New Scaratings

Unidentified Object Seen Floating Around Akron Area

(Akron, OH)—A mysterious object of undetermined origin has been spotted floating around the Akron area—particularly in the vicinity of Cuyahoga Falls—distressing the authorities and local residents alike.

“I don’t quite know how to describe it,” said a frightened local resident who prefers to remain anonymous. “It was an awkward-looking, unnatural object like two mismatched pieces of wood bolted together, topped by something resembling a tin cup, and covered all around with small plaques bearing strange markings. Whatever it was, it was about the ugliest thing I have ever seen.”

The object’s inherent and extreme ugliness has foiled previous efforts to capture or destroy it. At a press conference called to brief the public on the phenomenon, the Ohio Air National Guard State Command Chief revealed that an F-16 fighter jet sent to intercept the object had failed in its mission because of the entity’s uniquely abhorrent visual qualities. “It was hideous. I couldn’t bear to look at it for more than a few seconds, and its image fried my plane’s advanced targeting system,” explained the pilot, “I never used to believe in aliens, but I’m convinced that only an other-worldly, malevolent intelligence could design such a loathsome, repulsive abomination.” When reporters tried to press for more, the pilot—obviously still shaken from the encounter—could only reply, “I. . .I can’t. . .” before quickly exiting the press room in obvious distress.

The White House has officially denied that the object is of extraterrestrial origin.

Causing even greater concern in Washington is the fact that witnesses have observed an object meeting this description in numerous places over the past 25 years. Just in Northeast Ohio alone there have been sightings in Stow, Twinsburg, Streetsboro, and Kent. Even more distressingly, witnesses from coast to coast have reported seeing it in a number of metropolitan areas including Houston, Dallas, Las Vegas, New York City, Kalamazoo, Southern California, and multiple places in the Washington, D.C. area.

In desperation, and given the extraordinary nature of the object and the potential threat it may pose, government authorities have taken the unprecedented step of opening a competition for the continent’s brainiest civilians to meet in teams to try to capture it. “It’s a longshot,” a White House spokesperson said, “but we are running out of options. This…thing, whatever it is, must not be allowed to terrorize the general public any longer.”

23rd Annual McCarthy Cup Tournament Rules

As has become customary for this tournament, it is for teams made up of assembled brainpower in the location only. Just to make sure that there is no room for misinterpretation, this means no computers and no references of any kind during gameplay, either paper or electronic (or telecommunication from outside the location—and yes, this means all forms of telecommunication, including Zoom, Skype, Discord and other virtual meeting apps). This also means no using of electronic devices such as iPhones, iPads, Android, etc., to look up or receive answers from elsewhere. Just to be clear: if a team engages in these activities, or any form of cheating, it is a disqualifying offense.

All teams that agree to abide by this rule are welcome to play, either by signing up on ScaRatings, BadBart, Friends Who Like Buzztime, or otherwise contacting me via PM. All teams must register no later than NOON ON TUESDAY, MARCH 7, the day the tournament starts. We reserve the right to invite additional qualified teams after the deadline to round out the field and/or include teams that have previously played in the tournament.

There will be two phases to the tournament. First, a four-game qualifying phase will start on March 7 in which the total points for each team will be tracked. Each team will be able to drop one low score for the final cumulative total after the March 28 game.

The second phase will begin on April 4. It will be a standard bracketed elimination phase. The number of teams in the knockout round will depend on how many teams sign up (for example, if only 18 teams sign up, we would be more likely to have 8 rather than 16 in the final round. If only 12 sign up, we may have a 6-team knockout round with a bye for the top two). Seedings for the brackets will be determined by the cumulative score described above, and will remain in place for the rest of the tournament.

The winning team will receive not just the glory of being the brainiest bunch out there, but also the custody for one year of what has been called “the ugliest trophy awarded in any field of human endeavor,” the right to have a plaque with its team name and date inscribed on it placed on the base, and the solemn responsibility of running the 24th annual tournament next spring. Oh, and protecting the trophy from the occasional F-16.

Caveats:
Should Buzztime have a system-wide repeat game during the tournament, that week’s scores will be ignored and I will post rescheduled rounds. We reserve the right to cancel the results of a week and reschedule the remainder of the tournament if a significant percentage or more of teams suffer from outages, as has happened in the past. Teams faced with a sudden close or loss of Buzztime at their home location may play at another location as long as they notify me in advance of the game and continue to follow contest rules in the new location. 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.

