AARRG! THE STUPID RATINGS ENTRY PAGE!!!
Frederick Scott
painful experience can't be reentered once committed. And *NO* instructions -
of course! So, can some kind soul with experience or a lot more telepathy
powers for reading the minds of the idiots who programmed it please help
me out with this thing?
Wins, victory points, and number of games played: do these include the finals
or not? If not, will there be new fields in which to enter finals victory
points later on down the line?
Thanks in advance!
Fred
Damnans
> This drives me INSANE!!! Ambiguous entry fields that I recall from past
> painful experience can't be reentered once committed. And *NO* instructions -
> of course! So, can some kind soul with experience or a lot more telepathy
> powers for reading the minds of the idiots who programmed it please help
> me out with this thing?
>
> Wins, victory points, and number of games played: do these include the finals
> or not?
They do.
[...]
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)
Frederick Scott
"Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:hd9gvu$47g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Frederick Scott escribi�:
>> This drives me INSANE!!! Ambiguous entry fields that I recall from past
>> painful experience can't be reentered once committed. And *NO* instructions -
>> of course! So, can some kind soul with experience or a lot more telepathy
>> powers for reading the minds of the idiots who programmed it please help
>> me out with this thing?
>>
>> Wins, victory points, and number of games played: do these include the finals
>> or not?
>
> They do.
>
> [...]
Really? Looking at the ratings system page, it says players get "8 RtP for each
game won (GW or final round victory)". So is the quote "game win" unquote for the
finals actually calculated the same as a preliminary round game win (2 or more victory
points and not tied with any other player) or is it basically awarded to the player
who won the tournament?
Again, thanks for your help.
Fred
The Lasombra
>Really? Looking at the ratings system page, it says players get "8 RtP for each
>game won (GW or final round victory)". So is the quote "game win" unquote for the
>finals actually calculated the same as a preliminary round game win (2 or more victory
>points and not tied with any other player) or is it basically awarded to the player
>who won the tournament?
If you are using the newest version of the Archon (and why wouldn't
you be?), just use the fields exactly as they appear on the VEKN
report page.
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/downloads/TheArchon1.3.zip
Player Num, V:EKN Num, Name, Games Played, Games Won, Total VPs, Rank
I find that it is helpful to copy the VEKN Report data onto the Notes
page, being sure to Paste Special - Values. Then you can copy/paste
from the Notes page into the web-form.
http://www.thelasombra.com/tournaments.htm
Carpe noctem.
The Lasombra
Your best source of V:TES information.
Now also selling boxes and individual cards.
Powerlord
> "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote in messagenews:hd9gvu$47g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > Frederick Scott escribió:
> >> This drives me INSANE!!! Ambiguous entry fields that I recall from past
> >> painful experience can't be reentered once committed. And *NO* instructions -
> >> of course! So, can some kind soul with experience or a lot more telepathy
> >> powers for reading the minds of the idiots who programmed it please help
> >> me out with this thing?
>
> >> Wins, victory points, and number of games played: do these include the finals
> >> or not?
>
> > They do.
>
> > [...]
>
> Really? Looking at the ratings system page, it says players get "8 RtP for each
> game won (GW or final round victory)". So is the quote "game win" unquote for the
> finals actually calculated the same as a preliminary round game win (2 or more victory
> points and not tied with any other player) or is it basically awarded to the player
> who won the tournament?
>
> Again, thanks for your help.
>
> Fred
Assume that you have 12 players in a 3R+F tournament and that the
stantings where:
Name Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs
Player A 3 10 4
Player B 1 5 1
Player C 1 5 0
Player D 1 4 0
Player E 1 3 0
Player F 0 4
Player G 0 2
Player H 0 2
Player I 0 1
Player J 0 0
Player K 0 0
Player L 0 0
Player A has a total of 4 GW (3 + 1 in the final) and a total of 14 VP
(10 + 4 in the final) in 4 games.
Player B has a total of 1 GW and a total of 6 VP (5 + 1 in the final)
in 4 games.
Player C has a total of 1 GW and a total of 5 VP (5 + 0 in the final)
in 4 games.
...
Hope this helped, though i don't give a damn to the rating
calculation, lol!
Ricardo Marta
Prince of Lisboa
Portugal
Frederick Scott
news:3ajgf5p4paivlk476...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:55:57 -0700, "Frederick Scott" wrote:
>
>>Really? Looking at the ratings system page, it says players get "8 RtP for each
>>game won (GW or final round victory)". So is the quote "game win" unquote for the
>>finals actually calculated the same as a preliminary round game win (2 or more victory
>>points and not tied with any other player) or is it basically awarded to the player
>>who won the tournament?
>
> If you are using the newest version of the Archon (and why wouldn't
> you be?), just use the fields exactly as they appear on the VEKN
> report page.
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/downloads/TheArchon1.3.zip
I wouldn't be (before) because I didn't know v.1.3 existed. So I'm trying to
move the results from 1.2 to 1.3 and here, the problem is that the seating
chart won't fill in the tables automatically - unlike 1.2. Can anyone drop
me a clue how that works? I couldn't find anything in the instructions other
than what I already knew. (Of course, I can always fill these in manually - but
I'd still like to know so I can use the 1.3 version in the future.)
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:c040f329-347c-49d1...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On 9 Nov, 16:55, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote
> > in messagenews:hd9gvu$47g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > >> Wins, victory points, and number of games played: do these include the finals
> > >> or not?
> >
> > > They do.
> >
> > > [...]
> >
> > Really? Looking at the ratings system page, it says players get "8 RtP for each
> > game won (GW or final round victory)". So is the quote "game win" unquote for the
> > finals actually calculated the same as a preliminary round game win (2 or more victory
> > points and not tied with any other player) or is it basically awarded to the player
> > who won the tournament?
>
> stantings where:
>
> Name Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs
> Player A 3 10 4
> Player B 1 5 1
> Player C 1 5 0
> Player D 1 4 0
> Player E 1 3 0
> Player F 0 4
> Player G 0 2
> Player H 0 2
> Player I 0 1
> Player J 0 0
> Player K 0 0
> Player L 0 0
>
> Player A has a total of 4 GW (3 + 1 in the final) and a total of 14 VP
> (10 + 4 in the final) in 4 games.
>
> calculation, lol!
