how much of that '20 minutes' between rounds is the time it takes players to be seated?
'mom
'mom
Where's the love?
- Thread starter PokeDad
- Start date
- Status
NoPoke
Active Member
Drew
1st I agree that the between rounds stuff is a problem. I would disagree with you if I thought you were implying that tournament staff were not sensitive to the between rounds time and doing everything they can to resolve it. I don't believe you are though I could read your post that way. Staff do everything they can to minimise the between rounds time. It isn't always enough
Fast laser printers plus slow taping vs a slow continuous feed printer? Which one is better?? fast continuous feed printers cost a fortune. (thousands)
2nd: If complexity is allowed then how? Slow Play is already a somewhat subjective call and to fix it by making it more subjective doesn't seem likely to work. Surely the last thing you want is any judge deciding when you should make a play because they have decided how they would play your hand at that moment? That is the part I don't get about the appeal to complexity as a defence.
1st I agree that the between rounds stuff is a problem. I would disagree with you if I thought you were implying that tournament staff were not sensitive to the between rounds time and doing everything they can to resolve it. I don't believe you are though I could read your post that way. Staff do everything they can to minimise the between rounds time. It isn't always enough
Fast laser printers plus slow taping vs a slow continuous feed printer? Which one is better?? fast continuous feed printers cost a fortune. (thousands)
2nd: If complexity is allowed then how? Slow Play is already a somewhat subjective call and to fix it by making it more subjective doesn't seem likely to work. Surely the last thing you want is any judge deciding when you should make a play because they have decided how they would play your hand at that moment? That is the part I don't get about the appeal to complexity as a defence.
ryanvergel
New Member
lol, you can change the settings on your keyboard to influence how fast it repeats itself and how long it takes to start repeating...
Jeremy Badeaux
New Member
With regards to my more recent posts in this topic, please keep in mind that I can't stand the, "circle the wagons" mentality every time somebody has a complaint about staff (no matter how valid). lol
If you consider that the staff can punch in the winners/losers for every match that has been reported prior to the end of the round, but they can't have the program pair the matches for the next round until everything is in, and then they still get to print up match slips for every match (no small task at something like Nats) and they still have to post the pairings and allow enough time for the players to be seated. . . 20 minutes isn't that insane.
Don't forget that the staff normally has some type of time limit (a rented venue is only rented for a certain amount of time) that players normally aren't even aware of.
Like I said, organized chaos.
Good judges/PTOs make an art out of running an event and if the biggest complaint that anybody has is that there was about 20 minutes between rounds, it was a good day and you had good staff.
Of course, none of that excuses bad judges from being bad judges, but you need to understand that staff at big events don't just sit at a table wearing powdered wigs, talking about the vertical jump of Clefairy.
Drew Holton
New Member
Thanks for the constructive comments NoPoke.
This will be my last comment on the round time. While any big changes will probably cost a lot of money, POP clearly has some sort of budget for big expenses if they have two huge inflatable Pikachus. A good printer, while costing a lot would last for some time and perhaps streamline the event a lot more. Of course regular printers would need to be available in case something did go wrong. Anyways, thats my last comment on that sort of thing.
I believe that in a complex situation a player should be able to explain their train of thought clearly to the judge in order to justify their moves. A player will generally have several plans when carrying out a play, such as specific cards they are looking for when searching the deck, and if a judge thinks they are playing too slow, the player should be able to clearly explain their thought process. Simple aimless looking through decks/discards would be identifiable when the player is unable to explain their moves. I realize that a player might not be able to explain their moves with the opponent around so perhaps they could be pulled aside for a minute or two. A judge would then be able to decide whether the move warranted the amount of time that it was taking. (Edit: This would also be more of a 15+ thing I imagine since younger kids might not be able to explain clearly)
Additionally, the slow play penalties as they are, are way to harsh. A prize penalty is crazy in my opinion. There should be several warnings and a clear explanation that the next penalty is going to be a prize or game loss penalty when it gets to that point.
This will be my last comment on the round time. While any big changes will probably cost a lot of money, POP clearly has some sort of budget for big expenses if they have two huge inflatable Pikachus. A good printer, while costing a lot would last for some time and perhaps streamline the event a lot more. Of course regular printers would need to be available in case something did go wrong. Anyways, thats my last comment on that sort of thing.
