Ok, as you like. You are the Tournament-Master.
But I don't have the interest of ending up this tournament sooner, if you ask me.

well the main reason is because some of the anti-IvGers (2 to be exact) complained about the thought of playing 6 IvGs against the same person straight.

They both (Pres in the forum and Canaduh in private) agreed that reducing it to 4 games would be a fair enough compromise.

As I understand it there are 3 camps:
IvG or I am not playing
Roxart

IvG cause thats the rules
Guarzo
Devonian

Anything but IvG
President Eden
Canaduh
Gobbledydock

I would be interested in knowing what the final 2 members still in the tournament think about it.

Uh... wow. lol. This is what I get for stirring the shit while being unable to get to a computer.

Quick thought:

"[In] my opinion, this should not be a big issue, if he wants GvI, he should be allowed to play it without all the complaints."

Why shouldn't I get to play the map I want, though? The logic seems to be the same. Make "he" refer to me and change GvI to FvA and it's the same argument. Besides, "This isn't a balanced variant" is a far better argument than "But I like this variant" -- I don't see what's so open-and-shut about the pro-GvI crowd's arguments.

Now then, having recognized what fasces is doing (six games is a best-of-3 series compared to what we were doing before), I rescind my prior complaint and will consent to six games. I will, however, state now that if the rules are not changed for next tournament to make the default map balanced that I will not be participating.

I to, will not be participating. The rules were made before I was aware of how unbalanced IvG was and before 1, the tournament-master, was made aware that the rules were set in stone.

Actually I don't terribly mind GvI, I can play GvI reasonably well, just that I prefer FvA to GvI;.

Plus WHAT ARE THE RULES NOW!!!!

Well, I'm going to create a fourth camp. A camp that stands for something, if not everything. One where every possibility is probably going to potentially happen if things work out like they could. A camp where everyone is singled out equally and discriminately in an unbiased manner.

What was the question?

I think gobbledydook and I are doing two GvI, two AvF and two YtBd

@Pres, regarding your comment "Why shouldn't I get to play the map I want, though? The logic seems to be the same."

You can play the map you want in the next tournament, or on your own. But for this tournament, the rules are what they are. Because of the rules, the logic not the same.

But that's not logic. That's an appeal to an established authority (the rules). It's arbitrary.

Your claim was that RoxArt "should get to play the map he wants." That doesn't say anything about the fact that the map he wants is established by the rules as the default. That just says that RoxArt should get the map he wants. And if the claim becomes that he should get to play the map he wants because the map he wants is established by the rules as the default, then it was never about what he does or doesn't want but about the rules, and ought to have been phrased as such.

And while it might not be (and apparently isn't) the case for others, rules carry zero intrinsic value to me. Rules are as valuable as the rationale backing them. So an appeal to the rules because the rules are the rules doesn't really get anywhere with me.

"Why shouldn't I get to play the map I want, though?"
"Because the map you want to play is neither agreed by your opponent nor the default map".

I hadn't got a favourite 1v1 map as the Tourney started. But, as I read the Rules, I realized I got to train in playing GvI, because the rules said it was the default map and therefore anyone could force me to play it.
My training was the first 3-4 matches, until fasces beated me.

Now looks like some player has just realized he made a mistake. I don't know whether their mistake was:
a) forget to read the Rules
b) underestimate the importance of "default map" Rule
c) not realize that some practice playing the default map was needed
d) thinking they could change the Rule later, complaining
but, whatever, it was THEIR mistake.

I could have played some other map in Round Robin if someone told me "this Rule can change any time" (No, actually, I would have gave up the Tourney. Since the first rule is "rules don't change". Unless because of an UNANIMOUS decision)

Next tournament Rules will be different, probably better. But I'm afraid that some of these player will still be complaining whether he notices he made some mistake in reading/estimate the Rules.

@PE "an appeal to the rules because the rules are the rules doesn't really get anywhere with me."
mmm you got a problem.
Rules are rules because nobody should try to make pressure on the Tournament-Master, in order to change them. Or any silver-tongued-player could join the tourney thinking he can change the rules he doesn't like, as he discovers they don't fit his style of playing. Making no effort to rightly estimate them.

fasces349, 13 Jun 2011: (quoting me, lol)
"Guys, the point is not the unbalancing of maps. It's to change a Rule while the tourney is in progress. This would be the most unfair thing. What if the 2 guys I beated 4-0 come back and say "Hey, I want those games to be restarted with the new rules!" Wouldn't it be right from their point of view? Yes. Would it be fair? No. Because they and I played by the SAME RULES. And we need to keep on playing by the same Rules."
This seems the be the best point as to why we should not change the rules.

******************************************
When you join a competiton you should wonder how you can use the rules for your best, and NOT complaining about the rules if you think they're not fitting for your style.

The rest is just chats. Or maybe good proposals for the NEXT tournament.

Hey hey hey...
My stance has always been 'I prefer FvA but if you insist, I can play the GvI default too'.
Come on PE our conclusion has been that GvI is basically a German landslide, so just draw the 3 sets and win in Duo!

however the rules also were, that the 6 games in the playoffs are on the same map not on 3 different ones.... or am I wrong?
when can we finally start these finals... I'm getting tired of reading pages of complaints here....

"however the rules also were, that the 6 games in the playoffs are on the same map not on 3 different ones.... or am I wrong?"
I don't recall that, but that each 2 had the be the same. So you could be 3 maps or 1 map. but as long as each map you played you played an even number of times.

and I am also tired of these complaints.