It is helping. But the specific question I was trying to resolve is (put
in terms of your example above), does player A have a "Game Win" for the
finals because he/she score a game win in the same sense as a preliminary
round game win is scored (that is, because he got 2 or more victory points
and wasn't tied with any other player) or because he won the tournament (had
more finals victory points than any other player or had at least as many
as any other player AND won the tournament via tiebreakers).
And I don't give a damn either. (Don't get me started!) But I feel honor-
bound to enter the results for the sake of my players.
Fred
Powerlord
> "Powerlord" <powerlord...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> It is helping. But the specific question I was trying to resolve is (put
> in terms of your example above), does player A have a "Game Win" for the
> finals because he/she score a game win in the same sense as a preliminary
> round game win is scored (that is, because he got 2 or more victory points
> and wasn't tied with any other player) or because he won the tournament (had
> more finals victory points than any other player or had at least as many
> as any other player AND won the tournament via tiebreakers).
>
No, i always presume the player recieves the GW in the Final if he
fulfills the same requirements as a normal round, i.e., has at least 2
VP and no one else has the same number of VP's.
In the final, if the vp's are: 2-2-1, there is no GW, if it is any
other odd combination (5-0, 4-1, 3-2, 2-1-1-1), yeah, sure.
> And I don't give a damn either. (Don't get me started!) But I feel honor-
> bound to enter the results for the sake of my players.
>
> Fred
Yes i understand, i do the same :)
Powerlord
> "The Lasombra" <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
How many rounds? The archon only works "properly" if you have 3R+F. In
a 2R+F report you have to fill the tables manually with the players
numbers.
So the best way is (if you have a draft archon already "filled" with
the results) to open both files and on the final report file, write
down the number of rounds (ignore the games). After that go to each
sheet and manually insert the number of the players of each table and
their results, the Archon will end up updating the main page
(tournament info sheet).
Good luck
Frederick Scott
On 9 Nov, 17:50, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > So I'm trying to
> > move the results from 1.2 to 1.3 and here, the problem is that the seating
> > chart won't fill in the tables automatically - unlike 1.2. Can anyone drop
> > me a clue how that works? I couldn't find anything in the instructions other
> > than what I already knew. (Of course, I can always fill these in manually - but
> > I'd still like to know so I can use the 1.3 version in the future.)
>
> a 2R+F report you have to fill the tables manually with the players
> numbers.
It is 2R + F - so that could be the reason. It's odd though: v.1.2 works
just fine, at least in that sense. It will fill out your tables for you
even if you only enter '3' in the "Number of rounds (including final)" field.
I wonder why they changed that?
Another problem: the link advertised for registering new players seems to be
broken. Go to...
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknTournament.html
...and go down to #6. Register Your Players. In the text, there's a link to
click to fill out the Player Registration for for each new player after the
tournament. The words "Player Registration" are a link but it seems to be
broken.
Anyone know how to assign new players their VEKN ids nowadays? Is White Wolf
aware there's a problem here?
Fred
Powerlord
> Anyone know how to assign new players their VEKN ids nowadays? Is White Wolf
> aware there's a problem here?
>
> Fred
Odd, i had the same problem in the 2R+F reports, either with v1.2 or
v1.3...
Regarding the new players, i do the following:
- go to "http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/"
- choose under "Prince Resources" the "Add a VEKN Member" option
- it will show the following message at the bottom "Next available
VEKN ID is XXXXXXX"
- I fill the boxes (ask players for a valid email address) and i
always place the players password equal to his/her Vekn ID, so if i
insert player 3120000, I will assign as his password, the 312000o
number
- if an error appears stating the email address is already in use, you
can always "mistype" the domain, i.e., "pla...@hotmail.com" changed to
"pla...@hotmail.pt" (I'm Portuguese so I use PT)
- you'll have the account created (though with a wrong email address)
- players must go to the WW page and create their own accounts
- after players get registed, they should go under "getting started"
and "associate <their> vekn ID"
- if they have any trouble doing it so, they should send and email to
"vtessupport(a)white-wolf.com" stating which is their Vekn ID and to
which account do they want to associate with.
Usually players have to send the email because the vekn ID association
does not retrieve the Vekn Member password inserted previously.
Kevin M.
> How many rounds? The archon only works "properly" if you
> have 3R+F. In a 2R+F report you have to fill the tables manually
> with the players numbers.
Untrue.
The easiest way to use the Archon for 2R+F tournaments is:
1. On the 'Tournament Info' tab, set the Number of Rounds to "4".
2. On the 'Methuselahs' tab, enter in the names of the Methuselahs.
3. On the 'Round 3' tab, delete all the player numbers.
You now have a 2R+F Archon tournament.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Powerlord
If you do so, will get a bunch of "#N/A" errors on the "Methuselahs",
"Standings" and "VEKN Report" sheets.
At least in my version (1.3) of the Archon :P
Cheers
Kevin M.
Wow, how terrible. Newer version, less functionality.
LSJ,
Could you update Archon v1.3 to account for the possibility of the
'Round 3' tab being setup in the fashion described? I don't know
Excel well-enough to do it.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
LSJ
> Powerlord wrote:
>> How many rounds? The archon only works "properly" if you
>> have 3R+F. In a 2R+F report you have to fill the tables manually
>> with the players numbers.
>
> Untrue.
>
> The easiest way to use the Archon for 2R+F tournaments is:
> 1. On the 'Tournament Info' tab, set the Number of Rounds to "4".
> 2. On the 'Methuselahs' tab, enter in the names of the Methuselahs.
> 3. On the 'Round 3' tab, delete all the player numbers.
>
> You now have a 2R+F Archon tournament.
That typically results in an exceedingly sub-optimal seating.
Any two rounds of an optimal-for-three-rounds seating will typically be severely
sub-optimal-for-two-rounds as concessions for any pair of rounds will have been
made to accommodate the third round.
At least until you get well into the perfect range (say, 80+ players).
Don't do it.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1fbefbc139a30f7e
Kevin M.
So your suggestion is to do what, then, for 2R+F tournament seating?
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1fbefbc139a30f7e
>
> So your suggestion is to do what, then, for 2R+F tournament seating?
Seat them by hand.
librarian
I've found for 2R+F, manually (non-computer generated) seating people
works better, as you imply. Bring on the 3x5 cards!
best -
chris
Kevin M.
