Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't understand your comment, Darth. I think MVBrandt treated this on a "case-by-case basis", and explained how he dealt with this particular case.

Some tourneys have a hard and fast rule, such as if an army list has an error, it's an automatic DQ, and the person's opponents get the wins. However, in a bracket system like NOVA, you can't retroactively do that- the losers were already playing the losers bracket.

I thought he responded to your concerns, and asking others not to flame is not "stifling conversation"... not sure where the anger is coming from here...

and now we have full disclosure. congrats, thats how you should have handled it in the first place instead of trying to sweep it under the rug. there wouldn't be any "venom" (i don't have any, just concerns as to how it was addressed) if you had been as open and honest regarding this problem as you were with the planning and promoting of the event, i would have posted suggestions on how to avoid the problem (like i did in the adepticon thread BEFORE finding out about this) instead of trying to find out why its been ignored. a single post in the comments section of an article on one blog doesn't reach many people.

you're not running a small con tourney for 8 attendees. you're billing it (and rightfully so) as one of the premiere 40k independant tournies. if there's a problem, it needs to be dealt with both honestly AND with the appearance of propriety. you seem to have done the former but secrecy fails when dealing with the later. if YOU as the TO don't deal with it publicly, then all we have to go one are blog comment blurbs and forum posts like "local wins major 40k tourney with illegal list with no consequence." its 100% true but doesn't give the whole story, does it?

Darth: I'm not sure how they betray me. I was not targeting anyone in particular. Certainly not the organizer of a former .. Gladiator, was it? Early Adepticon history or so? I gather there were several hundred people undoubtedly that you managed.


Passive/Aggressive? Really? You would rather I urge people on toward petty forum drama? Is that your game?

Your every comment is rife with barely contained aggression and negativity, with trite commentary thrown in for fun, what's your goal here? I have no personal feelings for an underage participant here; beyond knowing who he is ... but I'm fairly familiar and friendly now with almost everyone who attended the Open ... as I would hope any organizer would be.

Implications of collusion/conspiracy/corruption based upon perceived "feelings" for someone is as low as it gets, and is as passive aggressive as it gets.

You're being a child. You can join the wide variety of people who speak constructively and with positivity toward improving events and establishing things such as protocol at any point; right now you're wallowing in negativity, and it's that very attitude that belongs ... well, not in my realm of concern.



That said, if you see my encouragement of people NOT to "fight" about a result on a forum as "passive aggressive," so be it ... shall we let the record show that's what you desire?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warboss wrote:and now we have full disclosure. congrats, thats how you should have handled it in the first place instead of trying to sweep it under the rug. there wouldn't be any "venom" (i don't have any, just concerns as to how it was addressed) if you had been as open and honest regarding this problem as you were with the planning and promoting of the event, i would have posted suggestions on how to avoid the problem (like i did in the adepticon thread BEFORE finding out about this) instead of trying to find out why its been ignored. a single post in the comments section of an article on one blog doesn't reach many people.

you're not running a small con tourney for 8 attendees. you're billing it (and rightfully so) as one of the premiere 40k independant tournies. if there's a problem, it needs to be dealt with both honestly AND with the appearance of propriety. you seem to have done the former but secrecy fails when dealing with the later. if YOU as the TO don't deal with it publicly, then all we have to go one are blog comment blurbs and forum posts like "local wins major 40k tourney with illegal list with no consequence." its 100% true but doesn't give the whole story, does it?

Perhaps I should have disclosed every managing of the event to the world. That said, sweep it under the rug? Really?

Structuring your words on the internet is important; it's all there is - there's no personality, no tone, no anything. Speaking from a condescending point of view toward someone who not only did not "hide" anything, but took the blame upon himself in all regards, after spending hundreds of hours preparing for and putting on as high quality a tournament as his resources enabled ... will not typically accomplish any kind of goal of goodwill. While I don't particularly mind, and have no interest in a flamewar, you probably could have accomplished the same goal of whatever you sought WITHOUT causing me to have a somewhat negative view of you in result. We all make our mistakes.

Whatever faults I committed or imperfections in running this toy soldier tournament, they are mine to bear. Why commit the fault of speaking callously to another human being on the internet needlessly? Beyond me.

Come on guys. This is starting to get out of hand.

I don't see what Darth or warboss is saying that is that awefull or childish. I think it should be taken for what it is, and that is constructive critique. I.E. I think they are truly trying to be helpfull.

One thing that could come out of this is some way of standardizing lists before the event.

