General Discussion: Future Tournaments

ANON · **Joined:** Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:59 pm **Posts:** 2232

Assuming for the moment that Buzztime will continue to exist in some form next year, STRO has brought up some proposals regarding the way future player-run tournaments ought to be run. I suspect that some people may have missed this discussion because it was within the Sandbag Tournament thread, which they may not be following. Thus, I am starting a dedicated thread for this discussion in hopes of drawing a more general audience with some thoughtful opinions and responses.

What prompted this discussion, in short, was a question about whether the "correct" answer to a Final Showdown question in the semifinal game was indeed the only correct answer. The tournament commissioner ruled that BT's response was indeed the most correct of the ones given, but pointed out that there is nothing in the rules that would govern this situation should a future tournament be affected by an answer that was demonstrably wrong. Here is what STRO proposed:

STRO wrote:

The question has been raised as to whether or not a gamerunner can do anything if Buzztime provides an incorrect answer to a question. I have ruled that the gamerunner may do so for future tournament games. I have also provided a standard for correctness in future tournament games. What I have not yet addressed is what should be done if a gamerunner finds a major Buzztime answer for any tournament game in error.

I believe the following principles should apply, and will use them for the final game tomorrow:

1) Under no circumstance may a gamerunner award a victory to a losing team as a result of his decision. The gamerunner can only confirm the victory or rule that a game be replayed the following tournament week.

2) A gamerunner will not order teams to replay a game due to Buzztime or other error (i.e., malfunctioning equipment) simply because he has ordered other teams to do so. If it is reasonably clear that the winning team would have won anyway regardless of the error, the gamerunner will confirm the win and the winning team will have a bye for the week other team(s) are replaying games.

3) A gamerunner will not order a game to be replayed due to Buzztime error unless it is seems more likely than not that the losing team would have won otherwise. Any reasonable numerical analysis may be used, provided it is described with the decision.

4) Only questions with large point totals qualify for this determination. While I will leave it to future gamerunners to decide where they wish to draw the line, for the final tomorrow, only Pyramid and the Final Question will qualify for this determination.

5) As a general rule of thumb, the gamerunner should let the original results stand unless there is good reason not to.

Let me illustrate these principles with an example: IF I had ruled that the answer to last week's final question incorrect, how would I have applied them to the teams that played last week?

The Fellowship/Mad River

I can only confirm the victory of the Fellowship or order the game replayed. I will not order the game replayed if I order the other semifinal replayed. A Final Question qualifies for the determination. Final Questions are unique in that scores are considerably lower if you end up with the wrong answer than if you change to the right answer at the last moment. I agree that REACH's methodology is a good way to approximate what-ifs in this situation; I agree with ANON that this isn't going to necessarily work all the time. Here, both the Fellowship and Mad River had at least six boxes that completely missed the question. The Fellowship scores were generally higher than Mad River's.

In this situation, I would have ruled that the Fellowship would have won the game excluding the final question based on the evidence and confirmed the victory. I would consider that determination a close call that reasonable men could disagree with, but there is no convincing evidence pointing to a Mad River victory. Since there is no good reason to think Mad River would have won, the original victory should stand. Either way, the Fellowship would advance to the final.

Ragged Rascals/Whispers

I can only confirm the victory of Whispers or order the game replayed. I would not order the game replayed if I ordered the other semifinal replayed. A Final Question qualifies for the determination. Final Questions are unique in that scores are considerably lower if you end up with the wrong answer than if you change to the right answer at the last moment. I agree that REACH's methodology is a good way to approximate what-ifs in this situation; I agree with ANON that this isn't going to necessarily work. Here, both the Ragged Rascals and Whispers had at least six boxes that completely missed the question. The Ragged Rascal scores were all higher than the Whispers scores.

In this situation, I would have ruled that the Ragged Rascals would have likely won the game. I cannot declare them winners; I can only order a replay and that is what I would do. The two teams would play again on November 5, and the Fellowship would not have to play Mad River again, but have a bye week and play the winner of the replayed match on November 12.

Finally, being gamerunner in these tournaments have stopped being a mere accounting exercise. so the issue of conflicts of interest raises its ugly head. Like Caesar's wife, a gamerunner should be above suspicion, which is not the case when I have no choice but to decide the fate of my own team. If the role of gamerunner is to be expanded to deciding what to do with decisions involving one's own team, either the gamerunner should be allowed to recuse himself and select a member from another team to make the decision, or the gamerunner should not be someone playing for a team likely to be involved in the competition.

Here was my response to that post:

ANON wrote:

As for the substance of your proposals, I agree entirely with the five principles you articulated so succinctly regarding how future Commissioners should adjudicate similar issues. It will help make life a lot easier to have these guidelines on which to rely. I would be happy to vote to ratify them in toto.