I believe that in a complex situation a player should be able to explain their train of thought clearly to the judge in order to justify their moves. A player will generally have several plans when carrying out a play, such as specific cards they are looking for when searching the deck, and if a judge thinks they are playing too slow, the player should be able to clearly explain their thought process. Simple aimless looking through decks/discards would be identifiable when the player is unable to explain their moves. I realize that a player might not be able to explain their moves with the opponent around so perhaps they could be pulled aside for a minute or two. A judge would then be able to decide whether the move warranted the amount of time that it was taking. (Edit: This would also be more of a 15+ thing I imagine since younger kids might not be able to explain clearly)
Additionally, the slow play penalties as they are, are way to harsh. A prize penalty is crazy in my opinion. There should be several warnings and a clear explanation that the next penalty is going to be a prize or game loss penalty when it gets to that point.
NoPoke
Active Member
Drew its $10,000 for an entry level model . POP would need more than one. Those big inflatables look good value compared to fast continuous laser printers that are only used a couple of times a year I would complain bitterly if POP spent that kind of money on printers or if they spent $100,000 on a good one.
PL is the next step up from a warning. As it is the first penalty that really bites it should never be given lightly. But that isn't an arguement that it should never be given. Of course I don't know the specifics of your situation so please don't read this an attack on you when it isn't. I'm still taking in general: warnings can escalate into PL.
I would complain bitterly if POP spent that kind of money on printers or if they spent $100,000 on a good one.PL is the next step up from a warning. As it is the first penalty that really bites it should never be given lightly. But that isn't an arguement that it should never be given. Of course I don't know the specifics of your situation so please don't read this an attack on you when it isn't. I'm still taking in general: warnings can escalate into PL.
ryanvergel
New Member
Drew its $10,000 for an entry level model . POP would need more than one. Those big inflatables look good value compared to fast continuous laser printers that are only used a couple of times a year
PL is the next step up from a warning. As it is the first penalty that really bites it should never be given lightly. But that isn't an arguement that it should never be given. Of course I don't know the specifics of your situation so please don't read this an attack on you when it isn't. I'm still taking in general: warnings can escalate into PL.
there are a lot of ways to reduce time/costs, IMO.
instead of printing on 8.5*11, use 8.5*14 (legal)?
why is it 10k for a good printer? what kinds of printers do they have now?
i could buy a a few COPIERS for 10k- where are you getting this info from?
my pops owns a ups store, and im working at one on campus that does ridiculous print jobs. 10,000 dollars is a lot and i dont quite believe that you would need to drop that at all. its printing black and white- a standard hundred dollar computer printer already does about 25ppm- so how long does it take to print off the rosters and walk over to the posters and physically hang them?we don't need 100+ppm if we are printing off 6-10 pages at a time. the speed of the printer is nothing. the 45 seconds it takes to tape the pieces of paper together are nothing.
seriously, how hard is it to print off like 6 or 7 pages and tape them together? the long amounts of time between rounds should have nothing to do with printers or hanging anything up.
in total, with a printer for each age division, the printing should take 1 minute total. print them, in order, tape them. 60 seconds to do. for a thousand bucks you could buy 12 printers and have 6 for masters, 3 for the lower divisions each, and there should be NO PROBLEM printing off really fast. to say it would cost like 10,000 to really speed up the printing process doesn't seem right at all. it neglects basic distribution of tasks. creates a much harder to achieve solution than needed.
Ok, I'll preface this simply: I read the original post, and the first page of responses. I'm not going to pick apart and address specific citations throughout the thread, and try and address the main topic at hand, so if what I am saying is a bit redundant due to what others have already added, I apologize.
First, from having experience both as a player at events, and from working with judges at a variety of levels of events, I can note there is a VAST range of quality amongst judges. There are a number of great judges, and there are a number who I really would not want interfering in my games. I feel this differing in quality is alright at Battle Roads, and City Championships, and even States to a degree, as judges need to start somewhere, and get experience. Very few people can just jump in and be a great judge, they have to get their experience somewhere. I do not feel Nationals is one of those places. I've seen at least a few people at Nationals this year who I felt were far from the best choices to be judging the event. I also saw a good number of great choices.