So, just to make sure I understand, you're saying that some random
done-by-hand seating is more optimal for round2 of 2R+F VTES
tournaments than using Round2 of an optimally 3R+F tournament
for round2 of a 2R+F tournament?
Kevin M.
I hesitate to ask as I'm sure you'll be hesitant to define it for me, but
what is your definition of "manually seating people" and "works better"?
librarian
Get 3x5 cards. Write everyone's name at the top - or have them do it.
Shuffle the cards.
Lay them out. Round 1, solved, easy. I write down each player's table
and position on the card at this time.
Round 2 - get everyone's card. Shuffle.
Lay them out again. If you hit a same pred/prey relationship, take that
card and move it to the bottom of the stack. If you get to the end, and
those two have the same pred/prey relationship in round 1, take the last
person and switch her with the first player you set down.
I also write down their round 2 positions at this time as well.
Simple, done. Sufficiently random.
best -
chris
Kevin M.
>
> Round 2 - get everyone's card. Shuffle.
>
> Lay them out again. If you hit a same pred/prey relationship, take
> that card and move it to the bottom of the stack. If you get to the
> end, and those two have the same pred/prey relationship in round 1,
> take the last person and switch her with the first player you set
> down.
> I also write down their round 2 positions at this time as well.
>
> Simple, done. Sufficiently random.
This is more work and I'd bet equally as "optimal" as using ArchonR2.
Frederick Scott
news:hd9u55$t4o$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I had been using the Archon 1.2, making no entry into the Tournament Info field
for "Number of Rounds (including final):" field, using the spreadsheets for the
first two rounds only (totally ignoring the third preliminary round), and then
filling out the player #s in the "Table Seating" chart on the final round.
If I get what you're saying, I was basically using the three round chart for a
two round tournament. (By the way, one of my responses to 'Powerlord' was in
error: in fact, this seems to work just as well on the 1.3 Archon as the 1.2
Archon.) The seating chart seems to work just fine AFAICS. Of course, all my
tournaments, with one exception, have been 10 players or less. (The one exception
was a 13-player tournament which had drops in the second round, so we didn't use
the seating chart in the second round.) But is it really that bad to use The
Archon seating chart for a 2R + F?
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:hd9u4i$s0h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> I've found for 2R+F, manually (non-computer generated) seating people works better, as you imply. Bring on the 3x5 cards!
Why? What did you find less satisfactory about using The Archon 3R+F
seating charts in a 2R+F tournament?
Fred
Hodgestar
> This drives me INSANE!!! Ambiguous entry fields that I recall from past
> painful experience can't be reentered once committed. And *NO* instructions -
> of course!
The ratings entry page also drives me up the wall. Annoyances include:
* Not being able to fix individual entries if one finds mistakes.
* Not being able to view and check submitted data until it's been
approved.
* I'm relatively certain I've had results from tournaments much
earlier in the year disappear (I still need to go through my records
to make sure).
* Names with an apostrophe appear to break inserting results.
* Having to manually copy and paste all the results for The Archon
(which is rather error prone given that it's a mindless repetitive
task).
The ideal solution for me would be a simpler interface which allows me
to upload a .csv file that I've saved from a sheet in The Archon. I'm
even willing to contribute some time to writing such a solution
(someone just has to point me at the code base and be willing to vet
and apply patches).
Schiavo
Simon
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>> LSJ wrote:
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1fbefbc139a30f7e
>>> So your suggestion is to do what, then, for 2R+F tournament seating?
>> Seat them by hand.
>
> So, just to make sure I understand, you're saying that some random
> done-by-hand seating is more optimal for round2 of 2R+F VTES
> tournaments than using Round2 of an optimally 3R+F tournament
> for round2 of a 2R+F tournament?
No. Some hand-optimized seating is more optimal than a
severly-subobtimal-extraction of a three-rounder.
LSJ
> librarian wrote:
>> Lay them out again. If you hit a same pred/prey relationship, take
>> that card and move it to the bottom of the stack. If you get to the
>> end, and those two have the same pred/prey relationship in round 1,
>> take the last person and switch her with the first player you set
>> down.
>> I also write down their round 2 positions at this time as well.
>>
>> Simple, done. Sufficiently random.
>
> This is more work and I'd bet equally as "optimal" as using ArchonR2.
Minutely more work. And work that makes the organizer a better organizer.
And much more optimal than the severly sub-optimal choice of extracting from a
poorly suited source.
LSJ
Their egregious sub-optimalness in many of the sub-50 arrangements.
Kevin M.
I've never had anyone complain in 12 years in nearly a hundred
tournaments. I guess I'll keep using the easiest most convenient
sub-optimal seating I can. :P
Frederick Scott
Cute. But until this contextual form of optimality is actually defined,
not useful.
Petri Wessman
> On Nov 9, 6:34 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
> > This drives me INSANE!!! Ambiguous entry fields that I recall from past
> > painful experience can't be reentered once committed. And *NO* instructions -
> > of course!
>
> The ratings entry page also drives me up the wall. Annoyances include:
>
> * Not being able to fix individual entries if one finds mistakes.
> * Not being able to view and check submitted data until it's been
> approved.
> * I'm relatively certain I've had results from tournaments much
> earlier in the year disappear (I still need to go through my records
> to make sure).
> * Names with an apostrophe appear to break inserting results.
> * Having to manually copy and paste all the results for The Archon
> (which is rather error prone given that it's a mindless repetitive
> task).
>
> The ideal solution for me would be a simpler interface which allows me
> to upload a .csv file that I've saved from a sheet in The Archon.
Yup. The current web interface is horrible. To add to the above list
of woes:
* if you have a large tournament, it times out randomly at some point,
leaving some entries entered into the database and others silently
dumped. No way to figure out which, of course. This is the reason the
Ropecon 2009 tournament (85 players) still isn't in the database:
neither me or Robyn is able to enter the results. It's crazy.
And of course, after spending an hour-plus manually typing in scores
into a huge web form, only to have all that work vanish after you
press "submit", is... enough to drive a man to drink.
Yes, the sane system would be something that accepted a CSV dump
directly from the Archon. It's probably even not very hard to code
that, it's not exactly rocket science as far as web systems go.
Sigh.
LSJ
? Cute.
It's being used in the only context in which optimal is ever used in regards to
seating: Avoiding repeat pred-prey, avoiding repeat table pairs, etc.
