UPSB v3
General Discussion / Cash Tournament
-
Date: Thu, Jan 7 2010 05:38:41
This idea has likely come up before, but I was not able to find any specific topics upon it.
It seems that the primary reason that pen spinning tournaments (outside globally operated ones e.g. the Asian Cup or the World Cup/Tournament) don't work, is because of lack of incentive (whether that be from losing interest or any other reason) to continue. I think that the primary way this can be solved can be through one of the fundamental ways of gaining commitment to anything: cash investment. When people invest money into something they are far more likely to commit more attention to it. This could take many forms, but here are a few options I thought of:
1) Individuals pay the organizer of a tournament to enter said tournament, I imagine $5-$10 is a reasonable amount. The individuals are placed into a Swiss-system tournament for some number of rounds (this will depend on the number of individuals entering said tournament). Each individual will place at the end of the round, and money will be distributed depending upon place and number of participants. An example will be placed below:
Spoiler:
2) The same as the first example, except that each player is paired with a random partner. The placements would depend on the scores of both individuals (This would leave some of your winnings to chance, which may get lower level spinners more comfortable with the idea of joining regardless of skill level).
3) Individuals pay the organizer of a tournament to enter said tournament, I imagine $5-$10 is a reasonable amount. The individuals are placed into a Swiss-system tournament for some number of rounds (this will depend on the number of individuals entering said tournament). The individuals are returned their origonal investment at the end of the tournament, unless they fail to participate enough (see "strike system" within the spoiler titled "Example"). The idea behind this one would be that less skilled players could participate in tournaments without knowingly handing out their money because they are not good enough to win in a distributed payment system.
Some notes upon this idea:
1) A percent of the money could be given to the organizer or two an organizers cause (for example, if the UPSB moderator team was to organize such an event, they could donate a percentage of the entry fee to UPSB upkeep).
2) These scenarios could include numbered teams, different battle types or various other strategical variables to inspire incentive.
3) Entry limits could be added, but personally I oppose this idea.
4) Judges would need to be very well chosen with the optional backup judges already decided. Judging from each judge would be free to view, because when people make such entries they would enjoy to, at the very least, see who gave them what results.
5) The organizer would need to be considered highly competent and not too busy for the period of time determined for the tournament to last. A backup organizer would also be highly advised if something drastically took away from the organizer's time.
6) The person keeping the money should be highly trusted by the community, perhaps a minimum number of successful-trades-made should be required.
7) Other rules would need to be set in place to prevent cheating in some circumstances as well as keep bi-partinsanship.
If anyone has any suggestions or have a particular reason for thinking this will/won't work, please post below.
For some reason I feel like an attention whore for asking for this (maybe because I am
), but if anyone thinks this post contained particularly good ideas, please consider clicking the thank button at the bottom left.
-
Date: Thu, Jan 7 2010 05:40:46
not a bad idea, but as always i'm wary mixing money with tournaments because it means you need a really reliable organizer and rock solid judging. as soon as you get a blown call yo wont hear the end of it
WT/WC dont involve significant cash prizes because I don't believe we have found a reliable enough judging system yet. -
Date: Thu, Jan 7 2010 05:48:14
This could work in the near future...
As zombo said, who's gonna judge? Everyone would have to agree on the judge and the judging itself which is pretty rare.
And I don't like the concept of spinning for money. It's a hobby. You do it because you enjoy it, not for money.
One can earn money if one is good at it by penspinning, but to each his own.
I do realize that it's supposed to make spinners more concerned about the deadlines and such, but they really need to get it together
and not miss the deadline especially if it's something big like the WT or WC.
--------
I actually thought this was going to be about betting on who's going to win and such lol
Like the guessing game where you predict who's gonna win... and you put money down on your predictions and such haha
guess not -
Date: Thu, Jan 7 2010 05:51:30QUOTE (Zombo @ Jan 7 2010, 01:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>not a bad idea, but as always i'm wary mixing money with tournaments because it means you need a really reliable organizer and rock solid judging. as soon as you get a blown call yo wont hear the end of it
WT/WC dont involve significant cash prizes because I don't believe we have found a reliable enough judging system yet.
But the knowledge that they will be so widely watched (and the pride that comes with that of course) and judged on time (or at least more on time compared to most) is enough to keep people from not participating for the most part, the prizes probably help a very small amount too. This would be for reasonably smaller tournaments where people might not get as publicly displayed as they wish they could have and thus the money provides the increased incentive (In virtually all of these small term tournaments people will back-out for fear of losing/losing interest/laziness, and not only does this frustrate the organizer to the point of insanity but it will often result in the participants not being able to finish the event).
