the fire that caused all this in the first place, not just slap them with some minor changes and a new term but basically the same old system that existed before.

If you want to have a "constitutional convention", to quote Sam, lets think outside the box.

Really, there are two points of contention. Scheduling and Points. Everything else everyone seems to agree upon. So, lets just hash that out and be done with it.

 

[englanddg]

Agreed make it simple, you want to make it possible that someone who competes and gets top 4 in all teir two has a higher chance to go into the finals as someone who gets 5th in all the teir 1

Right, exactly. Tough nut. <grin>

 

[spacemt354]

I think I'm starting to see some of the confusion though, and I think we should, as a group discussion, separate the two issues (maybe even with a different term?)

There are scheduling tiers (and we may just decide, as space suggested, lets just scrap a schedule alltogether and just make it free for all. Let hosts run what they want, as long (or short) as they want and whenever they want, and work out between themselves what is considered "too much" of an overlap.

The other are the point tiers. Which I think everyone can agree are a mess, and we all knew that. So, if we come up with a simple and easy to calculate method here, then it's done.

That would basically mean that there is no "convos" and no need for them, and really all we may wish to have is a small group (for this 4 - 5 would work perfectly) of people who volunteer to crank out a monthly newsletter or something. And that group can grow and change as much as we like. Including a monthly "sign up" or something. "hey guys, we need to do the march newsletter (posted in Feb)", who wants to help!? sort of thing.

We would also need someone to TRACK the points through the year. But, again, that could be a rather small secretarial group that can change as much as we want it to, as there is really no discussion to be had. Monthly, things get tallied and a newsletter goes out. Second week of the month people can sign up to be in the next group, with a max of 10, but it can be as little as 1 or 2...whomever is interested, first come first serve. Third week of the month that group scours the forums to come up with the newsletter articles, fourth week the newsletter and current tallies go up. Rinse and repeat.

No elections, no politics, no complicated processes and rules. No comp submission process, no comp voting process. Start a comp whenever you like, and just say you want it rated, and it will be based on the points algorithm. Unfinished comps (host bails and doesn't set up someone to take it over) will go unfinished and points evenly divided amongst the remaining contestants.

The only "elections" we'd have would be the year end awards, which were always public.

Like I said a few posts ago, perhaps the best way is to take a different tack, because otherwise I predict this issue will come up again in the future. Lets think of a way to completely eliminate the convos, as that seemed to have caused the heat that made the fire that caused all this in the first place, not just slap them with some minor changes and a new term but basically the same old system that existed before.

If you want to have a "constitutional convention", to quote Sam, lets think outside the box.

Really, there are two points of contention. Scheduling and Points. Everything else everyone seems to agree upon. So, lets just hash that out and be done with it.

I agree with pretty much all of this.

With the system here being proposed, there really isn't a need for conversationalists as we all work out it scheduling needs together.

We know a majority of the members who want to do comps next year a you said in an earlier post, so why don't we all just work out times that are best for all of us. There will be some overlap, but that's fine as we already saw that overlap is fine and eliminated members can simply join the next comp if they are itching to compete.

Then there can be fun events planned throughout the year like @Voxel s suggestion of Imagineer Brawl - having two contestants voted in by the community do some out of the box challenge. He can explain it more though as it's a really cool idea.

Basically this would take us to a point where we shouldn't end up in power struggles (if that's even the right term) as everyone can do as they please and I think we are all capable of creating a schedule that fits everyone's needs together.

 

[Voxel]

I agree with pretty much all of this.

With the system here being proposed, there really isn't a need for conversationalists as we all work out it scheduling needs together.

We know a majority of the members who want to do comps next year a you said in an earlier post, so why don't we all just work out times that are best for all of us. There will be some overlap, but that's fine as we already saw that overlap is fine and eliminated members can simply join the next comp if they are itching to compete.

Then there can be fun events planned throughout the year like @Voxel s suggestion of Imagineer Brawl - having two contestants voted in by the community do some out of the box challenge. He can explain it more though as it's a really cool idea.

Basically this would take us to a point where we shouldn't end up in power struggles (if that's even the right term) as everyone can do as they please and I think we are all capable of creating a schedule that fits everyone's needs together.