Wilsoros
Jay Kristoff mentioned to me that using round 1 + round 3 works quite
well. I haven't looked at it, but I can't accept that there isn't a 2
r optimal seating.
David
LSJ
Of course there is a 2R optimal seating. It's been generated quite often by hand
(since it's easy enough to do an optimal 2R by hand). For small participation
tournaments, creating the seating by hand will produce a better seating than
selecting two rounds from an optimal-for-three-rounds seating.
And creating the seating by hand is a good exercise for organizers (helping
develop the skills necessary to handle drops and adds, even in 3R+F tournaments).
Kevin M.
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>>>> I've found for 2R+F, manually (non-computer generated) seating
>>>>> people works better, as you imply. Bring on the 3x5 cards!
>>>>
>>>> Why? What did you find less satisfactory about using The Archon
>>>> 3R+F seating charts in a 2R+F tournament?
>>>
>>> Their egregious sub-optimalness in many of the sub-50 arrangements.
>>
>> Cute. But until this contextual form of optimality is actually
>> defined, not useful.
>
> ? Cute.
>
> It's being used in the only context in which optimal is ever used in
> regards to seating: Avoiding repeat pred-prey, avoiding repeat table
> pairs, etc.
Where does Round2 of an optimally 3R+F Archon do any of this?
Frederick Scott
Well, fair enough. But in my experience, the tables in The Archon for 3R+F
worked just fine in the 2R+F tournaments in which I've employed them. So,
like Kevin said, they seem like significantly less work to me. Perhaps you
know of cases where this isn't true but I can only judge from what I know.
Fred
Powerlord
> LSJ wrote:
> > Kevin M. wrote:
> >> LSJ wrote:
>
> >> So your suggestion is to do what, then, for 2R+F tournament seating?
>
> > Seat them by hand.
>
> So, just to make sure I understand, you're saying that some random
> done-by-hand seating is more optimal for round2 of 2R+F VTES
> tournaments than using Round2 of an optimally 3R+F tournament
> for round2 of a 2R+F tournament?
>
I think what he meant wasn't for us to set the seating manually,
calculating ourselfs the parings, but setting the seating manually
after the archon made all the calculations.
As I told here before, when preparing the archon, in the "Tournament
Info" sheet, choose 4 rounds (3R+F) in the number of rounds. That will
set the players seating for the tournament. After that, go to each
sheet (Round 1, Round 2) and write down the numbers of the players on
a piece of paper or you can open another archon and copy the seating
to it.
After this, when you change the rounds to 3 (2R+F), it will erase all
data, and you can simple copy the seating order back into the archon.
This way, you use the parings in the Archon file and you dont need to
set it yourselves.
Frederick Scott
news:5b219610-cfde-4423...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> As I told here before, when preparing the archon, in the "Tournament
> Info" sheet, choose 4 rounds (3R+F) in the number of rounds. That will
> set the players seating for the tournament. After that, go to each
> sheet (Round 1, Round 2) and write down the numbers of the players on
> a piece of paper or you can open another archon and copy the seating
> to it.
> After this, when you change the rounds to 3 (2R+F), it will erase all
> data, and you can simple copy the seating order back into the archon.
>
> This way, you use the parings in the Archon file and you dont need to
> set it yourselves.
Actually, I think you'll find it's just easier to leave the "Number of
Rounds (including final)" field blank, fill in the player information,
and you'll find that the seating tables are filled in when you switch
to the pages for entering the preliminary round results. Then, after
you run two rounds, just ignore the 'Round 3' page and go straight to
the 'Final Round' page and everything should be filled in, ties not
withstanding. Then you can just deal with the final round as normal.
To restate my self-correction from yesterday, in this regard Archon 1.3
works the same as Archon 1.2.
Fred
LSJ
> On 9 Nov, 21:12, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>>> LSJ wrote:
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1fbe...
>>>> So your suggestion is to do what, then, for 2R+F tournament seating?
>>> Seat them by hand.
>> So, just to make sure I understand, you're saying that some random
>> done-by-hand seating is more optimal for round2 of 2R+F VTES
>> tournaments than using Round2 of an optimally 3R+F tournament
>> for round2 of a 2R+F tournament?
>>
>
> I think what he meant wasn't for us to set the seating manually,
> calculating ourselfs the parings, but setting the seating manually
> after the archon made all the calculations.
No, I meant the first thing you said.
> As I told here before, when preparing the archon, in the "Tournament
> Info" sheet, choose 4 rounds (3R+F) in the number of rounds. That will
> set the players seating for the tournament. After that, go to each
> sheet (Round 1, Round 2) and write down the numbers of the players on
> a piece of paper or you can open another archon and copy the seating
> to it.
> After this, when you change the rounds to 3 (2R+F), it will erase all
> data, and you can simple copy the seating order back into the archon.
>
> This way, you use the parings in the Archon file and you dont need to
> set it yourselves.
You can do what you describe already with just one Archon:
Set to 4 rounds. Go and copy each seating arrangement and then "Paste Special:
Values" to paste the values in place of the equations.
Then set the rounds back to 3.
And then manually re-arrange as necessary to remedy any sub-optimality incurred.
Peter D Bakija
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
The Archon uses the incredibly fixed seating chart which results in
weird seating arrangements if you just use two of the rounds--at the
Storyline this last weekend, we had 12 people playing 2R+F and used the
Archon. I didn't notice all the wacky seating, but certainly noticed
these two:
A) In game 1, my prey was Pete Kapsalis. In game 2, my predator was Pete
Kapsalis.
B) In game 1, Ben's Akunanse Breed Boon deck's grandprey was Selen's
Akunanse perma-bleed deck. In game 2, Ben's Akunanse Breed Boon deck's
predator was Selen's Akunanse perma-bleed deck.
I mean, not horribly critical or anything (although the vagaries of
wacky 2R seating out of a system that was designed to work optimally for
3R certainly meant that Ben was totally hosed), but likely less optimal
than, say, a pile of 12 index cards getting shuffled and dealt out.
This is not to say that our stalwart tournament organizer James was
remotely negligent--we didn't know that was gonna happen, and just went
with it, but my experience with the Archon is that, in fact, it is sub
optimal for seating a 2R+F tournament, and just a pile of index cards
shuffled, dealt out (with illegal seating being noticed and aborted)
tends to work much better.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
Peter D Bakija
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> > Simple, done. Sufficiently random.