If there is any part of your proposal with which I might disagree, it is the last part. Part of the charm and appeal of these tournaments is the fact that the prize for winning is not just the trophy, it is also the right/responsibility to keep the tournament going. Indeed, since the first McCarthy Cup, it has been pretty much the only constant rule: the winners get to run the tournament the next year in whatever manner they see fit. Some winners have elected to select a third party to run the tournaments on their behalf, which was their right; but I would be reluctant to establish a rule that deprives a winning team of the chance to run the tournament themselves. For all the frustrations that attend being Commissioner, the role is also a privilege and an honor--and even (dare I say it?) fun. At least at times.

Beyond all of that, though, one of the strongest arguments against establishing such a rule is (seemingly paradoxically) the example of your own actions. You were faced with a problem in which the self-interest of your team conflicted with your interpretation of the rules. Yet you forthrightly, judiciously, and with great equanimity rendered what I believe to be the correct decision even though it had the effect of letting the elimination of your team stand. Such sportsmanship is noteworthy, but has been a hallmark of these tournaments in the past. Given the nature of a continent-wide competition with no real policing power, these tournaments have always been on the honor system; and with rare exception, they have gone off without any serious question of violation of that code. I think this is also part of the charm of these tournaments: the acceptance and trust that all the teams participating are playing by the rules, or sometimes even going beyond them to give up a walkover win for a replay in the name of sportsmanship.

Now if a Tournament Commissioner faced with a similar situation wants to recuse him/herself or invoke the Buzztime equivalent of the 25th Amendment, I don't think anyone would object. But to make it a requirement that the Commissioner should not be someone involved in the tournament seems to me to be perhaps a bit overly-cautious.

So that's my two cents. I look forward to hearing other opinions on this.

So there it is. If anyone else would like to weigh in, please do. Thanks.

-BO- · **Joined:** Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:20 pm **Posts:** 2291

For the most part, I was under the impression that the commish had the authority to make equitable decisions if unusual circumstances occurred. I know I had to once or twice. The only thing that could be handy would be for the commish to appoint someone on another team to make a decision in case this decision would have a direct impact on the commish's squad.

What was brought up at one point was to have a fixed template to run the tournament. Showdown only, basic qualifying or straight match play. Nothing goofy. But it never happened.

But over the years the various commish's have done very well running solid events with the exception of Fletchers. That was a total disaster (counting BB scores and allowing paper references but not electronic, come to find out Fletcher's used paper references at that time) and the reason the fixed tournament template of sorts came up. Any set of rules where teams drop out before the tournament starts is not good. Under current rules or lack thereof, a team could win a tournament and then the next year have an event where the top 10 scores of the 630c sports game count with references allowed.

I'll always root for proven teams to win (assuming we can't) because I know they'll run a solid event the next year. I always get nervous when a somewhat unknown team makes it to the semis.

As long as common sense prevails, it's not rocket surgery. Let the commish do his or her job.

BUD · **Posted:** Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:34 pm

You could have 2 commissioners run future tournaments. Make decisions in agreement to avoid situations involving the commissioner's team.

It's worked fine so far in the Thur SIX Challenge tournaments. IDJIT of West Park and I are running it each year regardless of winner, so a little different. The SD tourneys could include the past winner commish with the new winner commish who gets to pick set up of tourney etc.

STRO · **Joined:** Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:00 pm **Posts:** 237

There seems to be two contradictory thoughts coexisting here: "Don't tell anybody what to do" and "Don't break the (unwritten) rules." There also seems to be considerable faith that at least "the usual suspects" will always do "the right thing," a belief I have some reason to think does not have universal applicability.

Why not write down the unwritten rules? Why not invite feedback on these and other rules that emerged from this year's McCarthy and Sandbagger tournaments?

The term "template" was used to describe an earlier attempt to come up with rules after a usual suspect didn't do the right thing. That's exactly what I'm talking about here: template, not Ten Commandments (then again, I don't think "Thou shalt not award victories to losing teams" would be such a bad commandment). Every gamerunner posts a set of rules; all this template will do is provide additional guidance to different situations. Gamerunners could choose to use them or not, but either way, participants will get a clearer idea of how the gamerunner is or isn't going to proceed. The fact that a template didn't happen then doesn't mean it shouldn't happen now. We didn't have partial system failures or credible challenges to Buzztime answers or gamerunners making decisions involving his own team back then, either.

I'm not sure when I'm going to get a chance to develop this template to post it for comment, but it will be sooner rather than later. In the meantime, I have a trophy to mail.

GONE D · **Joined:** Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:33 am **Posts:** 710

Worth considering here might be the imperfect analogy between the Sandbag Tournament and last season's NFL Playoffs. The Commissioner in both cases is the Commissioner. Teasers, Whispers, and Red Fox Grille are much like NFL owners, and Buzztime, in its questions and answers, the NFL referees. Then an LA Rams defensive back takes a screamingly misplaced shot at New Orleans receiver, and draws no call. The Rams advance to the Super Bowl, but fail to win. Both the North and South Magnetic Poles shimmy with far more energy than than either of the Tropics, but as yet have failed to switch, as they do every now and again - the question in reference, as I recall.

