Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Suggestion for PTOs: Update round pairings and standings via your website

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why can't an idea be discussed scientifically with plusses and minuses and brainstorming without people getting spanked verbally by the members?

I think we have a couple PTO who are expressing concerns/doubts. Those people are getting caned for expressing their concerns. We have people calling someone names who is actually doing something to implement the idea. This is not the kind of discussion I want to see on the board.

If the OP posts "hey this is a great idea" he/she needs to expect some testing of that idea and that not everyone is going to agree or be all rah rah. If one has to start and argument and get all ad hominem when someone doesn't like the idea, then one is giving the impression it's not a very good idea to begin with... which in this case, is a shame.

Now, quit calling each other names, quit using this topic to further degrade the quality of discussion on this board - discuss the topic, not people's reactions to it.
 
Why can't an idea be discussed scientifically with plusses and minuses and brainstorming without people getting spanked verbally by the members?

I think we have a couple PTO who are expressing concerns/doubts. Those people are getting caned for expressing their concerns. We have people calling someone names who is actually doing something to implement the idea. This is not the kind of discussion I want to see on the board.

If the OP posts "hey this is a great idea" he/she needs to expect some testing of that idea and that not everyone is going to agree or be all rah rah. If one has to start and argument and get all ad hominem when someone doesn't like the idea, then one is giving the impression it's not a very good idea to begin with... which in this case, is a shame.

Now, quit calling each other names, quit using this topic to further degrade the quality of discussion on this board - discuss the topic, not people's reactions to it.

I don't think you're using that logical fallacy correctly.

Just to correct you, bulbasnore, because apparently no one knows what ad hominem actually is, as this is the second time I have had to explain why there are no instances of ad hominem fallacy in this thread. People are being discussed in the context of the manner in which they are providing arguments. No one is refuting their criticisms with ad hominem fallacies. I, and others, are discussing/arguing, and also chastising for how people come off when they talk on here. We are not saying their criticisms are not correct because they are dismissive, we are responding to criticisms and ideas, and in addition to that we are responding to their attitudes and the types of posts they make.





People are getting caned because they consistently display dismissive attitudes and unhelpful remarks, not because they offer constructive criticism. This is not an isolated incident in this thread only, but a divisive nature of many posters on this entire forum, one that has led a large number of people to dislike posting here, or judge it as virtually pointless to discuss things. Do you seriously not wonder why the quality of posts on this forum was so low for so long? In the past few months I've begun to try to post here a little bit more, but it has not been enjoyable.

It comes down to people being more concerned with shooting ideas down than trying to improve them, for the sake of being contrarian and on the side of TPCi (the authority/establishment) regardless of the establishment's rightness or wrongness.

I also think there is obvious bias. I was given an infraction for an abbreviation I used to mimic an abbreviation another poster, the contrarian uses, but he did not receive an infraction (to my knowledge, I asked if he had received an infraction, and no one has responded on that matter. If he did, I'd like to know if it was only after I pointed out the lack of consistency). Just more evidence of the obvious bias being pointed out by members like me, jaeger, psychup, etc.

You all can think that you are fair and unbiased, but you are a minority in that view. We are trying to enlighten you to the attitudes you are displaying, and how they come off as very unhelpful, rude, and dismissive. Think what you want, but know others perceive your attempts at "discussing" quite poorly, and take most comments as blind following and arguing/dismissing for the sake of arguing, never offering anything constructive to say.

Why can't an idea be discussed scientifically with plusses and minuses and brainstorming without people getting spanked verbally by the members?
Great question. What many posters have already gotten at is that some posters CONSISTENTLY only post minuses. They do NOT brainstorm (which is to offer ideas, improvements, suggestions, or construction), and they do not discuss anything scientifically.

So, why can't we have good discussions? Because some people refuse to have them, and offer only minuses, never brainstorm, but just rain, and are completely unscientific (objective in nature). That is why we can't have good discussions here or in any other thread, as they inevitably break down due to some posters consistently having nothing better to do than to be negative and dismissive.
 
Last edited:
Consider that scientific approaches are usually cautious and skeptical.

Also consider that science works by attempting to disprove something. It is about disproving and failing to disprove.

There are many events that people will see no usefulness in a new tool to aid players with find their pairings because those events just are not big enough and do not need any new tool. We like to think this is a big game but this game is still small.

Anyway, consider who your audience is. Who would be interested in this idea? Check out the attendance of the people who are not interested in this idea - does it make sense that they do not see a need for it besides simply maintaining status quo?
 