The rules are left to how we agreed to them when we started this tournament.

Why are you people incapable of understanding that someone can have a legitimate disagreement about something without attaching some sort of personal argument to it?

I didn't "make a mistake" in all of this. I didn't set GvI as the default map. That was the mistake, because it's imbalanced, WHICH IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF ME SAYING ANYTHING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Nor do I "have a problem" for insisting rules be logical. That someone would even suggest that is disgusting. The default map in a tournament like this should be balanced. It's not. Going "But it's the rules!" does not magically balance the map. Appealing to the rules does nothing -- NOTHING -- to change the fact that the map is imbalanced.

And finally, I am not so arrogant to think I can just walk in and have the rules changed because I don't like them. My argument has been, and always has been, that GvI should not be the default because it is imbalanced. This argument is the logical conclusion of the argument that in a competition of Diplomacy skill the map should not be picking sides as it more or less tends to do (with Germany having a substantial advantage over Italy).

This argument has been met with:

*Character assassinations
*Appeals to an arbitrary rule with no logic defending it (and outright concessions from the tournament director itself that the rule is bad because GvI is imbalanced)
*Insistence that I need to "stop complaining" just because "The rules don't fit my play style" when THE ARGUMENT HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT PLAY STYLES
*Nothing to defend that arbitrary rule

And frankly, I'm sick of it and seriously considering resigning from the tournament. My treatment has been entirely unfair and unwarranted and I see no reason to reward that with my continued participation.

I must draw your attention to the first iterations of the rules we agreed to.

After signing up:
First version: Play a series, first to lead by 2 games wins.
Second version: Best of 5.
Third version, Best of 7.

If even the number of games can be altered multiple times, why may the default map not be altered?

However Guaroz and co do have one point.

The # of games each series was a hotly disputed issue, hence all the changes. However it was decided BEFORE the tournament began.
However before the tournament started only 1 person talked about maps. Roxart claimed that IvG was the most balanced (other then Duo and Lepanto) 1v1 map, and he wouldn't play any other. Nobody spoke out against that.

However pres then midway through the tournament started issuing complaints about the balance of the game...

After looking back in the original thread 2 things came across my mind:
As the tournament was started the play-offs was to be first to lead by 2, it was changed within the first 2 weeks.

President Eden originally advocated for the IvG

i state again im not going to read any more page long posts on this topic! im willing to play other maps in the next tournament, not in this...
now just get over it or we just stop it...

I've got to be honest; I couldn't even tell you the rules, if they've changed or what is even being discussed and/or disputed here. I'm just lining up and playing as it comes. I hope that I've not said anything that has offended you Pres, as that was not my intent. I was just tyring to lighten the mood w/ some inanity.

I am very confused about what we agreed as the original rules for the eliminations. If anyone wants to try to make sense of this:
http://vdiplomacy.com/forum.php?threadID=7992&page-thread=5#threadPager

Looking through the thread(again):

fasces349: the more the merrier I would prefer best of 7 for the quarters and semis and then best of 9 for the finals, but if people think that is to long I am prepared to lower it.

i.e. President Eden has the right to ask for fewer games.

Also, the part where players were assumed to have to come to agreement, or else play IvG, was based on the presumption that we play 2 games in the prelims, in which case you can only play on one map, or in a tennis-style series in the playoffs, in which case it is illogical to play on more than one map.
But since the rules have changed in terms of the playoffs, the method of choosing games must be redefined too. Allowing each player to choose the map for a certain number of games is only fair.

fasces349: During the games the players are allowed to decide which 1 v 1 they play, if they come to agreement then they play that one, if not it will be G v I, as that is the most balanced. (but it may get kinda boring if we have nothing but one map...)

Note: The intent was to prevent boredom, therefore there is that clause between the parentheses. Playing 6 GvI games, is nothing but one map, and is kinda boring, which is against that.

fasces349: "Both games have to be on the same map"
Both, i.e. 2 games. Not 6.

again stop discussing GvI is default either we do that as said or I just quit this now... I'm really tired of discussing about such things for half a year....

fasces349: "Ok fine, only tiebreakers will be Duo, everything else will keep the standard I-G this is just to keep everything consistent..."
This is the final decision (on the other thread), but everything was said in 13 Jun 2011 could be somewhat interesting. The starting point was that it would have been unfair to keep, for the last "odd" game of the serie (7th or 9th), a default map not perfectly balanced (as only Duo or Lepanto are), since in the serie there wouldn't have been a final "even" game with Countries swapped. The players were UNANIMOUS only with this, and

the rest was just either chats or, in several cases, good proposals for the NEXT tournament.

.

However, Gauroz, your quote on me was made 3 and a half weeks after the tournament started...
So if were going by the assumption that the rules cannot be changed midway through tournament then we technically have no defined rules for the play-offs. Since the rules about the players were still being determined AFTER the tournament officially began...

mmm not sure I fully understood what you mean....however, midway through tournament, MAKING a NEW rule (playoffs) because it is missing and there's the need of it, it's quite different than CHANGING an OLD existing rule (default map).
Of couse, it would have been better having a complete rulebook since the start. After this experience, I'm sure we won't miss it next tournament.

"mmm not sure I fully understood what you mean....however, midway through tournament, MAKING a NEW rule (playoffs) because it is missing and there's the need of it, it's quite different than CHANGING an OLD existing rule (default map).
Of couse, it would have been better having a complete rulebook since the start. After this experience, I'm sure we won't miss it next tournament."
agree