In response to public outrage, the NFL Commissioner (STRO) calls in the owners (ANON & Co.) to redefine its rules so that Pass Interference (faulty questions), become reviewable. In the NFL, such review has not generated much in the way of overturned calls. Nor should it in Buzztime tournament play.

In the absence of clear (not merely disputable) evidence, the ruling on the field, delivered by Buzztime, should stand. Of course, the Commissioner could always postpone the game for a week, but the postponement should include all the teams, not just one pairing.

Then there's the Absolute Veto, where any dissenting voice carries the day. A worthy experiment undertaken by the Polish Diet, the Absolute Veto caused Poland to disappear from the map for over 100 years (1795-1918), and caused numerous pogroms against the resident Jews, who had once made Poland as prosperous as any country in Europe. Currently, Polish law makes any mention of complicity in the Showa a federal crime.

STRO, REACH and ANON, I must beg of you not to overthink this. Just live with Buzztime's fallible judgment.

ANON · **Joined:** Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:59 pm **Posts:** 2232

I appreciate both STRO's desire for a template, as well as GONE D's apt analogy and desire not to overthink things. I'm thinking that there is room for both to be accommodated.

In my efforts to salvage some early information from the old BadBart site before it goes away (see other post), I have been struck at just how variable the rules were in the early days, including (at least one year) wild card slots that in the early rounds went to the top-scoring losers the previous week. This interested me in particular because a few years ago some of my teammates suggested using a double-elimination repechage style bracket for one of the tournaments. Although we eventually voted to go another way, I remember thinking at the time that while it was certainly a valid form of competition which could arguably produce reliably stronger final rounds, it may be considered "too radical" by some people. And here I find that the early wild-card rule actually resembled some of the principles of repechage in at least one of the earliest tournaments.

For a while, The Fellowship chose to run its tournaments World-Cup style, with a preliminary round of eight or nine four-team groups, the winners of which would get automatic seeds in the elimination rounds, with the balance of the bracket filled with the best-performing non-group-winners.

A number of the earliest tournaments also allowed the defending champion to give itself the #1 seed (and occasionally a resulting first-round bye) regardless of its performance in the time leading up to the tournament. Some also allowed computer-using teams to play, although they would be subject to either a standard point penalty or a challenge system. Re-seeding the advancing teams each round by their score the previous week was also tried multiple times. And BO reminds us of a year in which Brainbuster scores were combined with the Showdown scores each week.

If there is a point to all of this, perhaps it might be that those of us of a certain age remember the knock-down, drag-out fights over rules in an earlier era. More recently--at least for most of the tournaments of the past several years or so--there has been much less variation and there has also been (perhaps not coincidentally) much less dispute over the rules than there used to be. Does this mean that the community has reached some form of consensus that the present rules are broadly fair and acceptable? Perhaps.

But even here, new rules have been accreting in response to certain specific instances. For example, for the past several iterations the following language has been found at the end of the rules:

Quote:

In general, we take no responsibility for and offer no solution nor redress for localized problems (i.e. power outages, lack of players due to illness or vacation, etc.) with one possible exception: If a team in the semi-finals or finals suffers a documentable and unavoidable mid-game crash, its victorious opponent may invite that team to a rematch, but is under no obligation to do so.

I believe the first occurrence of the first part of that sentence (through "etc.") came from Kalamazoo's rules, in response to seemingly annual complaints about crashed systems in the early rounds which knocked out teams and prompted them to ask for "do-overs." I think there was general agreement that this would be unfair to all of the other teams and could make tournaments interminable if it happened multiple times. However, the second part (starting "with one possible exception...") was added in response to a specific event during a semifinal game between The Fellowship and Tailgate in the 2010 Sandbag. Tailgate's system crashed during the Lightning Round and they posted no score. By the rules, the Fellowship could have easily taken the resulting forfeit into the finals, but the team voted pretty much unanimously that they didn't want to "win" that way, and with the permission and support of the Commissioner, we granted Tailgate a semifinal rematch the following week. We wanted to make sure that the rules were flexible enough to allow this in the future, which is why we added that language to the following year's rules. They have been in most of the rules since, I believe.

All of this is to say that--using this case study as an example--I think it may be possible to find some middle ground here, in which 1) teams would have some freedom to issue their own rules, and 2) Commissioners would still have some latitude in interpreting rules. I would be reluctant to support a proposition that would constrain either 1) or 2) too much, but I suspect STRO's proposition would not be so procrustean as to do that.

If there are two constants in ALL 34 of the Cup Tournaments so far (McCarthy and Sandbag), they are that they all had a head-to-head component, and the winners had the honor of setting the rules and running the tournament the next year (or appointing someone else to do so). Maybe if we are coming up with a template, it could be as simple as an understanding that these rules continue to obtain, with certain guidelines to help commissioners deal with disputes in an equitable way.

STRO · **Joined:** Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:00 pm **Posts:** 237

Up to this point, there has been little feedback.

What I will do when I get some time within the next couple weeks is to put together a template for future gamerunners to use.
Perhaps that will increase the number of comments. Suggestions are welcome.

New Scaratings

General Discussion: Future Tournaments

Who is online