For example, a suggestion that might help is to have all lists turned in, at least 2 weeks before event. In which case the TO's will check the lists for legality. During the tourney the TO's are the ones that have printed out the lists (possibly color coded) for each round. That way, players are assured that lists have been checked by the TO's and have had the TO's stamp of approval. (I'm aware that TO's can make mistakes as well, but so do refs in football and basketball).

The above paragraph was intended as a an example of a starting point for discussion not the be all end all solution.

GG

It's a good idea, but sounds like it would be a logistical nightmare and/or take an army of volunteers to accomplish. I also think it was considered as an option beforehand, but they decided not to go with this approach.

Correct me if I'm wrong, here! Also, cheers for the well-reasoned and worded response.

RiTides wrote:It's a good idea, but sounds like it would be a logistical nightmare and/or take an army of volunteers to accomplish. I also think it was considered as an option beforehand, but they decided not to go with this approach.

Correct me if I'm wrong, here! Also, cheers for the well-reasoned and worded response.

I don't really think it would take that long. Lets say you had 120 entries. If you had 6 TO's, that's 20 lists each. Those could be reviewed over a few hours on a weekend or after work. The cost of printing the colored lists would be added to the tourney entry fee. The use of colored lists is to prevent the suggestion that some trickster could slip their own list in. Or by just using a custom tourney stamp on the list could prevent that as well.

If someone turns in an illegal list and it gets caught during the pre-screening process, the TO's would send it back for correction and if it is sent back with errors again.... than you start deducting points for each successive illegal list entry....or you just DQ them from participating in the tourney after so many attempts.

If an illegal list still makes it through after all of that...well then you start questioning attending that particular tourney in the first place.

GG

I disagree with MVBrandt's ruling. An illegal list is just that, an illegal list. Tournaments have a points limit for a reason.

If I'm in Nascar and I bring too big of an engine I get DQed or take a big points hit, even if I've lapped the field 12 times and could win without the extra big engine. No matter what age I am.

If I'm a golfer at a PGA tour event and I put 1 too many clubs in my bag I'm DQed. Even if I never pull out the extra club I'm still DQed.

If we want 40k tournaments to be taken seriously as a competitive tournament environment then there need to be consequences for playing an illegal list, just like there would be consequences for playing with loaded dice, even if the player doesn't know they are loaded. As it stands, there are not consequences for breaking the rules.

I disagree with MVBrandt's ruling. An illegal list is just that, an illegal list. Tournaments have a points limit for a reason.

40k has a rulebook for a reason. If someone forgets to take a leadership test at the end of the shooting phase should they likewise be disqualified? Where you draw the line between which rules oversights are serious enough to merit a DQ is entirely arbitrary.

If there's no tone or personality conveyed by writing on the Internet, how can you tell if someone is being condescending or not?

MVBrandt wrote:Ultimately, it's my bad. QC missed it (Grogg - there was a backroom list check done during the day - the check on sign-in was just to mark each page with a colored marker to prevent list swap), so did I, so did Tony, so did all of Tony's opponents (until post-event), etc.

I've decided to send my response directly to MVBrandt have that conversation in private.

As a results, I'm pulling my response to this thread (in an effort to foster something positive). Needless to say, I don't think that MVB made the right call but I recognize and respect that it was his call to make.

mkerr

Considering the biggest thing that can happen in a magic tournament with an incorrect deck registration sheet a game loss is the correction of the list and a game loss I think a DQ for being a few points over is pretty silly.

I think what we can take from this is that the tourney was awesome, and that even after the three points over to the list that won, the TO has handled the matter in the way he has thought would be best.

Now some people may not like his decision(s), which is fine, but once he has finalized his decision, then it should stand. The winning player and the TO have both attempted to contribute to resolving this situation, and after consulting the other winners of the tournament, they appear to be fine with the result. So in short from what MVPBrandt has done here in this thread ALONE, nonewithstanding coverage from other venues of the internet where he had to put forth the situation to other communities at large:

Stated he was at fault.
Stated Tony (tourney winner) came foward to give back his prize.
Consulted with other Tournament winners; many of whom declined to restructure the prizes and the standings.
Restated his fault.
Chalking this one up to a failure that wil be corrected in the future.

And then...

Has to endure the slings and arrows of people who now want to criticize his conduct in the matter.
Respond to those criticisms.
Continue to have to respond to the more negative criticisms for their implied venom-

-Even after he considers himself at fault.

People will not like that decision.

It stands however.

If you don't like the decision, do not endorse future venues run by him. He has done all he could to correct the situation without himself being a jerk.