Oh, and The Fellowship is in.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

Given the recent voluminous discussion elsewhere surrounding the topic the making of tournament rules, I thought it would be germane and helpful to describe the process by which The Fellowship came to this version. For a number of years now, every time the team has hosted a tournament it has elected to ratify the same general rules as used in previous years. Other hosts—including the D.C. and New York teams—have also chosen to use the same general rules, which had never been controversial at all until two days before the last tournament started.

At that point, a representative from the New York team demanded a rule change to accommodate his team’s practice of Zooming in team members (“hybrid play”). Given the late timing of the demand and the fact that all of the other teams had already agreed to play under the standard rules, I informed him that the rules were already set; but that it was a conversation worth having, and that it would be good to get input from the player community before making the rules for the next tournament.

Accordingly—and unlike virtually every other previous tournament host—we solicited input from players, on three different online platforms. The results were unequivocal: the overwhelming majority of those who responded were opposed to changing the in-person play rule.

The team was briefed on the arguments for and against hybrid play and the results of the online surveys. They were then given a chance to weigh in with their thoughts and preferences, both via written responses and at trivia this past week. Right after Tuesday’s discussion at trivia, the team voted unanimously to keep the tournament as it has long been: for assembled brainpower only at the various team locations, no receiving answers from elsewhere. The team also selected this year’s theme; and after the post was written up according to that theme, it was submitted to the team via email for comment before being posted here.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

Have you ever seen some Communist or Third World dictator announce reelection with 99% of the vote? That's all this is.

The first time this "uncontroversial" rule could have been applied, the dictator broke it to allow this team in, then covered it up, in the tournament prior to the one in which he alludes.

Insofar as seeking input and getting an overwhelming majority of support, uhh, where? Certainly not here at Scaratings.com; the two opinions that did not come from the protagonists or their teams slanted the other way. It has been alleged that nine people on Badbart voiced an opinion in favor of the dictator after the dictator, and only the dictator and maybe his buddies spoke to them about it. Badbart is a private group which apparently is not accepting new members, so unless you were already in, you can't see what was said. I asked one of his cohorts what these nine people said, and I got three responses. This is not what is meant by a secret ballot.

I don't even know what the third forum was, unless it was the Red Fox team.

As far team votes are concerned, that happened last week, and no notice was given that the time for input had ended. After promising this to you and others, I posted a series of draft rules to remedy this situation on Friday. You should feel obliged to reconvene your team to consider them.

Yes, I know, don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The sad fact is that a petty dictator and his minions have hijacked one of our beloved tournaments.

Sadder to say, this comes as no shock to me. The only surprise for me was that the dictator was so tone-deaf as to announce this on a day honoring George Washington.

Gee, what would George do?

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

I'm not sure that two votes of support, one from someone who made it clear that he does not play on Tuesdays, is the flex you think it is. As for the Facebook players pages, they were the only other forums of Buzztime players of which I am aware, so it makes perfect sense to consult them, especially as I got feedback from a lot more people over there than I did here. Also a lot of the folks who signed up for the last tournament did so over there rather than here, too. It would not make any sense not to post over there, too.



If a person can't be bothered to respond after almost two weeks, then that's on them. On the Facebook pages, the last substantive response on either page was five days after the post. Over here, as you note, there were all of two responses other than folks from your team or mine (and I'm counting DROLL here, even though he does not play with us anymore). Those that cared enough to post made their sentiments quite clear.



As you know, the team voted for the rules on Tuesday. They voted unanimously. They are not obliged by any rule or principle of any tournament that has ever been held to reconvene just because you said so. Nor has any other team, ever. On the contrary, the rule has always—ALWAYS—been that the host team runs the next tournament. For almost 25 years and more than 30 McCarthy Cup/Sandbag tournaments this has been the one consistent rule—including when you yourself were Tournament Commissioner. To somehow imply that following this rule is some sort of new abuse of power is to rewrite history. The Fellowship is following this rule, as all past hosts have done.

Thank you for your input, though.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

This reminds me of a show from the Sixties cartoon Underdog:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiklRoQXKX4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1FqC39-mOE



Is it three, or is it two. Either way, isn't that a boo-boo, or a senior moment, or something???



