TAFI Town Hall

[Flippin'Flounder]

I really like this idea for the final comp.
What if everyone who competed in a comp throughout the year was allowed to compete, no matter how you finished. Say there are 40-something people by the end of the year. Maybe 12-14 or so people either don't show up to compete/don't have time and therefore don't except the spot. So, maybe we are then left with 29 players. There can be a very brief first round (very brief indeed because of the judging involved), where everyone submits something and however many people there are it gets whittled down to 16. Then it plays out as a tournament would, and the points would determine the seeding.
Of course if we did something like that idea we'd probably need more than just one month to host it, which could hurt scheduling.

Anyways, other than that, I agree with a lot of what was said. I like fewer convos, and having te community vote whic comps to have would be a good way of doing it.

I think that's the best way of doing it, then we don't need to worry about points at all.

 

[jdmdisney99]

I don't know if I can handle helping out with this stuff any longer guys. SA will definitely ramp back up this week, but being away these few days has shown me a lot. I think this community has changed and grown tremendously since I first uttered the acronyms "ICS" and "ACS" to a few Imagineering buddies here. There are so many new, confident, creative faces. It's time for me to take a step back from the intense ICS deliberations. I'll still pop in and leave my thoughts every once in a while, but I have fought too often in my own interests. I can't wait to see what all the newer dreamers can do here. This is a wonderful community, and this forum has been an absolute blast. Let's continue to make some magic.

 

[DSquared]

I think that's the best way of doing it, then we don't need to worry about points at all.

If we don't worry about points, what's the point of having ICS comps?

 

[DSquared]

Here's some more to add to mine.

- If all 6 Cs wish to remove a CL, they can switch a C's position with a CL's without a public vote.

-If 1 C challenges the CL, there will be a public 'debate'. It will basicly be a boardroom. Each person states why they're there, and why they are the better CL

-Cs and the CL work as 'unofficial mods'. If there is an argument/issue regarding anything ICS, it is their job to resolve it.




Sweet 16-

Don't have teams in this. That's how some of the high point rackets get eliminated because their team leader voted them to. That's ok for other comps, but not the comp to crown the year's winner overall.

Base the players playing only on POINTS. This assures the best of the year, not just any member, can be crowned the year's winner

Also for elections, each voter gets 1 vote and can't see the results

 

[DinoInstitute]

If we don't worry about points, what's the point of having ICS comps?

To keep order mostly

 

[Zweiland]

I think that's the best way of doing it, then we don't need to worry about points at all.

Yes we would. As IDI said, the points would determine the seeding.

 

[Zweiland]

I updated Sam's list of main points that I think we agree on.

Conversationalists
- The Conversationalists will shrink from ten members to five.
- One member from this years current batch of Conversationalists will hold over, the other four will be nominated and elected as before.
- The one member to hold over will be voted on by the current group of conversationalists. They cannot vote for themselves. In the event of a tie, they vote again but narrow it down to the people that tied. Repeat as necessary.
- The Conversationalists will continue to set the schedules, with public consultation, and will continue to run the newsletter and website. In addition the end of year contests and point system will be run and monitored by this group.
- The newsletter will occur less frequently, maybe monthly or bi-monthly.
- Bi-annual elections, possibly more frequent elections for a "guide" if we choose to have one

Points
- Still no final agreement on what the point system should be. Should we have a new one or should we keep the old one?
- New one we discussed: scaled to 100
- Old one: you get one point for each person you beat, hosts get points for 1/2 the number of competitors, judges and co-hosts get points for 1/4 the number of competitors
- Points can be used for seeding in the final competition

ICS Competitions and End of Year Contest
- The ICS Competition schedule will continue to be organized by the Conversationalists, with public having a say in which contests make the cut.
- The competition's will keep the Conversationalists insurance package (see post #408)
- The end of year competition could stay where it is or move to another calendar location. Agreed consensus that it must be adapted to fit a growing and expanding community.
- The ICS points could be used to determine the seeding in the end of year competition.
- The award show will stay, possibly renamed.