Sadly, there is no excuse for " subpar judges" at a National level event. I feel that a lot of the staff choicing stems from seniority opposed to how up to date and in practice a judge is within the game currently. The game has really evolved in the past few years. As a result, so have the demands on judging. Let me go on a slight tangent now:
Turns take significantly longer than they did 3 years ago. The problem we are facing lies not in that a majority of players are simply "playing slow", it is simply that the game has evolved into such a complex series of decisions that the 40 minute time cap for a game is simply not realistic. In playtesting, an SP mirror match, with roughly even starts, played between two very good players, can take close to 2 hours to play "to the best of their ability". I understand that time constraints are a necessity, and therefore players have to play faster than desired to compensate. The fact of the matter is this: At a tournament, players are not playing at a "standard pace". They are rushing. To fit a game in 40 minutes, a close game, is requiring players to play outside of their comfort zone. When a very tough situation occurs, due to the stakes of these tournaments, it is completely understandable for players to revert to actually needing to put their full thought into decisions, not using their hasted pace that the time limits enforce. If you have 1,000 dollars on the line, and a tough decision occurs, do you really expect a player to not put their full thought into a crucial move? And is it justified to then judge that speed according to how fast they are pressured to play during less crucial turns? I'll answer that for you: No.
I think the issue is less with the judges, and more with the guidelines they are told to enforce. The current enforced "approach" to pace of play is terribly outdated, and really needs revamped. Lets analyze another popular "game of skill" for a moment.
Look at Chess as an example. Watch any competitive game, at a high level. Is there anything even remotely resembling a "standard pace of play"? The opening turns are near autopilot: They have practiced specific openings down to a tee. Certain moves are instinct. These moves are near instant. Some require a brief analysis, and then a quick move. Then, you have other turns, where a player will sit for an extended period of time ( longer timed games, as long as hours ) analyzing a game state, and then, that players next X number of moves are already pre-determined, and rapid fire in execution. It is better, strategically, to "think ahead" in a game. Moves are not made " one by one", where a standardized "20 seconds per move" would be appropriate, they are interconnected. In order to correctly choose how to resolve a Cyrus's Conspiracy, you have to plan out the next couple of turns. Do you want to stock up on a second PokeTurn for a few turns from now, or the extra Energy Gain? How about the extra Spray? Which is going to optimize your ability to win. SP decks have the crippling issue that every decision is crucial. Due to the strength of an SP decks game depending on its ability to fluidly replace threats, and the extreme number of resources associated with getting them on line, every turn, every tiny decision becomes far more crucial. It isn't like getting out as many of your stage 2 Pokemon as possible and using your best attacks as possible each turn. The way the decks play are so much more intricate than any deck we've seen in the game before. How a player is "judged" while playing this shouldn't be with the same guidelines as someone using a simpler deck. That isn't to mean that deck choice deserves special priveledges in regards to judging: Its simply re-enforcing that it isn't turn length that should be the primary focus on determining "stalling", but whether a player is actually STALLING. It is a different set of guidelines that needs to be addressed when making the decision as to whether a player is actively thinking and contemplating, or merely eating up time.
Returning to Chess, a game of pure skill and no luck: the approach taken by Chess Masters, and Grand Masters is one where you take a long period to plan a series of turns, then execute them. If you are playing GOOD POKEMON, you are doing the same. The idea that a player should be restricted to a monotonous 20 seconds between every play is completely counter-intuitive to how good in game strategic processes occur. If a player is fortunate enough to be able to rush through a good number of turns on "autopilot", it isn't right to then punish them for actually having to take a long turn.
If neither player has an objection to the play of pace within a game, I firmly believe that a judge has no right to intervene. It has already been stated that it is unreasonable to have judges at every table to watch every game, so it is a necessary evil that Judges have to summarize a scenario based on what they were able to witness. Its a required "margin of error" when dealing with judging decisions. A judge is forced to see a small "snapshot" of the game. I understand this has to be. But if your admitting such handicaps, shouldn't it also be obvious that a players opponent is actually a better judge of how the opponent has been playing? You know, the person who actually has been watching the game the entire time?
If both players are comfortable and experienced in the game, there should not be unneeded judge interjection. This is a much greyer area regarding new players, or those who may be too timid or inexperienced to handle the situation correctly. By the time you are in the top 128 of Nationals though, these types of interference really are not called for. If you have Pooka vs Ness in the finals of a tournament, they are perfectly capable of maintaining their own game.
Having played a lot of tournaments in the past few years, let me point something out: There is less Stalling than the current witch hunt calls for us to believe. A majority of "issues" that get judge attention are not actually a player stalling. I honestly feel that more undeserved penalties have been given than instance of stalling "caught" based on the current guidelines.
This brings me back to the point that, despite the fact that yes, I feel there are some judges who are a bit suspect, that the problem isn't in the judges performance as a whole. Its easy to dwell on the bad decisions ( and yes I feel there have been quite a few ) because those stand out far more than the less impactful " good" decisions. And at that point, it is easy to take those complaints over situations and turn them into a blanket opinion of the staff as a whole.