Per the Scaratings and Badbart people, what's the difference? The Scaratings people heard from the both of us. The Badbart people just heard from you. The Scaratings people said what they said in public, everyone can see and count it. The Badbart people are in a private group that apparently is not accepting new members. I asked for all the comments, I got three. Get someone beside you or Droll to give us what you said and then what they said. Let's see these votes.



Another invisible rule! You certainly can't accuse me of not being bothered to respond, and I told you and others about draft rules coming soon, but I guess dictators have to dictate.



As Keynes once said, “When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?” Seriously, your group has been rumored to get assembled every Tuesday; it would not be a hardship for them to look at some feedback, right?



One last thing, though; I've asked this before but got no answer. When you broke this rule in the Brainbuster tournament, did you tell the Fellowship that? Did they approve of it? Did they vote on it? When you decided to tell no one about it, did you tell them about it? Did they approve of it, or vote on it, or order you to do that? If they're the ones making the decision, we have the right to know what they decide and how they go about it.

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

ANON, I want to bring up a difference we have in how to proctor a tournament.

I ran quite a few Showdown tournaments over the years, both for when we won and other times when that year's winner didn't want to responsibility and requested I do so. When I did so, I made the decisions. I didn't ask my teammates, I didn't ask members of other teams what to do. Why? Because the vast majority of players don't know dick when it comes to doing so.

My team was no different, the vast majority didn't know anything about how to run or what other teams were playing or whatever. I'd just tell them when we were starting the tournament and they would be excited and ready to go. So there was no reason in asking them for advice on running the event. And guess what? There were no issues such as this.

So I really don't care what the vast majority of your 20+ members of your team think about this decision because they just flat out don't have the wisdom over the years to make an informed decision. That's not a bad thing, it's just a thing. Same with most other players on various teams out there, they can't make an informed decision because they don't have the historical perspective. To me, the opinions of almost everybody you seem to be claiming doesn't mean a damn thing.

Who would I listen to if necessary at this point in time? You for one but nobody else on your team. Also a well established member of the following teams throughout the years. NYC, DC, Chicago, Houston, LA, MD, ABQ. I probably forgot one or two but you get the picture. They have acquired the knowledge over many years. Notice I did not include Fletcher's because of the embarrassing way they ran their one tournament. They included BB in a SD tournament thereby eliminating all west coast bars from being able to compete. We won't even talk about them allowing paper references because they used them at the time.

And unfortunately, you seem to be making the same mistake that they did with BB and the west coasters. The west coasters were for all intent and purpose unable to play BB and this properly participate in the tournament. Could they have all taken off work early for several weeks and made the sacrifice in order to do so? Perhaps, but they shouldn't have been forced into such. The same is true here, the NYC team for all intent and purpose is unable to compete here according to the rules. Could they all suck it up and travel 5 hours round trip in order to properly compete in this event? Perhaps. Should they have to? Well, that's a question only you, as the game runner can answer.

This decision should be yours and yours alone. But whatever decision you make, don't hide behind the opinions of others. Own it yourself.

Just for reference, I believe the NYC team has earned the right to compete in this tournament without traveling 5 hours round trip.

I certainly have my senior moments from time to time, but this is not one of them. This is one online forum and the two players pages on Facebook are the other two.



I linked the ScaRatings thread to both of the Facebook posts and encouraged everyone over there them to read them. Those who did certainly heard from you.



What "rule"? A tournament commissioner has almost never solicited input on the tournament in the first place. If you can find some sort of rule about this in any previous instance of a commissioner asking for input, I would like to hear it.



Oh, don't you worry, STRO--I will certainly tell the team tonight that you insisted that we are obliged to reconsider the rules. I'm guessing that you will probably know the exact moment, because your ears will start to burn.



As a matter of fact, yes to all three. I actually went to bat for your team that Tuesday, asking that an exemption be granted in your case, and although there was some skepticism among a few of them, they did agree to let your team in given the circumstances.

My error afterward was entirely my own, and not the team's. They know about that, too. I also offered anyone else on the team the chance to run either or both of these next two tournaments instead of me--both on a Tuesday night and in a team communication. I got no takers, and they expressed their preference that I remain as commissioner. As always, I am honored to do this for them.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

This is interesting--thanks for providing the insight. It seems there are both similarities and differences here. As you may remember, several times I have been honored to have the folks at Grand Slam and Danny K's choose me to be their guest commissioner. On those occasions I submitted a draft of the rules to them for their approval first, which they accepted without any amendments. Like you, though, I did not ask my team about the rules because The Fellowship was not the host, and only Grand Slam/Danny K's had that right.