My summary:
He took credit for both the error.
Tried to rectify it.
Nothing happened.
People got pissed.
Criticism.
Counter criticism.
Decision still stands as is.
Live with it.
Or not and repeat from the criticism step.

So let's get this straight in my mind;

1) The winner used an illegal list right? That bit isn't up for debate right? 3 extra points make it illegal.

2) The kid noticed his error before others and offerred his prizes up? That isn't up for debate right?

3) The TO decided to let him keep his prize despite the fact it was an illegal list?

Well the mistake was 3). There is no way the TO should have allowed an illegal list to win. That is pure stupidity. Lets contrast it with the recent story of a 16 year old who won a PGA tournie shall we. He realized he had an extra club in his bag, not his, put there by a friend to carry. Still illegal. He rings PGA to admit to error and DQ's himself and the PGA accepts. Quite rightly, he broke the rules and accidently carried an extra club.

Yes, the TO was at fault but who cares. It was an illegal list. End of story. TO should have accepted the offer and not to and maintain the integrity of the tournie win is intact is just illogical.

Sounds like the kid is an awesome player and great to play against. 16 and took on many good players and won. However, simple fact is his list was illegal and his wins don't count. There is no other sport where this is acceptable - doesn't matter what other players think. Time to put an asterix next to this tournie win I think.

Who cares?

It's a game.

It was 3 points.

It's not NASCAR, PGA, NFL, FBI, or BYOB....its toy friggin' soldiers.

Get over yourselves.

Also, can we stop referring to this player as "the Kid" , "the 16yo", "the black guy", or "the Jew"...he's a player, not an ism. Thank you, drive thru.

You guys are nutz.

So the winners were alright with losing to an illegal list? What about all the poor schmucks with 1998 point lists who went 2 and 2 the first day? Are they alright with it?

Frankly, there's a lot of laziness when it comes to dealing with logistics. Point totals and FOC adherence are rudimentary. There are easy ways to catch this (pre-submission; army builder, etc.) but people don't seem able for the hardship.

fullheadofhair wrote:Well the mistake was 3). There is no way the TO should have allowed an illegal list to win. That is pure stupidity. Lets contrast it with the recent story of a 16 year old who won a PGA tournie shall we. He realized he had an extra club in his bag, not his, put there by a friend to carry. Still illegal. He rings PGA to admit to error and DQ's himself and the PGA accepts. Quite rightly, he broke the rules and accidently carried an extra club.

This is exactly what I immediately thought of.

For those who are unaware: http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/blog/devil_ball_golf/post/What-would-you-do-teen-golfer-disqualifies-self?urn=golf-267228

Now, it's easy to go and tee off -- pun very much intended -- on golf's drop-the-hammer rules, on Wood for bringing the extra club to Nash's attention, or to Nash himself for failing to count the club. But all that misses the point. This is a story about honesty and doing what's right, even when what's right makes zero logical sense. Sure, Nash could have rationalized away keeping an extra club, but where's the honor in that?

The kid in this story won, He beat everyone with skill. He made an honest mistake. Everyone admits he outplayed them. He didn't use the extra club and it had no impact on his gameplay. But yet, thems the rules, at at some point, this is not people's court where just because he is a nice kid and the players he beat acknowledge his skill and accomplishment doesn't make it alright.

Now this whole 'DQ' thing, if NOVA didn't have that as a rule, then I am not sure that this year anything more should be done this year. The only thing worse that doing a gutcheck ruling on something like this is not having a rule to handle the situation upfront. If people know that the result of an illegal list is DQ or game loss or WHATEVER, then there is no internet discussion and no questioning of the TO's actions. It was part of the terms of the event and that is that.

Listchecking outs the owness on the TO.
DQ rule puts the owness on the player.

In a perfect world we would have both but if an event can't do the logistics to have people lock-in lists ahead of time or do onsite verification, then the only way to proceed is to have players verify thier own lists are legal and DQ, and if it is, accept disqualification... not 'disqualified only if the error directly impacted games or if your games were close, and if you were honest about the mistake and didn't intentionally use it to your advantage'.

generalgrog wrote:One thing that could come out of this is some way of standardizing lists before the event.

For example, a suggestion that might help is to have all lists turned in, at least 2 weeks before event. In which case the TO's will check the lists for legality. During the tourney the TO's are the ones that have printed out the lists (possibly color coded) for each round. That way, players are assured that lists have been checked by the TO's and have had the TO's stamp of approval. (I'm aware that TO's can make mistakes as well, but so do refs in football and basketball).