The issue is the suggested "guidelines" to how to approach judging. I feel this is a scenario of killing the messenger. The problem is the message. While the approach may have worked fine in 2006, the game is vastly different now. The approach is outdated and needs overhauled.
Now, I've addressed my "criticisms" and offered very few "solutions" yet. That is because the solution isn't clear. I do feel it is clear we have a problem. I think that the problem hasn't been addressed due to the fact that both sides involved have turned it into a personal issue: " bad judges" are not the same as " bad guidelines" and clearly, when the people who have the most influence over policy feel like they are being personally attacked, the odds of change coming from it are low. I will try and come up with my ideas for what should be a good change of policy, and post them shortly. Until then, there is some food for thought. I'm headed out with friends to go see fireworks later, but heres another tidbit to look into. Look up the Kotov Syndrome. Then, consider its application to Pokemon, and how the time limit, and the more hawking pressure/presence of judges can impact that.
First, from having experience both as a player at events, and from working with judges at a variety of levels of events, I can note there is a VAST range of quality amongst judges. There are a number of great judges, and there are a number who I really would not want interfering in my games. I feel this differing in quality is alright at Battle Roads, and City Championships, and even States to a degree, as judges need to start somewhere, and get experience. Very few people can just jump in and be a great judge, they have to get their experience somewhere. I do not feel Nationals is one of those places. I've seen at least a few people at Nationals this year who I felt were far from the best choices to be judging the event. I also saw a good number of great choices.
Sadly, there is no excuse for " subpar judges" at a National level event. I feel that a lot of the staff choicing stems from seniority opposed to how up to date and in practice a judge is within the game currently. The game has really evolved in the past few years. As a result, so have the demands on judging. Let me go on a slight tangent now:
Turns take significantly longer than they did 3 years ago. The problem we are facing lies not in that a majority of players are simply "playing slow", it is simply that the game has evolved into such a complex series of decisions that the 40 minute time cap for a game is simply not realistic. In playtesting, an SP mirror match, with roughly even starts, played between two very good players, can take close to 2 hours to play "to the best of their ability". I understand that time constraints are a necessity, and therefore players have to play faster than desired to compensate. The fact of the matter is this: At a tournament, players are not playing at a "standard pace". They are rushing. To fit a game in 40 minutes, a close game, is requiring players to play outside of their comfort zone. When a very tough situation occurs, due to the stakes of these tournaments, it is completely understandable for players to revert to actually needing to put their full thought into decisions, not using their hasted pace that the time limits enforce. If you have 1,000 dollars on the line, and a tough decision occurs, do you really expect a player to not put their full thought into a crucial move? And is it justified to then judge that speed according to how fast they are pressured to play during less crucial turns? I'll answer that for you: No.
I think the issue is less with the judges, and more with the guidelines they are told to enforce. The current enforced "approach" to pace of play is terribly outdated, and really needs revamped. Lets analyze another popular "game of skill" for a moment.
Look at Chess as an example. Watch any competitive game, at a high level. Is there anything even remotely resembling a "standard pace of play"? The opening turns are near autopilot: They have practiced specific openings down to a tee. Certain moves are instinct. These moves are near instant. Some require a brief analysis, and then a quick move. Then, you have other turns, where a player will sit for an extended period of time ( longer timed games, as long as hours ) analyzing a game state, and then, that players next X number of moves are already pre-determined, and rapid fire in execution. It is better, strategically, to "think ahead" in a game. Moves are not made " one by one", where a standardized "20 seconds per move" would be appropriate, they are interconnected. In order to correctly choose how to resolve a Cyrus's Conspiracy, you have to plan out the next couple of turns. Do you want to stock up on a second PokeTurn for a few turns from now, or the extra Energy Gain? How about the extra Spray? Which is going to optimize your ability to win. SP decks have the crippling issue that every decision is crucial. Due to the strength of an SP decks game depending on its ability to fluidly replace threats, and the extreme number of resources associated with getting them on line, every turn, every tiny decision becomes far more crucial. It isn't like getting out as many of your stage 2 Pokemon as possible and using your best attacks as possible each turn. The way the decks play are so much more intricate than any deck we've seen in the game before. How a player is "judged" while playing this shouldn't be with the same guidelines as someone using a simpler deck. That isn't to mean that deck choice deserves special priveledges in regards to judging: Its simply re-enforcing that it isn't turn length that should be the primary focus on determining "stalling", but whether a player is actually STALLING. It is a different set of guidelines that needs to be addressed when making the decision as to whether a player is actively thinking and contemplating, or merely eating up time.
