Allow members to run the 'What Won Battle Roads' threads

[Box of Fail]

Due to the incredibly high number of Battle Roads tournaments we have, there will be some rules
specific to the Battle Roads 'what won' thread:

We will not be keeping a chart of every battle road and the top 4 or 8, will will only be keeping a numbers record of what decks won the events.

You know, I'm sure a lot of people would like to see the full breakdown of the results. If you're unwilling to put the effort into this, why not let a member maintain the 'What Won' threads instead of a mod? Mods aren't needed to do this job; we members have done just fine in the past, while it seems you're not even willing to put the effort into making this a successful thread!

I was reminded that I cannot post in the 'What Won' threads unless I have actual data. Admittedly, I did know this, but was unsure of where to put it. Also, the mod by whom I was reminded of this had posted in that same thread multiple times without offering any Battle Road results. Luckily for me, however, I was given express permission by a moderator to make a new thread complaining about this:

You know the rules of this thread. You got a problem with the way I run the thread, either PM them to me, Start a topic in another thread, or complain to team compendium/Mod supervisors over my head.

So I took his advice and started a topic in another thread.

I humbly ask that we either be given complete battle road results with the location and top four, or even better, that members run these threads themselves. I think the lack of commitment put forward by the moderators shows that members would be better suited for this task. There are several members who would not do this grudgingly, but willingly. In fact, people have been all too eager in the past to run one of these threads.

If you aren't even willing to put this much effort into the maintenance of these threads, that is no problem. There are several responsibilities and privileges which are reserved for the moderation team. This is not one of them; leave it to the members.

 

[ShadowCard]

I can see that a moderator could be better suited for the role because if the OP discontinues updating for some reason, a moderator would be the only one who could edit the first post anyway. The moderator's status as moderator kind of helps make sure that the OP (the moderator) doesn't just quit because the moderator has accepted the responsibility to come back and maintain or give notice of quitting.

However, if a moderator is unwilling to perform the task to the level it has been done in the past, there is no reason he/she should reserve it for himself or herself.

 

[Porii Sames]

Better yet, have members do it, and have Moderatos edit it in if necessary.

 

[DarkStar20]

Also, the mod by whom I was reminded of this had posted in that same thread multiple times without offering any Battle Road results.

Yes, quoteing the posts that were missing info like state or division, (Info I needed to USE the report), and posting 'Updated so far' so that people
the board had been updated, and their result had been tallied. Those posts are nessisary as I am running the thread, you know that, why even
bring it up?

Let me just ask you a question Box, are you aware of why I started running the 'What Won' threads in the first place?

-Jason
dark::colorless:20)

 

[DarkStar20]

Allow me to introduce to you the 2010 'What won Cities' thread. Which was created, by a member, about a month before I was assigned to be the forum moderator for the Tournaments and Organized Play forum. One guy thought up 'Hey, I'll go ahead and start the thread! 'And here we have at the END of the process about 12 pages of reports.

It was not MY DECISION to take over the 'What Won' threads. We discussed the possible solutions as a staff, and decided that a member of the staff running the thread would be the best course of action. Mainly because it's cleaner that way, I have admin powers and can send Reminders to those breaking the rules of the thread, and we would be assured that we would have someone commited to laying out the rules clearly in the opening posts, and someone who could easily enforce those rules in the thread. It was a group decision.

Let me let you in on a little secret Box, people with admin powers can see all the posts that were deleted from the thread. You can't see it, but there are about 40 deleted posts for posting 'off topic' in the first two pages. Nearly doubling the total count of posts, that would be about 25 pages, That is about 1250 posts to have to go through to sort out the info. Nobody wants that job. So I took over the thread, placed the rules on there to not post off topic, and created this:

2010 City Championship Results!

People seemed to really like that! I mean, look at all those Thank yous! This board of results is exactly what I'm giving you for the BR threads, except I'm doing all 3 age divisions instead of just masters! And you know what? Take a look at this:

Do not post reactions or opinions to results, if you want to do that, make a different thread.

I don't mind you guys creating a different thread for Opinions, or even a chart for all the winners. If you want to go into the What won thread, copy and paste the winners into a big chart, and discuss it right on the same board, go ahead. But fair warning, All the rules to the gym will apply, and I'll be reading it.

It's my job to cover the Whooooole Organized play forum. Combine that now with the Front Page article responsibities I have, and I'm certain that you can see why I decided to cut the chart of 'Top 4' for the BR's off of my Plate of stuff to do here on the gym. I'm providing good information for everybody to use in a way that is efficiant, and easy for everybody involved.

I humbly ask that we either be given complete battle road results with the location and top four, or even better, that members run these threads themselves. I think the lack of commitment put forward by the moderators shows that members would be better suited for this task. There are several members who would not do this grudgingly, but willingly. In fact, people have been all too eager in the past to run one of these threads.

I've heard your request, and it looks like I've got more discussing to do with the staff. But I like my system and I don't plan to change it unless the staff comes to an agreement of a better way to run it. We'll see what they think.

-Jason
dark::colorless:20)