EDIT: To make it more clear, this cash prizes/refunded rebates would serve the purpose of providing incentive to continue, not necessarily incentive to win. -
Date: Thu, Jan 7 2010 05:54:44
im thinking you will probably have to pay the judges IF they do a good job and the organizser will probably get a share of the money also to keep them motivated.
-
Date: Thu, Jan 7 2010 06:24:58QUOTE (Zombo @ Jan 7 2010, 12:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>im thinking you will probably have to pay the judges IF they do a good job and the organizser will probably get a share of the money also to keep them motivated.
Ya but part of the increased participation is for the organizer's sake ( I probably wouldn't mind organizing one of these over the summer without asking for any money) in the first place and the judges are far easier replaced than the participants.
-Set judging to 2 weeks maximum after submission, yet require the judges to submit results in half the time.
-If all the judges reply with results after 1 week, post them.
-If any of the judges don't submit within 1 week, they can be replaced with a new judge who should produce the results within half of the time remaining (3 days).
-If any of these new judges don't submit within this time, continue the process (remove all judges who don't submit at this time and get new judges, splitting the time to 2 days now etc.) until you have all of the results.
I will admit that finding good judges is not easy (nor is finding a judging system that everyone agrees upon), but with a reasonably well experienced organizer I think its possible to find experienced judges as well as experienced replacement judges. -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 02:43:43
IMO, money + subjectively scored events = baaad news ...
It can be as structured as you want, but when it comes down to it it's decided by judges' opinions. Difficulty, smoothness, style, angle, all of that is opinion. If money's riding on it, people WILL end up pissed, nomatter what. -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 06:17:08QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jan 7 2010, 10:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>IMO, money + subjectively scored events = baaad news ...
It can be as structured as you want, but when it comes down to it it's decided by judges' opinions. Difficulty, smoothness, style, angle, all of that is opinion. If money's riding on it, people WILL end up pissed, nomatter what.
Even so, couldn't idea 3 work? Simply investing the money until they completed the tourney? -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 06:29:22QUOTE (Sadistic @ Jan 8 2010, 02:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Even so, couldn't idea 3 work? Simply investing the money until they completed the tourney?
Then what's the point? Most peope on UPSB don't have access to money, or at the very least a way to pay it over the internet. All that would do is essentially limiting the contestants for no reason, since the money is returned anyway.
It becomes less legit then anyway, because people will say "Oh,they only won because I couldn't enter because I can't pay" and such -
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 22:05:02QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jan 8 2010, 01:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Then what's the point? Most peope on UPSB don't have access to money, or at the very least a way to pay it over the internet. All that would do is essentially limiting the contestants for no reason, since the money is returned anyway.
It becomes less legit then anyway, because people will say "Oh,they only won because I couldn't enter because I can't pay" and such
Most people on upsb don't have access to money? Nearly everyone trades, and often money is exchanged...You don't need to do it over paypal. It would limit it to contestants who actually feel they would complete the tournament, which I feel is a positive effect, not negative.
Saying "Oh,they only won because I couldn't enter because I can't pay" would be such douche bagery that nobody would give a shit/say that. -
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 23:46:56
No, I think that this system has a major flaw that would prevent it from working; that flaw being there are simply not enough pro spinners to seriously compete. There is too far of a gap between the "pros" and the "joes".
-
Date: Tue, Jan 12 2010 23:06:19QUOTE (Xero @ Jan 11 2010, 07:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>No, I think that this system has a major flaw that would prevent it from working; that flaw being there are simply not enough pro spinners to seriously compete. There is too far of a gap between the "pros" and the "joes".
Hmmm this be true. Certainly on a UPSB scale.... -
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 14:46:33QUOTE (Xero @ Jan 11 2010, 11:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>No, I think that this system has a major flaw that would prevent it from working; that flaw being there are simply not enough pro spinners to seriously compete. There is too far of a gap between the "pros" and the "joes".
This is true. You would also need very good spinners (perhaps people from the final rounds of the WT) to judge. The judging would have to be very much agreed upon by all judges and if the judges were as good or better than the participants I think arguments would be limited. Judges scores and reasons for scores should be given publically under a system something like: Judge a - Score + comments
Judge b - Score + comments
Judge c - Score + comments
The judges should be known publically, but not who gives which result. Reliability is another huge problem. Very reliable organisers (Zombo?) and judges (problem here) would be required, along with backup judges.