Returning to Chess, a game of pure skill and no luck: the approach taken by Chess Masters, and Grand Masters is one where you take a long period to plan a series of turns, then execute them. If you are playing GOOD POKEMON, you are doing the same. The idea that a player should be restricted to a monotonous 20 seconds between every play is completely counter-intuitive to how good in game strategic processes occur. If a player is fortunate enough to be able to rush through a good number of turns on "autopilot", it isn't right to then punish them for actually having to take a long turn.
If neither player has an objection to the play of pace within a game, I firmly believe that a judge has no right to intervene. It has already been stated that it is unreasonable to have judges at every table to watch every game, so it is a necessary evil that Judges have to summarize a scenario based on what they were able to witness. Its a required "margin of error" when dealing with judging decisions. A judge is forced to see a small "snapshot" of the game. I understand this has to be. But if your admitting such handicaps, shouldn't it also be obvious that a players opponent is actually a better judge of how the opponent has been playing? You know, the person who actually has been watching the game the entire time?
If both players are comfortable and experienced in the game, there should not be unneeded judge interjection. This is a much greyer area regarding new players, or those who may be too timid or inexperienced to handle the situation correctly. By the time you are in the top 128 of Nationals though, these types of interference really are not called for. If you have Pooka vs Ness in the finals of a tournament, they are perfectly capable of maintaining their own game.
Having played a lot of tournaments in the past few years, let me point something out: There is less Stalling than the current witch hunt calls for us to believe. A majority of "issues" that get judge attention are not actually a player stalling. I honestly feel that more undeserved penalties have been given than instance of stalling "caught" based on the current guidelines.
This brings me back to the point that, despite the fact that yes, I feel there are some judges who are a bit suspect, that the problem isn't in the judges performance as a whole. Its easy to dwell on the bad decisions ( and yes I feel there have been quite a few ) because those stand out far more than the less impactful " good" decisions. And at that point, it is easy to take those complaints over situations and turn them into a blanket opinion of the staff as a whole.
The issue is the suggested "guidelines" to how to approach judging. I feel this is a scenario of killing the messenger. The problem is the message. While the approach may have worked fine in 2006, the game is vastly different now. The approach is outdated and needs overhauled.
Now, I've addressed my "criticisms" and offered very few "solutions" yet. That is because the solution isn't clear. I do feel it is clear we have a problem. I think that the problem hasn't been addressed due to the fact that both sides involved have turned it into a personal issue: " bad judges" are not the same as " bad guidelines" and clearly, when the people who have the most influence over policy feel like they are being personally attacked, the odds of change coming from it are low. I will try and come up with my ideas for what should be a good change of policy, and post them shortly. Until then, there is some food for thought. I'm headed out with friends to go see fireworks later, but heres another tidbit to look into. Look up the Kotov Syndrome. Then, consider its application to Pokemon, and how the time limit, and the more hawking pressure/presence of judges can impact that.
NoPoke
Active Member
Ryan the suggestion from Drew was for continuous feed printers as a method to eliminate the taping step. It would work too if you can buy a fast enough continuous feed printer. Which do exist. The problem is the price.
1300 players. At 50 players match records per page that is 26 pages, times how ever many copies are posted to avoid crowding. I'll guess at four copies so that is 100+ pages each round just on match records. With four computers and a single printer on each you need a throughput of at least 25ppm. You also have to factor in the first page out delay that makes increasing the number of printers not as effective as it appears. The print step is probably going to take 2 minutes from button push on TOM to paper grab from the output tray of the printer. This has to be completed twice between rounds so is a fifth of the 20 minute between round turnaround time.
The printers are on the critical path. Taping is on the critical path. Getting to the display stations is on the critical path... No individual step takes a lot of time but they all add up because they are all on the critical path. Which was why I addressed Drews suggestion of eliminating the taping step with a different print technology. It works but comes at a heavy price. I didn't point out that it doesn't eliminate a lot of time but as you have done so I don't need to.
Division of labour works too but the supply of labour between rounds is not unlimited. Division of labour has its limits too: if it takes 1 person 10 minutes to do a task how long does it take two? How about ten?
1300 players. At 50 players match records per page that is 26 pages, times how ever many copies are posted to avoid crowding. I'll guess at four copies so that is 100+ pages each round just on match records. With four computers and a single printer on each you need a throughput of at least 25ppm. You also have to factor in the first page out delay that makes increasing the number of printers not as effective as it appears. The print step is probably going to take 2 minutes from button push on TOM to paper grab from the output tray of the printer. This has to be completed twice between rounds so is a fifth of the 20 minute between round turnaround time.