>
> This is more work and I'd bet equally as "optimal" as using ArchonR2.
I dunno man, I'm totally with Shorb on this one. My experience with the
Archon for a 2R tournament leads me to be very dubious about it, due to
the weird fixed seating arrangements, including that the first round is
always:
-Table 1: A, B, C, D, E
-Table 2: F, G, H, I, J
etc.
Meaning that the organizer needs to painstakingly randomize the players
to put into the system as they register. And if you don't, the first
round is always:
-Table 1: 5 guys who came in the same car!
-Table 2: 5 more guys who cam in the same car!
So as you *already* have to essentially manually randomize the first
round, using the archon to just generate the second round where we know
some people *will* be sitting as the prey of their first round predator
and the like, I'm not convinced that the Archon is helping here.
I mean, yeah, if you got, like, 50 people playing in a 2R+F tournament,
the Archon is going to save a lot of effort. But if you have +/- a dozen
people? A pile of index cards (or those convenient VEKN ID cards) likely
works just fine, if not better.
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> shorb wrote:
>>> Simple, done. Sufficiently random.
>>
>> This is more work and I'd bet equally as "optimal" as using ArchonR2.
>
> I dunno man, I'm totally with Shorb on this one. My experience with
> the Archon for a 2R tournament leads me to be very dubious about it,
> due to the weird fixed seating arrangements, including that the first
> round is always:
>
> -Table 1: A, B, C, D, E
>
> -Table 2: F, G, H, I, J
>
> etc.
>
> Meaning that the organizer needs to painstakingly randomize the
> players to put into the system as they register. And if you don't,
> the first round is always:
>
> -Table 1: 5 guys who came in the same car!
>
> -Table 2: 5 more guys who cam in the same car!
Since it is randomized from the beginning, this is clearly incorrect,
but I'm assuming you're trying to make a broader point than this.
> So as you *already* have to essentially manually randomize the first
> round, using the archon to just generate the second round where we
> know some people *will* be sitting as the prey of their first round
> predator and the like, I'm not convinced that the Archon is helping
> here.
>
> I mean, yeah, if you got, like, 50 people playing in a 2R+F
> tournament, the Archon is going to save a lot of effort. But if you
> have +/- a dozen people? A pile of index cards (or those convenient
> VEKN ID cards) likely works just fine, if not better.
I have received a 2R seating chart from David Tatu and it looks good.
I will post it on my website for anyone that wants to use it:
http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/2Rseatingcharts.xls
This chart is far more optimally set for 2R tournaments, and I'd
love to see a switch in The Archon on the TOURNAMENT INFO tab,
that would allow you to set Number Of Rounds to '3' and have it
pull 2R seating information from a new tab with this Tatu spreadsheet.
Scott, I will pay you cash money to see this happen in Archon v1.4.
Peter D Bakija
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Since it is randomized from the beginning, this is clearly incorrect,
> but I'm assuming you're trying to make a broader point than this.
But you need to manually randomize in the beginning so that it is
randomized in the beginning, see. If you just put people into the Archon
in the order they show up, they are sitting in R1 in the order the show
up (i.e. if I walk up to the table with Dave, Ben, and Andrew, I'll be
sitting at my first round table with Dave, Ben, and Andrew, or at least
Dave and Ben, if Andrew is #6 in line or whatever). So as the organizer,
to make the first round actually random, you need to manually randomize
how you put people into the Archon in the first place. Meaning you need
to, like, take everyone's name on a non Archon list and roll dice to
determine where you input them into the Archon. Or have everyone
registering line up in birthday order or something. Or whatever. The
point is that for the first round of the tournament (the one that is
arranged A, B, C, D, E; F, G, H, I, J; etc.) to actually be random, you
need to randomize it one way or the other by hand. So you already have
to, essentially, randomize the first round by hand. As randomizing the
second round by hand is (seating wise) likely preferable to using the
Archon if you are only doing 2 rounds, I'm not seeing how the Archon is
actually saving any effort.
> I have received a 2R seating chart from David Tatu and it looks good.
> I will post it on my website for anyone that wants to use it:
> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/2Rseatingcharts.xls
Ah, see, yeah, that works too :-)
If someone has a good 2R+F optimized seating chart that can be used or
put into the Archon, that makes everything work the way we all want it
to.
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> Since it is randomized from the beginning, this is clearly incorrect,
>> but I'm assuming you're trying to make a broader point than this.
>
> But you need to manually randomize in the beginning so that it is
> randomized in the beginning, see. If you just put people into the
> Archon in the order they show up,
I'll just stop you there, since anyone who does this is either
unaware of the proper use of the Archon, or dumb.
>> I have received a 2R seating chart from David Tatu and it looks good.
>> I will post it on my website for anyone that wants to use it:
>> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/2Rseatingcharts.xls
>
> Ah, see, yeah, that works too :-)
Good ol' Tatu, nothing beats Tatu! ;)
Frederick Scott
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-A6D973.0...@feeder.eternal-september.org...
> In article <GY%Jm.11187$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad>,
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> > Simple, done. Sufficiently random.
>>
>> This is more work and I'd bet equally as "optimal" as using ArchonR2.
>
> I dunno man, I'm totally with Shorb on this one. My experience with the
> Archon for a 2R tournament leads me to be very dubious about it, due to
> the weird fixed seating arrangements, including that the first round is
> always:
>
> -Table 1: A, B, C, D, E
>
> -Table 2: F, G, H, I, J
Sure. The Archon assumes you randomized who was A, who was B, who was C,
etc. So the first round is totally random.
> etc.
>
> Meaning that the organizer needs to painstakingly randomize the players
> to put into the system as they register.
I'm not sure why you look at this as a hard task. Considering the
alternative is to "painstakingly randomize" _every_ round - and then
painstakingly RErandomize the glitches wherever they show up, it makes
a lot of sense to me to pay attention to the work I'm saving, not the
one thing I still have to do either way.
> So as you *already* have to essentially manually randomize the first
> round, using the archon to just generate the second round where we know
> some people *will* be sitting as the prey of their first round predator
> and the like, I'm not convinced that the Archon is helping here.