And my team is also similar to yours in the sense that a number of them rely on me to tell them who we are playing from week, and they are excited and ready to go--most of them do not haunt these boards.

There seem to be two major differences here, though. One is that fact that a lot of them actually ARE engaged in tournaments, and DO pay closer attention. They particularly enjoy coming up with and voting on the tournament themes, and suggesting edits or amendments to the write-ups (GUNDAM, for example, contributed a lot to the Sandbag write-up last year). For them, it is all part of the fun.

The other major difference is the our respective teams' models. I have often joked that The Fellowship is a Chaocracy, but there is an element of truth in that. When the Category Round comes up every week, for example, we almost NEVER have a unanimous vote on any category. Certain people may choose to lobby for a certain category, but we all understand that anyone is free to vote any way they like, and it often will be close to a 50/50 split. Sometimes we get burned by this; but that's just part of playing with a Chaocracy, and we would not have it any other way.

Similarly, the team has always been consulted when constructing and approving the rules for a tournament--they would expect nothing else. While you may not care what the vast majority of our members think, I do. So I am not "hiding behind the opinions of others," I am just following the team's long-standing model of being a democracy/chaocracy in matters like this going back to the team's earliest days. Like you said, that's not a bad thing, it's just a thing.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

Teasers

_________________
Merkin

Please add Danny K's.

_________________
Middle age is when a broad mind and a slim waist exchange places.

For now:



The Invisible Rule that says that people only had two weeks to submit feedback.



I will gladly risk the burning ears in return for a written statement providing their decisions and why they accepted or rejected them. It is especially important that I hear their opinions on the restrictions on hybrid play that I proposed. Please provide this sometime tomorrow. When you ask for feedback, you are supposed to consider it and publicly provide your response to it. This is not the Star Chamber.

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

Anon, I would like to formally request that you run the McCarthy Cup for Danny K's in 2024. No need to answer now... you have a year to mull it over. Just one thing, please prohibit any teams that "zoom in".

P.S. I do not, in any way, speak for Danny K's. In fact, some teammates may not enjoy the sarcastic (albeit hopeful) assumption that we're gonna win this year.

P.S.S. I check this site maybe 5 times a year, so rebuttals probably won't be read for a while. However, if you have a pertinent insult please feel free to reply. I'm sure Bob/GOGETM can pass it along when I see him the following Tuesday.

This is GUNDAM from The Fellowship, with a message approved by the players at the Red Fox tonight.

STRO, we did look at your comments. Here are our main conclusions:

1. Buzztime is struggling, and they need in-person players to support their current business model. The tournament should require in-person play.
2. There needs to be a reasonable limit on a “team.” People playing in the same physical Buzztime location is a good and simple definition of “team.”
3. Someone will further try to stretch the rules later, introducing the potential for Borg-ing and other behavior not in the spirit of the tournament.

We do not understand what you hope to get out of further discussion. Your arguments did not persuade us, or other teams, even when laid out in a far more succinct and readable format by our leader. Your ad hominem attacks on ANON are uncalled for, and frankly turned opinions on the team from willing to hear you out to “screw this effin guy.” We support ANON in standing up to your bullying.

You can still play Buzztime however you like. But you cannot unilaterally demand that player-run tournaments change their rules just for you.

I have just come back from a three hour commute, which I have been taking to spare my fellow teammates, some over eighty years old, an even longer commute, up to five hours. If your team thinks that is a reasonable commute, you are simply cruel and unreasonable. There is no revenue loss to Buzztime when the person will not go on such a trip. We want to pay for individual subscriptions like those available in modern apps and services.

I gave you a definition of eligible players which serves as a definition of team. You have not explained why this is an unsatisfactory solution to this issue. I also provided draft rules for the removal of a gamerunner and override of decisions. You have not even mentioned that.

It was people in a bar who invented Borging and practiced it for years. There is far more historical support for banning play in bars for the reason you cite than elsewhere. The reality is all play, no matter where, is based on the honor system, but unlike a bar, I can show you us in action via Zoom. I welcome you to join us at a time of your choosing.

The point of all this is to point out that your team richly deserves to be criticized for its often incoherent actions and improper attitude, and sheer unwillingness/inability to answer most of the questions and points directed towards you. Really, if you give a student a ten question quiz, and he ignores seven of the questions, what grade do you give him or her? A secondary issue is remote play in tournaments, and frankly your arguments have bounced between the non-answer "it's the rules" and "We're afraid."