The printers are on the critical path. Taping is on the critical path. Getting to the display stations is on the critical path... No individual step takes a lot of time but they all add up because they are all on the critical path. Which was why I addressed Drews suggestion of eliminating the taping step with a different print technology. It works but comes at a heavy price. I didn't point out that it doesn't eliminate a lot of time but as you have done so I don't need to.
Division of labour works too but the supply of labour between rounds is not unlimited. Division of labour has its limits too: if it takes 1 person 10 minutes to do a task how long does it take two? How about ten?
Where is this idea coming from. Not from me or other staff I've associated with. Isn't there just a possibility that it is a straw man that is coming from the players?ruiner said:
Last edited:
I wonder where you got the kotov syndrome term from
I absolutly agree with this post. Unfortunatly timeout is always a nasty thing, one player will always feel like he got betrayed or cheated. Id so love to play a tournament without timeout (or a timeout that just happenes in extreme cases like 2 hours(shedinja)). What do you guys think, how long would a round take without timeout?
I absolutly agree with this post. Unfortunatly timeout is always a nasty thing, one player will always feel like he got betrayed or cheated. Id so love to play a tournament without timeout (or a timeout that just happenes in extreme cases like 2 hours(shedinja)). What do you guys think, how long would a round take without timeout?
ryanvergel
New Member
I feel like they are probably just being inefficient. How are the match slips being printed?
On 8.5*11 pages, then being cut? I hope not. There are lots of small printers, ones on the scale of printing out 3x5, and it seems like these would be ideal for printing. Thermal printing would be really nice as well. You can buy a nice thermal printer for 200 bucks. 5 thermal printers printing 'receipts' of much slips at " Up to 354.3 inch/min Up to 472.4 inch/min - max speed" with built-in cutter (that leaves a tiny attachment between the pieces- no more cutting, simply unroll and hand em out). I just don't see how this can be a problem, and don't see how 10,000 would be needed to fix the problem. 1300 players, at about 6 inches for a match slip is about 7800 inches of printed material (match slips) per round. Let's say we have 5 thermal printers doing 360 in/min- all the match slips are done printing in 5 minutes. That's at the minimum speed with 5 new thermal printers- getting them used or in bulk would further reduce the price. As far as the rosters- that should be a piece of cake. 500 bucks for 5 new printers doing 25ppm is more than enough. Tape em up in 15 seconds (each- *5, and how many are you even doing? probably not too many more than 10 sets or so) and walk over to hang them. That's 1500 bucks for all new equipment to print everything off in like 5 minutes or less for any task. Thermal receipt paper isn't that much money either. ( http://www.amazon.com/Thermal-Paper-Receipt-Printers-carton/dp/B0035OOWNE ) 50 rolls for 17 bucks, 960in a roll. This 16 bucks would last 6 rounds. You could probably do all of Nationals on 100 rolls.
You don't need a continuous feed printer- a lot of the excess time could/should be trimmed by better distribution of labor. I wonder how many and what types of printers and computers and budget they are allocating, and if it couldn't be done better or more efficiently? Time is a huge issue- imagine if we could cut down this large amount of time in between rounds- the issue of slow playing would be a lot less important.
On 8.5*11 pages, then being cut? I hope not. There are lots of small printers, ones on the scale of printing out 3x5, and it seems like these would be ideal for printing. Thermal printing would be really nice as well. You can buy a nice thermal printer for 200 bucks. 5 thermal printers printing 'receipts' of much slips at " Up to 354.3 inch/min Up to 472.4 inch/min - max speed" with built-in cutter (that leaves a tiny attachment between the pieces- no more cutting, simply unroll and hand em out). I just don't see how this can be a problem, and don't see how 10,000 would be needed to fix the problem
. 1300 players, at about 6 inches for a match slip is about 7800 inches of printed material (match slips) per round. Let's say we have 5 thermal printers doing 360 in/min- all the match slips are done printing in 5 minutes. That's at the minimum speed with 5 new thermal printers- getting them used or in bulk would further reduce the price. As far as the rosters- that should be a piece of cake. 500 bucks for 5 new printers doing 25ppm is more than enough. Tape em up in 15 seconds (each- *5, and how many are you even doing? probably not too many more than 10 sets or so) and walk over to hang them. That's 1500 bucks for all new equipment to print everything off in like 5 minutes or less for any task. Thermal receipt paper isn't that much money either. ( http://www.amazon.com/Thermal-Paper-Receipt-Printers-carton/dp/B0035OOWNE ) 50 rolls for 17 bucks, 960in a roll. This 16 bucks would last 6 rounds. You could probably do all of Nationals on 100 rolls. You don't need a continuous feed printer- a lot of the excess time could/should be trimmed by better distribution of labor. I wonder how many and what types of printers and computers and budget they are allocating, and if it couldn't be done better or more efficiently? Time is a huge issue- imagine if we could cut down this large amount of time in between rounds- the issue of slow playing would be a lot less important.