The sad part is this will eventually lead to a power struggle, How come no one ever signs up for my comp, or So and so is always doing a comp and I feel like I never get a chance..
Both Side have the same arguments against them.

 

[spacemt354]

The sad part is this will eventually lead to a power struggle, How come no one ever signs up for my comp, or So and so is always doing a comp and I feel like I never get a chance..
Both Side have the same arguments against them.

I think in those cases the best option would be to combine ideas.

If host a is mad or upet that host b gets all the attention, then maybe it's best to wait or another option is if the host is gracious enough to let host a contribute some ideas and team up.

A successful story of that would be myself and idi. I had a realistic imagineer contest back in feb, instead of trying to compete with TCG I approached idi and he was nice enough to combine some of our ideas.

I added some input, judged, helped out, and my original contest idea ended up being the omega challenge.

I think it's worth a shot

 

[englanddg]

I agree with pretty much all of this.

With the system here being proposed, there really isn't a need for conversationalists as we all work out it scheduling needs together.

We know a majority of the members who want to do comps next year a you said in an earlier post, so why don't we all just work out times that are best for all of us. There will be some overlap, but that's fine as we already saw that overlap is fine and eliminated members can simply join the next comp if they are itching to compete.

Then there can be fun events planned throughout the year like @Voxel s suggestion of Imagineer Brawl - having two contestants voted in by the community do some out of the box challenge. He can explain it more though as it's a really cool idea.

Basically this would take us to a point where we shouldn't end up in power struggles (if that's even the right term) as everyone can do as they please and I think we are all capable of creating a schedule that fits everyone's needs together.

I am going one step further and saying there should be no set schedule at all. It helped the first half of this year, but hs caused problems with SA.

As noted, the reason JDM is accelrating eliminations and challenges is that he agreed to shorten the comp so Matt could have time for his afterwards.

If we just said "who cares", there is no need.

Upcoming events can be presented by the host to the group doing the newsletter the month or so before so that people know what is coming (no voting, no submission process, a free for all)

Its a fluid adminitrative process that allows JDM to run SA as long as he wants (same as Tiki, who generally ran SYWTBAI for extremely long periods as I understand it), and for hosts to decide their own formats for eliminations and challenge lengths without having to try and conform to a three month or 8 week block.

If we have six comps going at the same time, who cares? Though, as a host, I may want to wait if I am going up against a large sign up comp simply so I can leech people as they et elininated, but that is something that not only is common sense, but that can be worked out amongst the comp hosts hat are running comps at that time on their own.

Basically, lets say JDM, Tiki and Sam are all running comps at the same time, and I want to run one. I send then a PM and say "hey guys, Id like to run a rated comp as well, I am thinking it will have 10 People and last 5 weeks. I plan to announce first week of July.

Are you cool with that?

JDM may come back and say "sure, but can you wait until the third week of July? Because Im starting up mone that week.

Conversation ensues until they all agree (no controlling body, just the people who are directly impacted.)

Then, after they agree, I send a PM to IDI and RM who are doing thte newsletter that month with a writeup of my comp and a brief outline so they can plop it into the newsletter.

Basically it becomes a fluid organization with no strigent or set rules with the exception of:

1) there needs to be a point system agreed upon
2) there will be a year end finale comp because it is fun
3) there will be year end awards
4) there will be a group of volunteers, cycling monthly or whatever, to track the points and craft a newsletter

Simple, inclusive and easy to adminisrate.

 

[Zweiland]

I am going one step further and saying there should be no set schedule at all. It helped the first half of this year, but hs caused problems with SA.

As noted, the reason JDM is accelrating eliminations and challenges is that he agreed to shorten the comp so Matt could have time for his afterwards.

If we just said "who cares", there is no need.

Upcoming events can be presented by the host to the group doing the newsletter the month or so before so that people know what is coming (no voting, no submission process, a free for all)

Its a fluid adminitrative process that allows JDM to run SA as long as he wants (same as Tiki, who generally ran SYWTBAI for extremely long periods as I understand it), and for hosts to decide their own formats for eliminations and challenge lengths without having to try and conform to a three month or 8 week block.