There is nothing wrong with an ad hominem attack when the person is the problem, and when that is the issue, the one and only question you should be asking yourself about what I say is "Is this true or not?" You say they are uncalled for? Why are they uncalled for? I certainly gave plenty of reasons for it to be called for, now it's your turn.

Of course I have every right to request a change in rules, and if you think not, you have no business doing this. The severe decline in Buzztime locations has left many players without a place to play, and that is not going to change any time soon, so while we may have more initiative than most, we are hardly alone. If you're so concerned about revenue, join us in pushing for individual subscriptions. You say I have no right to ask that "player-run tournaments change their rules just for you", but your team did just that for the Brainbuster tournament because it was just for me/my team! And then you covered it up. Am I a bully for suggesting that this wasn't exactly best practices?

One more thought. Your team did the same thing when it had no choice. Why is it different for us? One last question. What makes a tournament so much more sacrosanct than non-tournament play? No one says getting answers from a computer is only bad when it happens during a tournament. A practice is either good for both or bad for both; it can't be half-and-half.

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

Here, let me make this easier for you. Here's the draft rules. Just tell me what the team opinion was on each point.
After all, you said you did that. If you didn't go over this, be honest and admit it, and arrange to do that next Tuesday.

Draft additions/revisions to tournament rules

Recent events have pointed out the need for revision and additions to the rules. These draft rules provide what should be considered a minimal reformation of rules; a far more substantial overhaul is more than warranted, but this would do for now. These rules can and should be incorporated into all private tournaments.

There are three areas of change. The new transparency rules require that the gamerunner reports all his actions and decisions along with all new and modified rules to a public forum for public comment. There is currently no way to replace a gamerunner for any reason whatsoever, so it also provides rules for his or her removal and an override of decisions.

The prohibited practices rules set forth general principles to be followed in making rules under this section, makes explicit and more clearly defines currently prohibited practices, and sets forth the range of penalties for infractions of those rules.

The restricted practices rules set forth the general principle that while play at a paying location is the norm, exceptions are allowed when such play is not feasible. They set forth the conditions for an exception, namely travel time and restrictions on who may play in such a group. They also establish the principle that further restrictions cannot be applied unless they are applied to all teams.

Transparency Rules:

General Principle #1: The gamerunner must make all his actions, decisions and rule changes as gamerunner public.

• The gamerunner must always make all his decisions public and must publicly explain his reasoning for making those decisions in a designated public forum (Scaratings.com).
• New and modified rules must be written in clear and unambiguous terms, and a separate explanation of what the rule means and why it was changed/added must be provided at the time it is issued. No rule can take effect until it has been posted at the designated public forum.
• All new/modified rules must allow at least a week for public comments. Emergency rules can be issued to take place immediately, but they will not become permanent until they have gone through the public comment period.
• The participants of a tournament can remove a gamerunner on the grounds of misconduct (whether within or without the duties of gamerunner) or inability to adequately perform the duties of gamerunner by a two-thirds vote of all teams registered to play in the tournament. Before doing so, they must give the gamerunner the opportunity to defend himself and they must publicly post the reasons for the removal.
• Decisions of the gamerunner can be overridden by the tournament participants, but they can only do so by a unanimous vote.

Playing Rules

General Principle #2: Answers should only come from human heads: If an answer does not come from a human head, neither it nor the practice that generated it is allowed. Answers that come from human heads are allowable unless specifically prohibited or restricted by a rule.

Prohibited Practices:

Specific practices that are always prohibited are:

• Use of a time lag: Any course of action or procedure which yields the result of getting a Buzztime answer from a game at one location and using it to answer the same question in the same game at a different location which is running that game at a slightly later time is prohibited.
• The use of reference materials: Any attempt to find an answer using reference material is prohibited. Reference materials include both printed and electronic forms. For the purposes of this prohibition, all Internet websites other than communications conduits such as Zoom or Teams or Discord, are deemed to be reference material. People are never considered to be reference material, nor are computers used solely as a conduit to convey answers from one person to others.
• Certain human transactions: Telephone calls made to nonplayers for the purpose of getting answers to questions are not allowed.
• Playing for more than one tournament team: No player may play for more than one team participating in the tournament during the tournament.