I'm not convinced randomization helps any here. For instance, where I've
noticed the second-round-predator-was-my-first-round-prey (or vica versa)
thing, there doesn't appear to me to be better alternatives. Where it
happens, I believe it would also be very likely to happen if the seats
were to be determined randomly. And quite possibly, the random seating
could turn out a whole lot worse.
> I mean, yeah, if you got, like, 50 people playing in a 2R+F tournament,
> the Archon is going to save a lot of effort. But if you have +/- a dozen
> people? A pile of index cards (or those convenient VEKN ID cards) likely
> works just fine, if not better.
Better? Certainly not. Once the one randomization thing is done, which
you have to do anyway, it's all profit from there. If you like screwing
around with index cards and often reseating, rechecking for unacceptable
outcomes, rerandomizing, reseating again, rinse repeat, I might accept that
it's tolerable. I'm totally missing the boat on how this is better.
Fred
Frederick Scott
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-0BD853.0...@feeder.eternal-september.org...
> In article <z_%Jm.9880$%j4....@newsfe18.iad>,
> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> What did you find less satisfactory about using The Archon 3R+F
>> seating charts in a 2R+F tournament?
>
> The Archon uses the incredibly fixed seating chart which results in
> weird seating arrangements if you just use two of the rounds--at the
> Storyline this last weekend, we had 12 people playing 2R+F and used the
> Archon. I didn't notice all the wacky seating, but certainly noticed
> these two:
>
> A) In game 1, my prey was Pete Kapsalis. In game 2, my predator was Pete
> Kapsalis.
>
> B) In game 1, Ben's Akunanse Breed Boon deck's grandprey was Selen's
> Akunanse perma-bleed deck. In game 2, Ben's Akunanse Breed Boon deck's
> predator was Selen's Akunanse perma-bleed deck.
That's odd. I just got The Archon out and set it up for 12 Methuselahs.
There's no such result in the round 2 seating chart I'm looking at.
Assuming the first round is setup like this:
A -> B -> C -> D (-> A)
E -> F -> G -> H (-> E)
I -> J -> K -> L (-> I)
...the second round looks like this:
K -> A -> H -> B (-> K)
C -> E -> L -> F (-> C)
G -> I -> D -> J (-> G)
So I'm not sure how that happened. In the above setup, three pairs
of players from the first set of tables are seated together on the
same table in the second round. (This is the minimum possible, I
think, given how few players there are.) A and B are allies, E and
F are allies, and I and J are allies in the second round. No pair
of players from the same table are predator/prey at all.
If anything, the only sub-optimal complaint I can think of is that
there's no chance of reversing a predator/prey relationship at all
using the tables, whereas with total randomization, there should
be a significant chance of it happening.
> I mean, not horribly critical or anything (although the vagaries of
> wacky 2R seating out of a system that was designed to work optimally for
> 3R certainly meant that Ben was totally hosed), but likely less optimal
> than, say, a pile of 12 index cards getting shuffled and dealt out.
Well, in this case, it doesn't look like The Archon was actually used.
At least, not the one I have.
I disagree. I think there's likely a decent chance would cause
> This is not to say that our stalwart tournament organizer James was
> remotely negligent--we didn't know that was gonna happen, and just went
> with it, but my experience with the Archon is that, in fact, it is sub
> optimal for seating a 2R+F tournament, and just a pile of index cards
> shuffled, dealt out (with illegal seating being noticed and aborted)
> tends to work much better.
Even if James had used The Archon, I still wouldn't agree with this.
I'll bet if you laid out index cards randomly (picking up and reshuffling
every time an "unacceptable layout" occurred; unacceptable layouts being
the repeat of predator/prey relationships), you'll find this happens
quite a lot. I haven't analyzed this to the nth degree, but I
wouldn't be at all surprised. In the best redistribution of players
possible from one round to the next, each table _must_ contain at least
one pair of players who were together at a table the previous round.
If any of these three pairs of players are seated predator/prey the same
way you seated then in the first round, you pick up cards and redeal. So
this leaves only three possibilities: they're allies, or their predator
prey relationship is reversed, or they were allies in the previous round
so it doesn't matter (a 1-in-3 chance for that pair). I don't think this
leaves a very high chance that you'd get no reversed pairs, considering
that you'll frequently get sub-optimal redistributions of players (aka
three or all four from the same table first round go to the same table
second round).
Fred
Peter D Bakija
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> That's odd. I just got The Archon out and set it up for 12 Methuselahs.
> There's no such result in the round 2 seating chart I'm looking at.
> Assuming the first round is setup like this:
Huh. Well, it started as a 13 person and someone dropped between rounds.
That might have had an impact. Or maybe they went with R1 and R3? Dunno.
> Even if James had used The Archon, I still wouldn't agree with this.
> I'll bet if you laid out index cards randomly (picking up and reshuffling
> every time an "unacceptable layout" occurred; unacceptable layouts being
> the repeat of predator/prey relationships), you'll find this happens
> quite a lot.
Not that I have noticed--I have used the Archon to run a tournament
exactly once in my life. I have used the "shuffle cards and deal them
out till you have legal seating" dozens of times. The manual method
works totally reasonably, and isn't remotely problematic (assuming,
like, less than 20 players).
librarian
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>> Since it is randomized from the beginning, this is clearly incorrect,
>>> but I'm assuming you're trying to make a broader point than this.
>> But you need to manually randomize in the beginning so that it is
>> randomized in the beginning, see. If you just put people into the
>> Archon in the order they show up,
> [snip]
>
> I'll just stop you there, since anyone who does this is either
> unaware of the proper use of the Archon, or dumb.
>
>>> I have received a 2R seating chart from David Tatu and it looks good.
>>> I will post it on my website for anyone that wants to use it:
>>> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/2Rseatingcharts.xls
>> Ah, see, yeah, that works too :-)
>
> Good ol' Tatu, nothing beats Tatu! ;)
>
Except 2 Tatus.
best -
chris
Peter D Bakija
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure why you look at this as a hard task.
I don't look at as a hard task. I'm specifically looking at it as an
easy task. The point here is that Kevin (I think) more or less said:
"The Archon is so much more convenient than manual seating."
To which I responded with:
"You already have to effectively manually seat the first round (by
virtue of having to randomize the players you register into the system).
Doing a 2R+F tournament is just one extra manual randomization."