RiTides wrote:It's a good idea, but sounds like it would be a logistical nightmare and/or take an army of volunteers to accomplish. I also think it was considered as an option beforehand, but they decided not to go with this approach.

Correct me if I'm wrong, here! Also, cheers for the well-reasoned and worded response.

Just want to point out in the UK, we tend to have people sending lists in a couple of weeks before the event (as well as a cut off date when a new codex/army book can be used) and it's generally a common thing here. It does take a few people to go through the lists but seeing how you tend to have a few TO's plus helpers it can be done.

The story that getting missed is the dominate showing for the SW lists.

I've been getting bit by pups ever since that codex was released in my area.

Deadshane1 wrote:Who cares?

It's a game.

It was 3 points.

It's not NASCAR, PGA, NFL, FBI, or BYOB....its toy friggin' soldiers.

Get over yourselves.

Also, can we stop referring to this player as "the Kid" , "the 16yo", "the black guy", or "the Jew"...he's a player, not an ism. Thank you, drive thru.

You guys are nutz.

Posts like this, completely miss the point.

Yes it's toy soldiers. Yes it's "Just a game".

However, people paid a lot of money on plane tickets, hotel rooms and entry fees to play with their toy soldiers and play the tourney. So they have a right to be a bit upset. However you would like to trivialize the matter.

GG

I'm shocked that this happened. I'm on the side of it being a matter of fairness and following the rules, the list should have been DQed before the tournament but since it somehow made it into the "Gold Standard" of competitive tournaments it should be DQed now. It's really a shame that such a great event, so well planned and executed, should be tarnished by something so easy to check. 100's of playtesters for the missions but not enough people to just add up the lists before the tournament? Like I said, I'm shocked that this could even happen at this event and in my mind he should be DQed and prizes/glory distributed to those who had legal lists.

Byte wrote:The story that getting missed is the dominate showing for the SW lists.

I've been getting bit by pups ever since that codex was released in my area.

Yeah....Space Wolves is clearly off the hook. When Dark Eldar come out in two months, I expect my new codex to eat baby wolves for breakfast, feast on grey hunter innards for lunch, and the new Crucible of Malediction to make Rune Priests roll their leadership checks on 4d6 or be removed from play.

Hey! Dash has the same pre-realese version I do!

generalgrog wrote:
However, people paid a lot of money on plane tickets, hotel rooms and entry fees to play with their toy soldiers and play the tourney. So they have a right to be a bit upset. However you would like to trivialize the matter.

GG

The problem you run into is that by and large the biggest number of critics of the decision made did not do any of that. And many of the loudest critics of the event seem (at least from my own perspective) to have a disingenuous motive in said criticism. When pretty much everyone in the thread that actually attended the event has posted to say that it wasn't a big deal to them, I don't know why the discussion continues to center on "NO WE DEMAND THE INTERNETS MAKE IT A BIG DEAL!"

I don't know any of the players or staff involved personally, but I respect the hard work that Mike and his staff put into pulling all of this off. I respect that he's found a good balance between the hobby player and the competitive one that also includes EVERYONE in between.

derek wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
However, people paid a lot of money on plane tickets, hotel rooms and entry fees to play with their toy soldiers and play the tourney. So they have a right to be a bit upset. However you would like to trivialize the matter.

GG

The problem you run into is that by and large the biggest number of critics of the decision made did not do any of that. And many of the loudest critics of the event seem (at least from my own perspective) to have a disingenuous motive in said criticism. When pretty much everyone in the thread that actually attended the event has posted to say that it wasn't a big deal to them, I don't know why the discussion continues to center on "NO WE DEMAND THE INTERNETS MAKE IT A BIG DEAL!"

I don't know any of the players or staff involved personally, but I respect the hard work that Mike and his staff put into pulling all of this off. I respect that he's found a good balance between the hobby player and the competitive one that also includes EVERYONE in between.

Again stuff like this "I don't know why the discussion continues to center on "NO WE DEMAND THE INTERNETS MAKE IT A BIG DEAL!"

This is the problem. Just because some people criticize, and I believe deservedly so, doesn't automatically mean that it's internet drama. Mike has manned up and accepted that it was a mistake. The only drama I see are the people that are jumping in calling any critic a child/immature / "OMG I can't believe you are even daring to criticize the "Premier Event Evar"

It's more than just the one list that won the thing. It calls into question how thorough the list review process was in the first place. How many other lists were over? Were any of the 4 people I played against over? I doubt it, but it opens the can.