If we have six comps going at the same time, who cares? Though, as a host, I may want to wait if I am going up against a large sign up comp simply so I can leech people as they et elininated, but that is something that not only is common sense, but that can be worked out amongst the comp hosts hat are running comps at that time on their own.

Basically, lets say JDM, Tiki and Sam are all running comps at the same time, and I want to run one. I send then a PM and say "hey guys, Id like to run a rated comp as well, I am thinking it will have 10 People and last 5 weeks. I plan to announce first week of July.

Are you cool with that?

JDM may come back and say "sure, but can you wait until the third week of July? Because Im starting up mone that week.

Conversation ensues until they all agree (no controlling body, just the people who are directly impacted.)

Then, after they agree, I send a PM to IDI and RM who are doing thte newsletter that month with a writeup of my comp and a brief outline so they can plop it into the newsletter.

Basically it becomes a fluid organization with no strigent or set rules with the exception of:

1) there needs to be a point system agreed upon
2) there will be a year end finale comp because it is fun
3) there will be year end awards
4) there will be a group of volunteers, cycling monthly or whatever, to track the points and craft a newsletter

Simple, inclusive and easy to adminisrate.

I think that's fine, but for planning purposes so we know what's coming up, a host should announce comps a month or two before they start if they want them to count for ICS points.

Actually, we should make a few more guidelines like that to ensure that the ICS tag doesn't get attached to a failed comp. Like, the host has to be "active" (define that how you want). Otherwise, anything goes.

 

[JokersWild]

I am going one step further and saying there should be no set schedule at all. It helped the first half of this year, but hs caused problems with SA.

As noted, the reason JDM is accelrating eliminations and challenges is that he agreed to shorten the comp so Matt could have time for his afterwards.

If we just said "who cares", there is no need.

Upcoming events can be presented by the host to the group doing the newsletter the month or so before so that people know what is coming (no voting, no submission process, a free for all)

Its a fluid adminitrative process that allows JDM to run SA as long as he wants (same as Tiki, who generally ran SYWTBAI for extremely long periods as I understand it), and for hosts to decide their own formats for eliminations and challenge lengths without having to try and conform to a three month or 8 week block.

If we have six comps going at the same time, who cares? Though, as a host, I may want to wait if I am going up against a large sign up comp simply so I can leech people as they et elininated, but that is something that not only is common sense, but that can be worked out amongst the comp hosts hat are running comps at that time on their own.

Basically, lets say JDM, Tiki and Sam are all running comps at the same time, and I want to run one. I send then a PM and say "hey guys, Id like to run a rated comp as well, I am thinking it will have 10 People and last 5 weeks. I plan to announce first week of July.

Are you cool with that?

JDM may come back and say "sure, but can you wait until the third week of July? Because Im starting up mone that week.

Conversation ensues until they all agree (no controlling body, just the people who are directly impacted.)

Then, after they agree, I send a PM to IDI and RM who are doing thte newsletter that month with a writeup of my comp and a brief outline so they can plop it into the newsletter.

Basically it becomes a fluid organization with no strigent or set rules with the exception of:

1) there needs to be a point system agreed upon
2) there will be a year end finale comp because it is fun
3) there will be year end awards
4) there will be a group of volunteers, cycling monthly or whatever, to track the points and craft a newsletter

Simple, inclusive and easy to adminisrate.

I do very much like this idea.

I think we're all civil enough that the schedule could be self-sustaining. As long as we all give each other a head's up of comps, we should be set. The only problem I could see happening is over-saturating the forum with comps. Though, of course, if we all talk to each other before starting a comp, that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

 

[spacemt354]

I do very much like this idea.

I think we're all civil enough that the schedule could be self-sustaining. As long as we all give each other a head's up of comps, we should be set. The only problem I could see happening is over-saturating the forum with comps. Though, of course, if we all talk to each other before starting a comp, that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

This is my thought process too.

Just need fluid communication. For newer members who come here not knowing much about the community, if one of the active members just says "hey welcome, jokers is running a comp as well maybe just talk to him to try and work out a schedule so both of your comps can run successfully)

Something like that.