NoPoke
Active Member
if you have Kotov syndrome then you are thinking too much.
thermal printer technology is S..L..O...W (I used to service industrial thermal printers)
and so it doesn't feel like I'm just being negative and critical of your ideas. The switch to legal should be considered as that ought to work.
thermal printer technology is S..L..O...W (I used to service industrial thermal printers)
and so it doesn't feel like I'm just being negative and critical of your ideas. The switch to legal should be considered as that ought to work.
Last edited:
Ryan: I've worked a huge number of big events. Both for WotC and for Pokemon.
A 20 minute turnaround, including seating time, for an event the size of US Nationals is not an issue.
Half, if not more, of that time is the players finding their seating assignment, getting to it, getting set up and ready to play.
You're putting a significant portion of the time onto one element.
It just ain't gonna make a significant difference.
A 20 minute turnaround, including seating time, for an event the size of US Nationals is not an issue.
Half, if not more, of that time is the players finding their seating assignment, getting to it, getting set up and ready to play.
You're putting a significant portion of the time onto one element.
It just ain't gonna make a significant difference.
Drew Holton
New Member
For the record, I was not including sit down time in my 20-30 minutes. Also, different printers is just one possible suggestion on how to cut down time. I'm sure there are more options.
Then explain what exactly are you including in that time? When do you consider a round as being over?
Drew Holton
New Member
The time from when all the matches are over and the seating area is empty until the next rounds pairings go up.
ryanvergel
New Member
I was referring to
posts 46 and 48
I wasn't trying to put the significance there- it seems others did? I really hope it's something other than the printing and posting that is taking up the large amounts of time between rounds- but that was the main defense raised. Sometimes it's even longer, pushing 30+minutes... Moreso last year.
We wonder why.
Last edited:
Chairman Kaga
Active Member
This is backwards thinking, really. The guidelines are there for a reason, and as a head judge I need a very good justification to deviate from them.
I quote this as an excellent example of the above point. Without being involved I will assume that there was a good reason behind the scenes, but on the surface this looks like playing favorites. The penalty recommendations exist in large part to help temper some of the inherent subjectivity of penalties, and to help encourage more consistency across all judges at all events. That in turn helps prevent situations from looking like this.
Any time I choose to go with something other than the recommended penalty, I make my reasoning clear to the player and write that same reasoning on the penalty report I submit to Organized Play. If it's a Junior player, I try to involve the parent as well, so there is understanding with all parties. The parent can also help when a particularly harsh penalty is simply mandated by the situation.
I wholly agree there are some judges out there that have no business being in the role. These are also not the judges you are going to find at Nationals level. (Yes, as much as we want to complain about some select judges at Nationals, there is far worse out there.) But bad judges are just problems anywhere they go. Poor judging discourages growth. If a bad judge does it one way at a Battle Road, then you (as a newer tournament player) step up to the next tier (with competent judges) and find something completely different, you might just decide that this game isn't worth the hassle.
The good news is that there are initiatives being developed to improve judge training and consistency. But these take time to deploy, and even then there are (sadly) some judges that are simply not among the teachable.
My personal goal is to ensure that myself and all of my judge staff are capable of operating at the Nationals level. Even if they never do get invited to that, I want to see consistent judging from the local level all the way up to the highest tier of play. The penalties assessed may differ between a Battle Road (Tier 1) and a Regional (Tier 2), but the level and quality of the judging behind them should not.
QFT. The next round can't be paired until every result from the prior round is in. That means waiting on time extensions, sudden deaths, etc. This is also why they are reticent to give time extensions except in the most egregious of cases.
20 minutes is a pretty good turnaround on an 800+ person event. People that are complaining about it have some rather unrealistic ideas on how such a large event should operate.
so now it's not the '20 minutes' but a LONGER time?
more reasons: re-pairings? match result corrections? unsigned match slips whose results need to be verified? slips with no winner circled, or both players circled? drops/no shows/'oh, i changed my mind i don't want to drop after all' slips?