All I'm asking is that they do better next year. And Mike has said he will do better. That's all I need.

GG

Just because some people criticize, and I believe deservedly so, doesn't automatically mean that it's internet drama.

It's internet drama because it exists *gasp* solely on the internet. Notice that none of the people who actually attended the event have voiced complaints on how the issue has been handled.

Danny Internets wrote:

Just because some people criticize, and I believe deservedly so, doesn't automatically mean that it's internet drama.

It's internet drama because it exists *gasp* solely on the internet. Notice that none of the people who actually attended the event have voiced complaints on how the issue has been handled.

Because of the internet things are more accessible and more opinions are added than normal. A forum just offers the opportunity to be smart or as dumb as you like to a wider audience - you of all people should know that. A discussion on whether or not the decision made by a TO is not "drama" - it is a discussion. Points are made, some more worthy than others, and counters offerred. To try and reduce it to "internet drama" makes you just as bad as the idiots that use excessive hyperbole to ruin a discussion in the first place.

And while I am at it, do you think the PGA took into account the feelings of the attendees or cared whether or not the voice complaints as to how it was handled. An illegal list won, whether by accident or design. It is as simple as that. It is the players fault he was over the point limit but the point of list checking is to prevent that and to help the player - often in many other sports there is a check prior starting to make sure everything is fair.

Like I said, kudos to the kid for checking and owning up to it. Huge doses of respect to that - really admire it. I wonder how many others would have done it.

And as to Deadshane - drank a bit too deeply out of the fountain of self righeousness this morning?

Today I learned: what the internet is. Thanks!

generalgrog seemed perplexed as to why this is being referred to as "internet drama." Regardless of whether or not the situation merits discussion, the fact that the only people making a stink about it are from the internet rather than from the event earns it this particular moniker. It's not a judgment--it is merely an accurate description.

Additionally, I think derek hit the nail on the head with his remark about the criticism being disingenuous. The people who disapproved of the format of the event seem to be overly represented in most places criticizing the handling of the 3 points issue. This is probably not a coincidence.

(Edits: typos)

Dashofpepper wrote:warboss....

You may have missed the part where all his prizes were offered up to the "potentially wronged" people, who declined them.

who specifically was offered his prizes in consolation? people running for first? people who played him at all?

Mafty wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:warboss....

You may have missed the part where all his prizes were offered up to the "potentially wronged" people, who declined them.

who specifically was offered his prizes in consolation? people running for first? people who played him at all?

You may wish to scroll up the page.

Danny Internets wrote:Today I learned: what the internet is. Thanks!

Awefully glad I could be of assistance/

generalgrog seemed perplexed as to why this is being referred to as "internet drama." Regardless of whether or not the situation merits discussion, the fact that the only people making a stink about it are from the internet rather than from the event earns it this particular moniker. It's not a judgment--it is merely an accurate description.

Additionally, I think derek hit the nail on the head with his remark about the criticism being disingenuous. The people who disapproved of the format of the event seem to be overly represented in most places criticizing the handling of the 3 points issue. This is probably not a coincidence.

(Edits: typos)

Funny. Not what I get from it. From what I have read in this and others comments in different threads and forums is many people seemed to really enjoy the tournie and the format and even those who didn't go like the idea. I do. Criticism at one particular issue doesn't mean criticism at the whole point - that's politics and not debating. However, with this many people reading it there are always going to be people who dislike the format.

I also like how you call it "3 point issue" as opposed to "illegal list". A career in politics awaits you.

By far the funiest thing for me in this thread is the fact that so-called hard core tournie WAAC players (btw, I do not agree with that label) are the forgiving ones.

It doesn't matter where the criticism is coming from - you present a national tournie and advertise it via the internet you are going to get national criticism. Do I need to remind you what the internet is again coz I thought you said you learnt it?

The simple fact is an illegal list won the tournie. It shouldn't have. When found outafterwards it should have been DQ'ed just like any other competitive sport and it certainly isn't up to the other players - they are irrelevent just as they would be if it was another sport. How can what is trying to be a recognized national event and the gold standard (which it sounds like it qas extremely close to being) allow an illegal list to win?

In the golf example many have used the 16 yearold wasn't DQ for the extra club. He was DQ because there is a penalty at each hole for having an illegal number of clubs. By then declaring an wrong score it became an DQ'ing offense. But again, do you think the other players opinion counted in the decision - infact one of the said he was totally outclassed and the additional club had no bearing.