A team that engages in any prohibited practice can be terminated from the tournament and forfeit any prize or standing from the tournament. In the case of minor infractions of this rule, the gamerunner may choose to impose a lesser penalty such as a penalty in the score of a game or a zero score for a single game. All such decisions must be posted with an explanation on Scaratings.com.

Restricted Practices:

[i]Since this is a new section covering new practices, some additional explanation is warranted.

Background: The Buzztime business model depends on locations paying for the service. The number of locations is less than a third of what is was in mid-2019. Large chunks of the country have no locations that can be reached within a reasonable period of travel time. The number of people playing the game is a small fraction of what it was a few years ago. The Buzztime app is not dependent on being around a location to function. It is possible to play most Buzztime games remotely through the app by using GPS spoofing. Showdown is not one of those games, so a different remote technique called the Hybrid is used: someone goes to a location, starts a Zoom link with remote players, shows the Showdown game in progress, and relays answers from the remote players who cannot play Showdown to those at the location who can. It would be far better if Buzztime let those orphaned by the location drop pay for individual subscriptions and play remotely through the Buzztime app, but they have not yet been willing to do so. Only one team is currently using the Hybrid, and no other team has yet inquired about adopting it.

Description of Rules: These rules establish the principle that players should play at locations, but provides an exception restricted to those impacted by the lack of locations. It requires that any teams that wish to play under the exception must disclose that wish and verify that they qualify under it. It restricts those who can play to people who have had a previous relationship with someone on the team. This is meant to include people like former players who have moved away and family members and exclude what one called “Zoom ringers.”
It also provides for equal treatment between remote/hybrid and regular teams. For instance, if a gamerunner decided to restrict the number of players playing remotely/hybrid to fifteen, he would have to impose the same rule on all teams. Finally, it provides for an exception in case of an emergency. These rules would need to be substantially rewritten if Buzztime began to allow individual subscriptions.[/b]

General Principle #3: When reasonably possible, team interactions should take place within the confines of a paying location, but when they are not, alternatives are allowable.

General Principle #4: Besides the location and relationship restrictions, no other restrictions will be imposed on teams playing remotely that would not also apply to all other teams.

Definitions:

Remote play: Playing Buzztime games using the Buzztime app outside of a Buzztime location with or without the use of GPS spoofing.

Hybrid play: Playing those Buzztime games not available with the Buzztime app by establishing a video link showing the game to those watching remotely and relaying answers from the remote players to those playing the game at a Buzztime location.

General rule: Players should play at a paying location

Exception:
1) Players in site-poor areas. A player is considered to be in a site-poor area if the nearest Buzztime location that carries the specific game to be played is more than an hour away from him one-way using that player’s regular means of transportation.
2) If a group of players seek to play together, they are considered to be in a site-poor area if the nearest Buzztime location that carries the game is on average more than an hour away from each of them using those players’ regular means of transportation.

Players/teams in such areas may play in tournaments either remotely or by using the hybrid. In hybrid situations, it is the location that shows the game that requires the hybrid that is used for the travel time test.

Relationship Requirement: For purposes of the initial tournament, all players playing remotely must have a preexisting historical or familial relationship with at least one member of the team. (This rule will be revised in the future to address the circumstances under which new players will be allowed to join.)

Disclosure Requirement: All teams that plan to play in a tournament under the exception must publicly disclose that to the showrunner and explain that they meet all the requirements of the exception. A brief written statement will normally suffice unless the gamerunner decides more verification is required.

Emergency exception: The gamerunner may waive all these requirements for a tournament team that is faced with an emergency that prevents play at the regular site. This includes but is not limited to technical difficulties, removal of the game from a location, bar closure, and natural disasters. The gamerunner may also allow a tournament team to temporarily or permanently change their location. All such decisions must be posted on Scaratings.com as soon as reasonably possible.

Equal treatment: The gamerunner may not impose additional restrictions upon those teams playing remotely/hybrid that are not also applicable to regular teams.

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

Let me help a little bit more. Here's how responding to feedback should be done:

Transparency Rules:

We accept the draft transparency rules and will incorporate them into our rules.
or
We accept the following transparency rules (A,B,C) but reject (D,E,F) because
(cite your reasons)
or
We reject the draft transparency rules because (cite your reasons).

Prohibited practices:

We accept the draft prohibited practices rules and will substitute them for our current rules.
or
We accept the draft prohibited practices rules and will substitute them for our current rules with the following modifications.
or
We do not accept the draft prohibited practices rules for the following reasons.