I think there are two issues here-publicizing how players are doing at the event, and making it easier on players to find their standings/pairings. As for the latter, it might be wise to invest (or borrow one if someone is willing to lend it) in a pico projector that can connect to a computer. It might be difficult to use if the room is too well-lit (the projectors don't have great brightness), but the resolution is typically decent enough that the information would work as long as you could configure something to automatically scroll through the output.
 
People are getting caned because they consistently display dismissive attitudes and unhelpful remarks

First, this discussion is off-topic. The topic is suggesting online pairings. Not correcting people's faults (real or imagined) in the way they post, or tuning them to the level of agreeability to ideas favored by the OP. The OP doesn't own the thread, the community does, within the rules set by the owners of the board.

Second, people are not to get caned and told they are always negative (especially when this point is arguable, but regardless, no caning, whether it is or not). It's ironic that someone who is actually coding to achieve the suggested objective is getting so much flak, but that's beside my point. :lol::nonono:

So, there is no justification for the OP, et cie, to 'cane' anyone for allegedly consistently displaying some ideas, or rational arguments, objectionable to the poster. Staff will handle the modding here. Members can enjoy discussing the topic and watching the triumph of their ideas on their own merit, and not get their backs up if someone seeks to test it or expresses that they don't like the idea, it is a lead balloon, they wouldn't do it, don't advise others to do so, etc.

Threads should stick to topic and discussion should remain civil, even when there are opposite points of view, that's my point. I can say this in this thread because I'm staff. I'm not opening discussion on whether that is right or wrong or inviting debate - that would be off topic. I'm explaining how the board ought to work, and the way this thread will run.

So, posting pairings online or electronically, is I think what we were discussing... further thoughts?
 
I think the legal issues people are bringing up might not even exist to be honest. I think posting pairings online would do great things for the community and it shouldn't be too hard considering TOM already outputs HTML and European TOs have a tool that seems to upload them.
 
I think the legal issues people are bringing up might not even exist to be honest. I think posting pairings online would do great things for the community and it shouldn't be too hard considering TOM already outputs HTML and European TOs have a tool that seems to upload them.

COPPA says no full names for minors without consent. It would not be logistically possible for consent to be obtained by PTO's that easily, if at all.
 
I think there are two issues here-publicizing how players are doing at the event, and making it easier on players to find their standings/pairings.
The former idea has not had much attention due to the thread focusing on communicating pairings to the players at the event.

Are most players really interested in how their friends are doing at events such as 90-player BRs and CCs? If you did not go to those events, it was probably because you did not make it, maybe for work or other activity -related reasons. You usually won't be able to check a website for round-by-round updates in those cases. This might be something more for SCs and up, but text messaging between friends usually accompishes that just as effectively. However, wouldn't it be easier for any player to take a picture of the pairings and then post that online to achieve the end goal of broadcasting round-by-round performance?

There are PTOs who do not want to print multiple pairings sheets. They may have legitimate reasons: the toner is running low, they are low on paper, the printer is slow. One event where the PTO did do multiple pairings sheets, the pairings were so long printing multiple copies and then taping them all together consumed so much time.

The TO of an event takes on many other tasks than just hitting print on a computer. The TO is "customer service," answering spectator questions ranging from "where is table X?" to "my won't my ID link to my account?" The TO manages operations such as organizing deck checks, keeping staff focused, distributing prizes, making sure the event's paperwork and accountability is complete. Even in the Worlds threads where round-by-round coverage is done, there are times when information lags because computer operators are just that busy. Time to log in to the website and upload pairings? :frown: Better to get an overhead projector and put the pairings up on that.

My comments to the OP:

1) Broadcasting performaces: so many smartphones, correct? Some of the best things we see in the game are done by the players: who runs The Top Cut? Who puts together a state-by-state tournament list far superior to what pokemon.com has AND updates it with attendance numbers? Who contributes to the PokeGym Picture Gallery? Who are your judges at events? These are all players. Take a picture and post it to your social media. Link your friends. Don't want to put it on your social media? You don't even need a website, any image host will work.