> Considering the
> alternative is to "painstakingly randomize" _every_ round -
Of which there are 2. And you already randomized the first one manually.
So you really should be framing that as "considering the alternative is
to "painstakingly randomize" _one_ additional_round_."
> Better? Certainly not. Once the one randomization thing is done, which
> you have to do anyway, it's all profit from there. If you like screwing
> around with index cards and often reseating, rechecking for unacceptable
> outcomes, rerandomizing, reseating again, rinse repeat, I might accept that
> it's tolerable. I'm totally missing the boat on how this is better.
If it avoids the suboptimal seating that comes from using 2 rounds of a
3 round system that is designed to be used for 3 rounds, then it is
better. LSJ indicates that using 2 rounds of the 3 round system results
in suboptimal seating. If doing it manually isn't significantly any more
effort (and with a +/- 12 person tournament, it really isn't) than using
the Archon, and results in a more optimal randomization, better it is.
Peter D Bakija
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> I'll just stop you there, since anyone who does this is either
> unaware of the proper use of the Archon, or dumb.
Ok. So not the point. Even a little bit.
The point you seemed to be making was:
"Using the archon is less effort that manually seating people."
To which I responded with:
"You are already manually randomizing the first round by virtue of
putting people into the Archon randomly. So really, doing a 2R+F
tournament seating by hand is just manually randomizing one extra round."
Which means that if you are running a 2R+F tournament with the Archon,
you are saving the effort of manually randomizing one round (as you
already had to manually randomize the first round, essentially). If you
are running a +/-12 person 2R+F tournament (which I suspect are the vast
majority of 2R+F tournament that are run in the world), the effort to
manually randomize the second round is incredibly minimal. If the
benefit of manually randomizing as opposed to using the Archon is
avoiding suboptimal seating, then it strikes me as totally reasonable to
do it manually.
> Good ol' Tatu, nothing beats Tatu! ;)
Second!
Frederick Scott
> In article <tSHKm.22724$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad>,
> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> Better? Certainly not. Once the one randomization thing is done, which
>> you have to do anyway, it's all profit from there. If you like screwing
>> around with index cards and often reseating, rechecking for unacceptable
>> outcomes, rerandomizing, reseating again, rinse repeat, I might accept that
>> it's tolerable. I'm totally missing the boat on how this is better.
>
> If it avoids the suboptimal seating that comes from using 2 rounds of a
> 3 round system that is designed to be used for 3 rounds, then it is
> better.
I hear the argument. I just can't get anyone to show me what they're
talking about that's so "suboptimal". Other than the odd predator-prey
reversals - which I assert would happen as much or more often when done
randomly - no one ever does that. In my experiences, The Archon tables
so used have never seemed to me to be suboptimal.
Fred
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> I'll just stop you there, since anyone who does this is either
>> unaware of the proper use of the Archon, or dumb.
>
> Ok. So not the point. Even a little bit.
Sure it was. You said something. I responded.
If you didn't want that, you shouldn't have said the something.
Peter D Bakija
> > Ok. So not the point. Even a little bit.
>
> Sure it was. You said something. I responded.
Yes. But you responded while completely ignoring the context of the
statement. If you want to pick random words and statements out of
context and arbitrarily respond to them, you can do so all you want,
but it isn't really condusive to actually carrying on a discussion.
The issue here is not "Is it a problem that people don't know how to
use the Archon?" (which is what you seem to think the issue is that
I'm discussing. Which it clearly is not). The issue here is "You are
already manually randomizing the first round in the Archon, so
manually randomizing the second round isn't actually much more work
than you were already doing." As you were complaining that using
manual seating is much more work than the Archon, and I responded to
that by pointing out that you are already manually randomizing the
first round. And if the tournament is 2R+F with not a huge number of
people, manually randomizing the second round is a trivial amount of
work.
I did *not* mention the need to manually randomize the first round of
an Archon based tournament as an example of people not knowing how to
use Archon. Or to imply that this was something that people do, as
that has no impact on the discussion. I suspect that if you go and
actually read the post you pulled that out of, you'll discover that,
lo and behold, you knee jerk reacted to a statement out of context.
> If you didn't want that, you shouldn't have said the something.
Oh, Kevin. You make me sad sometimes.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> That's odd. I just got The Archon out and set it up for 12 Methuselahs.
> There's no such result in the round 2 seating chart I'm looking at.
> Assuming the first round is setup like this:
>
> A -> B -> C -> D (-> A)
> E -> F -> G -> H (-> E)
> I -> J -> K -> L (-> I)
I just got out the "Optimal 2R+F" chart that Kevin posted, to look at
seating out of curiosity. And if the Tatu chart is similar to the
Archon chart, I now see exactly how what happened at our event
happened, seating wise (i.e. Player A and Player B as predator prey in
game 1 and prey predator in game 2; highly sub optimal seating for
player C and player E in games 1 and 2):
-Using that chart (which, again, might be different than the Archon,
but might not), a given predator and grand prey will be prey and
predator in the second round (what happened to Ben and Selen). And as
we originally had 13 players, my relationship to Pete Kapsalis (he was
my prey in R1 and my predator in R2) was the result of player 13
dropping out, as player 13 was supposed to be sitting between me and
Pete.
So if the Archon chart works like the Tatu chart, that is what
happened, explaining everything.
The issue of Player A and Player C in R1 becoming prey/predator in R2
(i.e. my R1 grand prey becomes my predator in R2) is likely a fixed
certainty in a +/-12 player event in the Archon at some point. Using
manual randomization can result in this, but also can avoid this.
> ...the second round looks like this:
>
> K -> A -> H -> B (-> K)
> C -> E -> L -> F (-> C)
> G -> I -> D -> J (-> G)
Yeah, that is different from the Tatu version. Maybe we used the 3rd
round? Dunno. Ooh--but looking at the above game matches, if you are
players A and B (predator/prey G1; predator/grand prey G2) (or EF or
IJ) and it is a bad deck combo one way or the other, you are sad both
games.
-Peter
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>> Ok. So not the point. Even a little bit.
>>
>> Sure it was. You said something. I responded.
>
[snip]
This is silly. I didn't ignore anything.
>> If you didn't want that, you shouldn't have said the something.
>
> Oh, Kevin. You make me sad sometimes.
Then stop responding with paragraph upon paragraph of detailed
explanation which no one needs or wants in an effort to educate
where no education is needed as if we were all pre-schoolers.