Exceptions for site-poor location:

We accept the site-poor location exception rules and will substitute them for our current rules.
or
We accept the site-poor location exception rules and will substitute them for our current rules with the following modifications.
or
We do not accept the site-poor location exception rules. Travel time is no acceptable reason for an exception to the general rule for the following reasons (which should explain how the benefit from banning distant players exceeds that from letting them play).

Relationship Requirement:

We accept the relationship requirement rules and will substitute them for our current rules.
or
We accept the relationship requirement rules and will substitute them for our current rules with the following modifications.
or
We do not accept the relationship requirement rules. There is no rule or restriction that will be acceptable to us because someone, somewhere, some time, might cheat somehow on this.

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

Ok STRO, since you asked for it:

Transparency Rules:
We reject the draft transparency rules because they are complicated and unnecessary. ANON is doing a great job as commissioner; you are the only person with complaints.

Prohibited practices:
We do not accept the draft prohibited practices rules because they are too complicated and we think the existing rules are fine.

Exceptions for site-poor location:
We do not accept the site-poor location exception rules. Travel time is no acceptable reason for an exception to the general rule. Tournaments should promote in-person play. Ask your local bars to get Buzztime trivia; that's what we did.

Relationship Requirement:
We do not accept the relationship requirement rules. Tournaments should not discourage new Buzztime players. This may surprise you, but we frequently get new players (under 50 years old even!!!) to join us at the bar, and often they become regular team members. More players is good for Buzztime and we reject any rule discouraging new players.

Our team has already spent more time engaging civilly with your comments than they frankly merit; do not expect further comments. If you want to keep spamming the thread with angry rants . . . you do you, I guess

Reread what I said, STRO: I said that I would tell the team that you insisted that we were obliged to reconsider our rules. I did as I promised. They unanimously disagreed with you. This, of course, is absolutely their right—this is a basic fact, and a fact that you seem to refuse to understand. One last time, and just to be clear:

No matter how much you really, really, REALLY want it to be otherwise, the fact is that the previous year’s winner gets to choose how the tournament is run the next year. Always. If we wanted to, we could choose you to run the tournament. We don’t want to. In this, we are exercising the same right as every other tournament host team ever, including yourself. Also like every other tournament host, including yourself, we are under absolutely no obligation to amend our rules upon demand. There is no volume of words you can write that can alter this fundamental fact. Whatever else you may have to say about the tournament from here on out, I encourage you to return to and reread this paragraph as our team’s official response.

While you are at it, reread what GUNDAM wrote last night, too. It is not that we have ignored what you had to say. We were willing to hear your arguments. We listened, and we found them unpersuasive. We found them increasingly less persuasive as you became increasingly more like whatever-the-opposite-of-Dale-Carnegie-is. Your behavior here has not done yourself or your team any favors. I know that in this whole drama you think that I am your enemy, but I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with you again. To find him, I’m afraid you are going to have to look in the mirror.

A person is free to choose to act in an uncivil and belligerent manner, casting aspersions and embracing ad hominem attacks. However, by so doing, that person forfeits the expectation that anyone should respect or respond to what he says. To my great regret, you have made this choice and its consequent forfeiture.

In closing, I wish to reiterate what I said before in another thread. I bear you no personal animosity or ill will, Ed—quite the contrary. I said it before, and I will say it again: I wish you well, and I wish you peace.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

Just for the record:



Your team proved the necessity for these actions through their actions.



I think I wrote about 5,000 words to the contrary. Where was I wrong? Show me. If I'm the only complainer, your crew are the only praisers. God, this is personality cult.
P.S. BTW, could you please tell us how great the coverup was, which he apparently hid from even your team? How about those imaginary rules and invisible exceptions, how exemplary were they? Good and bad deeds are determined by their merits and demerits not by whether or not they are noticed. Sneakiness is not a virtue.



The existing rules were so "fine" I didn't understand them due to the clumsy English. I merely described the prohibited practices that have emerged over the years and took care of some minor omissions. Really, "the best trivia team in the world" keeps finding clearly enumerated rules too hard for them?



You just gave the finger to all the orphaned Buzztime players. Has it ever dawned on you that Buzztime does not justify its cost in most locations, never has? You expect us to walk into a bar and say, "Please Mr. Bar Owner, start paying $500 a month for this game. We won't spend enough money for you to cover your costs, but we're nice people, so get it anyway." We don't even go to bars except to play the game.