...and of course this is all going to be STAFF fault of course since TOM entry should be perfect every time...
'mom
more reasons: re-pairings? match result corrections? unsigned match slips whose results need to be verified? slips with no winner circled, or both players circled? drops/no shows/'oh, i changed my mind i don't want to drop after all' slips?
...and of course this is all going to be STAFF fault of course since TOM entry should be perfect every time...
'mom
Chronological postings:
The judges at Nats and Worlds are as dedicated to being as close to perfect as possible, and acknowledging that mistakes can be made most of the judges are good and smart enough to check their egos at the door and seek ruling confirmation from other judges, guidelines, and any other resource available.
Every judge I know would point you to TPCi with any judge complaints or criticisms. Hopefully, judges who make mistakes can get the training they need, and unrepentantly bad judges - the ones many of you describe - can be identified and moved into other staff or volunteer roles.
Over and over, judges have come into these threads and asked you, told you, cajoled you, everything but begged you to contact TPCi directly with your specific recounting of firsthand experiences.
If you have been critical of judges in any of the three ongoing threads being used to air complaints about and criticisms of judges, perhaps you critical posters can post the time and date of your sent message to TPCi. Im sure it predates your post here; I expect each of you are responsible members of the Pokemon community, as dedicated to improving the game as the people above who provided the address to send your comments.
I can not imagine an instance where a person simply posted complaints here, but without any real interest in improving our game - having failed to provide specific instances of judge malfeasance to TPCi.
I included Jeremy's quote above for contrast. Jeremy, a typical poster from the 'complaints aplenty with a heathy dash of insult' camp, has chosen to ignore the multiple attempts by judges to have players contact TPCi directly. There is no 'blue wall of silence,' our shirts were red, we are involved in vigorous debate, and we have asked you over and over again to become involved in improving a situation that, seemingly, a number of you persist in claiming is near intolerable and all pervasive.
I do appreciate that a number of our more experienced, more intelligent, and more responsible posters have tried to interject a little balance into this thread. It is not only greatly appreciated, but it lends greater weight to any criticisms you make.
Although this thread did not go where I had hoped, I imagine I was too optimistic that the entire original post would be read, this has been another illuminating thread, offering a glimpse into the various perspectives that exist in our game.
Agree or not, thanks for posting.
Lawman said:
Lawman said:
Biggie (TPCi) said:
EeveeLover said:
PokeDad said:
MrMeches said:
MeMeches said:
bullados said:
Jeremy Badeaux said:
The judges at Nats and Worlds are as dedicated to being as close to perfect as possible, and acknowledging that mistakes can be made most of the judges are good and smart enough to check their egos at the door and seek ruling confirmation from other judges, guidelines, and any other resource available.
Every judge I know would point you to TPCi with any judge complaints or criticisms. Hopefully, judges who make mistakes can get the training they need, and unrepentantly bad judges - the ones many of you describe - can be identified and moved into other staff or volunteer roles.
Over and over, judges have come into these threads and asked you, told you, cajoled you, everything but begged you to contact TPCi directly with your specific recounting of firsthand experiences.
If you have been critical of judges in any of the three ongoing threads being used to air complaints about and criticisms of judges, perhaps you critical posters can post the time and date of your sent message to TPCi. Im sure it predates your post here; I expect each of you are responsible members of the Pokemon community, as dedicated to improving the game as the people above who provided the address to send your comments.
I can not imagine an instance where a person simply posted complaints here, but without any real interest in improving our game - having failed to provide specific instances of judge malfeasance to TPCi.
I included Jeremy's quote above for contrast. Jeremy, a typical poster from the 'complaints aplenty with a heathy dash of insult' camp, has chosen to ignore the multiple attempts by judges to have players contact TPCi directly. There is no 'blue wall of silence,' our shirts were red, we are involved in vigorous debate, and we have asked you over and over again to become involved in improving a situation that, seemingly, a number of you persist in claiming is near intolerable and all pervasive.
I do appreciate that a number of our more experienced, more intelligent, and more responsible posters have tried to interject a little balance into this thread. It is not only greatly appreciated, but it lends greater weight to any criticisms you make.
Although this thread did not go where I had hoped, I imagine I was too optimistic that the entire original post would be read, this has been another illuminating thread, offering a glimpse into the various perspectives that exist in our game.
Agree or not, thanks for posting.
- Status