Most of us here work on a higher level.
Oh, I'm sure some of you can consider the thread hijacked now,
and respond and/or be affected accordingly. Sigh.
Frederick Scott
On Nov 11, 6:54 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > That's odd. I just got The Archon out and set it up for 12 Methuselahs.
> > There's no such result in the round 2 seating chart I'm looking at.
>
> but might not), a given predator and grand prey will be prey and
> predator in the second round (what happened to Ben and Selen). And as
> we originally had 13 players, my relationship to Pete Kapsalis (he was
> my prey in R1 and my predator in R2) was the result of player 13
> dropping out, as player 13 was supposed to be sitting between me and
> Pete.
Sure. No chart is going to feature any degree of optimization if you
change the number of players between rounds. They can't. They weren't
planned for that purpose and preplanning is the whole point of using
a chart. If I have a drop between rounds, I expect I'll usually have
to give in and just seat the second round manually anyway.
> The issue of Player A and Player C in R1 becoming prey/predator in R2
> (i.e. my R1 grand prey becomes my predator in R2) is likely a fixed
> certainty in a +/-12 player event in the Archon at some point. Using
> manual randomization can result in this, but also can avoid this.
...or it can be even worse. Again, I have a feeling that if you worked
out the odds and analyzed this to the nth degree, you'd find that you
get more such problems on average from the random table than either of
these charts. The order of second round play in The Archon has never
looked bad to me in any of the times I've used it. But then, my belief
is that some of these sitatuatins (e.g. two allies at a table in a
12-player tournament winding up as predator and prey in the second
round) are a LOT harder to avoid than you seem to believe, at least
with smaller numbers of players to work with. (18 players, for
instance, should be a much different story.) That's probably the root
of our differences.
Fred
Peter D Bakija
> This is silly. I didn't ignore anything.
You responded to "if you don't manually randomize the initial input
into Archon, the first round isn't random. So you need to randomize
them manually." with "people who don't do that are stupid". As if that
was remotely relevant to the discussion. Which it was not. As the
issue was not "whether or not people use the Archon correctly" but
instead "you are already manually randomizing the first round." Which
you apprently chose to ignore. And instead respond to the point that
you decided was germain. When it clearly was not.
> Then stop responding with paragraph upon paragraph of detailed
> explanation which no one needs or wants in an effort to educate
> where no education is needed as if we were all pre-schoolers.
Oh, Kevin. You made a faulty post that was irrlevant to the discussion
at hand. And continue to act as if it was relevant, rather than simply
saying "Huh. I probably should have been paying attention..."
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> Sure. No chart is going to feature any degree of optimization if you
> change the number of players between rounds.
Oh, absolutely. At this point, I was just trying to figure out what
happened. And what happened was something wacky.
> But then, my belief
> is that some of these sitatuatins (e.g. two allies at a table in a
> 12-player tournament winding up as predator and prey in the second
> round) are a LOT harder to avoid than you seem to believe, at least
> with smaller numbers of players to work with. (18 players, for
> instance, should be a much different story.) That's probably the root
> of our differences.
Yeah, probably. But I'm currently under the impression that LSJ is
claiming that the Archon being used for 2R results in wacky results for
a reason of some type. But yeah, ok.
Kevin M.
It was relevant.
And must be, since you keep beating a dead horse.
Kevin M.
> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> Sure. No chart is going to feature any degree of optimization if you
>> change the number of players between rounds.
>
> Oh, absolutely. At this point, I was just trying to figure out what
> happened. And what happened was something wacky.
>
>> But then, my belief
>> is that some of these sitatuatins (e.g. two allies at a table in a
>> 12-player tournament winding up as predator and prey in the second
>> round) are a LOT harder to avoid than you seem to believe, at least
>> with smaller numbers of players to work with. (18 players, for
>> instance, should be a much different story.) That's probably the
>> root of our differences.
>
> Yeah, probably. But I'm currently under the impression that LSJ is
> claiming that the Archon being used for 2R results in wacky results
> for a reason of some type. But yeah, ok.
Wow, this is even more obfuscation than you're heaping upon me
earlier up in the thread.
LSJ has clearly stated, multiple times, why he believes what he believes
in regards to the Archon 3R+F seating charts being used for a 2R+F
tournament. For you to claim that it's "a reason of some type" goes
directly to your credibility, or possibly your ability to read.
Peter D Bakija
> It was relevant.
>
> And must be, since you keep beating a dead horse.
Kevin. I have no need to continue arguing with you about something
this stupid. But if you really think that point was relevant, feel
free to explain how it was relevant to the discussion at hand. Or not.
Whatever works for you.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> Wow, this is even more obfuscation than you're heaping upon me
> earlier up in the thread.
"Obfuscation"? Really? You honestly think I'm trying to "obfuscate"
something? Like I have some sort of hiden agenda? Really? This is how
you react to this discussion? I'm secretly an agent of Big Manual
Tournament Seating trying to bring down the Archon industry?
Do you see how ridiculous this is?
> LSJ has clearly stated, multiple times, why he believes what he believes
> in regards to the Archon 3R+F seating charts being used for a 2R+F
> tournament. For you to claim that it's "a reason of some type" goes
> directly to your credibility, or possibly your ability to read.
"A reason of some type" is short hand for "whatever it is was that LSJ
was explaining previously, that I tend to agree with, that I don't
feel like reiterating right this second". Your ability to pick
individual statements out of their context, have them twist your mind
up into a little ball of fury, and the react to them never ceases to
amaze me.
Ok, Kevin. Before, I was just like "Huh. I'm not quite sure why this
is enraging Kevin. As it is a stupid point, and I don't know why it is
getting his knickers in a twist..."
Now, I'm just like "Kevin, what the frak is wrong with you?"
-Peter
LSJ
> "A reason of some type" is short hand for "whatever it is was that LSJ
> was explaining previously, that I tend to agree with, that I don't
> feel like reiterating right this second".
For future cases, you may find "<reason X>" to be shorter to type and more like
your intended message and less disagreement-inferrable than "a reason of some type".
Peter D Bakija
> For future cases, you may find "<reason X>" to be shorter to type and more like
> your intended message and less disagreement-inferrable than "a reason of some type".
Completely true. I'll remeber that next time.
-Peter