But I'll give you some credit for not mincing words.



The relationship requirement refers to remote-play teams. That rule was put in there because your great commissioner was afraid we or some unknown team from the future was going to recruit armies of Ken Jennings to beat you, which makes your comments really ironic.



That's a nice phrase "engaging civilly." Your crew certainly didn't answer or respond meaningfully to the vast majority of what I had to say. Your crew was much better at running away after a couple volleys. In a lot of ways, the tenor of these exchanges reminds me of the exchanges I had with the West Covina folks and their allies over computer use. One big difference is that a lot of people took sides back then. Now, virtually nothing.

What is really sad about all this is the degree to which each side finds the other side incomprehensible.



One man's facts is another man's spam.

What is really sad about all this is the degree to which each side finds the other side incomprehensible. You cannot see how criticism of you can be legitimate, and I cannot see
how you cannot see it. I'm sure you're thinking the same sort of things about me.

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

To join in, for the record:

Except for myself, who abstained and tried to express the issue impartially to the Teasers players, it was unamimously voted to express Teasers support for the current Showdown tournament rules as promulgated by ANON and Red Fox/The Fellowship. The most expressed reasons were the right of the defending champion to set the tournament rules and support for in-person play.

Not that our vote formally matters at this time, but the ongoing conversation has asked long standing competitors for their points of view.

I would add that nothing is stopping the NYC group from organizing another similar tournament in the upcoming weeks with their rules. Teasers would play.

I would also add that as (three time) defending champion of the MUDEE Six tournament in the fall, I have influence over the rules of that tournament and thusfar we have allowed Zoom based play. Myself, BUD, etc., will review that again when the time comes.

_________________
Merkin

You asked for feedback. I provided it, addressing the concerns you had and the concerns I had. When you ask for feedback, you are supposed to consider and respond to it. Why is this such a strange concept to your team? There's nothing there that says they had to agree to it, just that they had to say why they agreed or disagreed with it. And guess what? After they finally said something, I have the perfect right to criticize them for any flaws in their arguments, and that wasn't too hard to find.



This is what is scary about you and your team. I gave you what you asked for, and you and your team freaked out. You go on a diatribe condemning me for something I never asked for. There seems to be a fundamental incomprehension to much of what I've said, and I don't understand much of what you've said and done.



You see someone expressing a wrongly aimed self-hate. I see someone and his team who are practicing a petty tyranny. That's a big gap in perception.



I will never be accused of being Politenessman. But what if the person is telling the truth about the situation or person?



This began with Dorothy. Some time ago, I summarized your position as "I don't care if you're over eighty years old with a bad knee and have to commute five hours to play Showdown, get thee to the bowling alley if you want to play in any tournament of mine." Tonight I will tell Dorothy, "Today, I heard a female member of that team confirm and emphasize that. But they wished us peace."

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

Here are the teams that have signed up so far:

The Fellowship/Red Fox/Punts & Pints, Cuyahoga Falls, OH
Primetime Sports Grill, Tampa, FL
Alien Bar, Albuquerque, NM
Danny K’s, Orange, CA
Time Out West, Hanover Park, IL
Hanko’s Sports Bar and Grill, Lake Oswego, OR
Teaser’s, Chicago, IL
Blue Horn Lounge, Chapel Hill, NC
Moose McGuire’s, Ottawa, ON
Big Guys, Winnipeg, MB
Oak Tree Lanes, Diamond Bar, CA

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

We are proposing a new tournament based on Brainbuster which will begin shortly. Please see http://www.scaratings.com/newScaratings/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=4124 for more details. We welcome your comments and feedback.

_________________
“When I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether it is called people or king, democracy or aristocracy . . ., I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws.” --de Tocqueville

The Market at John Hall Store in Cecil, AL would like to formally throw our "hat in the ring" for the 23rd McCarthy Cup.

Thanks....Davo (Buzztime Handle)

Welcome DAVO...glad to have some Alabama influence on here. You might be the 1st one.

Hope you will tell us a little about The Market and why their name is so long???
What is the bar known for? Good food? How many regular players do you usually have?

ANON will be along shortly to let you know about the 23rd McCarthy Cup.

_________________
BUD - Stained Glass Pub Silver Spring MD
OC BUD - Grotto Pizza DE near Ocean City MD

LET'S GO ....Caps and Os!!!!