TAFI
- How far will TAFI integration go? Will the contests become TAFI contests to adapt a TAFI brand or will TAFI remain a separate entity from the ICS and WDWMagic Imagineering forums?
- It's pedantic to differentiate the two. They are pretty much the same.

Discussion Needed
- New elections after agreement made?
- Will Tier One and Tier Two contests still be separated?
- Judge and Host regulations/agreement?
- How involved will the Conversationalists be in making sure contests run smoothly?

 

[DSquared]

Also for elections, each voter gets 1 vote and can't see the results

Still adding to my plan, there won't be 2 tiers of comps, only 1.

 

[englanddg]

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.

 

[Flippin'Flounder]

Why don't we have comps start one after the other? The week of sign-ups should be during the last week of the previous comp, which would give an extra 4 weeks a year.

 

[englanddg]

Why don't we have comps start one after the other? The week of sign-ups should be during the last week of the previous comp, which would give an extra 4 weeks a year.

Thats what we had suggested for next year. That exactly

It doesnt buy you an extra four weeks when you slam in 4 8-12 week comps into the year. Go read RMs post with the proposed schedule. It is earlier in this thread. Id post a link but I am on my phone.

 

[Flippin'Flounder]

Thats what we had suggested for next year. That exactly.

Oh, I should probably pay more attention...

 

[englanddg]

Still adding to my plan, there won't be 2 tiers of comps, only 1.

The issue with this becomes balancing the number of people who indicate they want to run comps and time.

We can play with an abstract schedule all day long, and come up with ideas that are unique to try and be fair for all, but we are still constrained by the calender.

 

[Zweiland]

Aside from tweaks here and there, everything Im seeing isnt really that much of a change.

It's not supposed to be, because not much needs to be changed. Most of the drama could have been prevented. The fact is, it wasn't, so we need to look past that now and tweak what needs to be.

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.

Agreed. But what if the first rounds are extremely short, giving way to the longer ones at the end?

 

[Zweiland]

It's a moot point whether we have 5 or 10 conversationalists, or something in between. I'd prefer an odd number to prevent ties, but that's what the Guide was supposed to be for.

 

[englanddg]

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)

 

[englanddg]

It's a moot point whether we have 5 or 10 conversationalists, or something in between. I'd prefer an odd number to prevent ties, but that's what the Guide was supposed to be for.

Id have to go digging, but I am fairly sure the guide was non-voting unless needed to break a tie. In theory, that leaves 9 votes, hard to tie, but it is possible as people disappear for periods and may not be around to vote.

I think one issue we had there was we didnt set a limit/line in the sand before bringing things public for a larger discussion. Meaning, we should have said "order of business for June is the point system for next year...we will vote the last week of june and then create a public thread and link in the town hall where we post various ideas we have, and the community joins in and has their own or tweaks ours in July. End of july the community votes, and the issue is settled.

Something like that.

 

[englanddg]

It's not supposed to be, because not much needs to be changed. Most of the drama could have been prevented. The fact is, it wasn't, so we need to look past that now and tweak what needs to be.

Agreed. But what if the first rounds are extremely short, giving way to the longer ones at the end?

Could work. That said, I am a fan of week long challenges for these complex challenge comps. 4 days is just too much stress to produce and brainstorm quickly and get the project out, even with a team, and in retrospect I think that is some of where the percieved frustration with SA is coming from. Also it helps keep a rhythem.

Week long challenges seem to work better for some reason, only interspirced with shorter ones...

 

[Matt7187]

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 removing my name from the ring for 2016 comps. I'm going to see how it goes later this year first and see if people like it, then I may consider trying for 2017.

 

[englanddg]

Just removing my name from the ring for 2016 comps. I'm going to see how it goes later this year first and see if people like it, then I may consider trying for 2017.

Fair enough. I was just trying to bring to light the number of weeks already being requested, and why we thought of a tier concept in the first place. Even taking you out of that list still leaves more weeks than a year has.

The list is so they can make rational decisions and observations whole completely understanding that if there were a simple solution, odds are it would have already been found. The convos have been having this discussion for months now, and lots of concepts and ideas were thrown onto the table.

So, as they reoganize this as they see fit, they should be aware of WHY it exists as stands.