2) Getting pairings to the players: I agree that pairings need to come out of the stone age. At big events like SCs and RCs with big rooms, having 100+ players crowd 2 sets of pairings consumes time. There's a print-and-tape mentality without much thought for how players actually have to get this information and then bark at the players when they are still crowded around the pairings instead of at the tables. Maybe the answer isn't to go high-tech at all but instead to be smarter about it.
-I don't understand why at so many events Juniors, Seniors, and Masters pairings are all placed side-by-side. Put Masters on one side, Seniors on another, and Juniors in a third place. If one division is concentrated at one section of the room, put that division's pairings closer to that section of the room instead of on the opposite side of the room!
-Perhaps cut it up the pairings so A-L all goes to one side and M-Z goes to another side? Yes, it still splits the players into crowding 2 pairings sheets but it gives them less space to to look/search for their names.
 
COPPA says no full names for minors without consent. It would not be logistically possible for consent to be obtained by PTO's that easily, if at all.
No it doesn't. COPPA says no information on children under the age of 13 may be gathered by a website without permission from the parent. The mere act of gathering the information like names (which every PTO has to do) would already be a violation of COPPA.

In any case, it doesn't address why we couldn't do this for Masters.
 
No it doesn't. COPPA says no information on children under the age of 13 may be gathered by a website without permission from the parent. The mere act of gathering the information like names (which every PTO has to do) would already be a violation of COPPA.

In any case, it doesn't address why we couldn't do this for Masters.

Then there is legislation regarding the posting of last names of minors...there are legal hurdles here, like it or not…
 
Then there is legislation regarding the posting of last names of minors...there are legal hurdles here, like it or not…
Like what legislation? Im not American so you'll have to enlighten me.

I've never heard of anything that says under 18s can't have their names published on the internet.
 
COPPA is targeted to under 13. Minors are under 18. Do you know of something prohibiting publishing the names of 13-17 year olds?

Regardless, stripping the last names from all divisions just keep things consistent IMO. Anyone who has the same first name and last initial can still consult the printed pairings.
 
No it doesn't. COPPA says no information on children under the age of 13 may be gathered by a website without permission from the parent. The mere act of gathering the information like names (which every PTO has to do) would already be a violation of COPPA.

It wouldn't be a violation of COPPA until you turned around and put said information online. Which is why TOs can do it now.

Unless you're running a website, you are not an "operator" under §1302(2). Once you become an operator by publishing the information online, then your gathering must be compliant. This is the subtlety you seem to be missing or ignoring.
 
Yes, but I thought name and birthday were already uploaded to Pokemon.com? From what I understood of COPPA, it is not only the publishing of information on children under 13 that is illegal, but the collection and storage itself. Either way this still doesn't address why we can't do this for Masters.
 
or .... aim a projector at a wall (or use a flat screen) and post pairing up high ... electronically. No print. High visibility. Instead of buying a printer, ink, and paper, you just carry your laptop and a projector ($50 more bucks and you can take a mount-anywhere white board/screen.

Would take 15-20 minutes to hook up at a venue, but imagine a posting where everyone would simply look up from their tables to view pairings... lol

This solution would not violate any issues with personal information (minors or adults).
 
or .... aim a projector at a wall (or use a flat screen) and post pairing up high ... electronically. No print. High visibility. Instead of buying a printer, ink, and paper, you just carry your laptop and a projector ($50 more bucks and you can take a mount-anywhere white board/screen.

Would take 15-20 minutes to hook up at a venue, but imagine a posting where everyone would simply look up from their tables to view pairings... lol

This solution would not violate any issues with personal information (minors or adults).

Only if it fit on a single screen without any scrolling. You would have to shrink the heck out of the fonts.

And sorry, call me cheap if you want, but I'm not shelling out the money for a projector, forget one powerful enough to display as large/bright an image as would be required.
 
The projector option might not be practical in all circumstances, but it might be workable in some cases. As I noted in a previous post, a pico projector (relatively inexpensive but not cheap) might work as a solution in some cases.

Something that might work as an enhancement to the software would be an option to split pages on a specific letter (first names a-f, page break, g-m on another, etc.). That way the pairings can be predictably split so people know where to look. It might be harder on people with multiple people they're interested in, and it wouldn't help with standings, but it might help.
 
Our local distributor in Germany has tested an application for this at our last nationals. I personally didn't use it since I don't have smartphone, but it seemed quite promising.

afaik there weren't complete pairing lists, but you could search for a name and see the results and current pairing. That way, no names are directly published on the internet, while players can easily find their pairing and friends/parents/fans who aren't at the tournament (yes, my mother used this at our Nationals to check my score from home :thumb:) can see how a certain player is doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top