Banning From Events

[Oshova]

Although it may not be written on the rankings website, I'm sure it was on one of the incarnations, or one of the threads. But it was decided that rankings events would be open to everyone (bar those banned for legitimate reasons), and I even think at one point it was said that they should be advertised on this Forum (although with the prevaility of social media, I'm not sure it should be that limited. As long as it is openly advertised it's fine).

The way these decisions have been made in the past, have been in open discussion on this forum. This is the best way to make decisions, as it is a truly open discussion. Sure, if someone doesn't read the forums, then their opinion won't be seen. But there must be a line somewhere, and the official forums are a pretty good area for open discussion in my eyes. Of course, at the end of the day somebody has to make a decision about which opinions to follow/enforce. This has partly been done by the person running the rankings at the time, and partly done by the person/people running the Masters. At this current time, that would be a decision for Clousseau, MythicFox, and Kai... that's two level headed Englishman and a crazy Scotsman, but hey 2 out of 3 ain't bad =p

I would propose a period of open discussion (which has obviously already been happening), and then a final statement from those 3 (or something) to summarise the findings. This has worked in the past, with increases to the number of events that count for rankings, the changes to the formula for rankings etc, the discussions about Elo etc, so why shouldn't it work for this?

The rankings, and ranked events should be standardised to a certain extent to ensure fairness by all parties involved (TOs and attendees). Obviously, some things differ. For example, whether they stick strictly to Gaining Grounds, or some variant of it. These variances are good in a scene as busy as the one in the UK to keep things interesting. But there are definitely some things that should be standard for all ranked events.

PS. Something else that has been mentioned as a limiting factor for ranked events, is only including singles events. Seeing as that is how the game is balanced, and although doubles events are great fun, they are not an even playing field, which is part of the fun.

[Psientologist]

At the end of the day the TOs get to make whatever decisions they want and Kai running the rankings can do whatever he wants with it.

This may not be democratic but who can stop them?

Again the answer is players with their feet.

Joel asks about the line between personal problem and actual problem and really I would think that's somewhat clear.

If someone is ejected from an event they have proven themselves harmful.

If groups of people have caught a player cheating or reported a player for being abusive then they too are obviously harmful.

If a TO just doesn't like playing a player who is allowed to all other events then that really seems the other side of the line and is a personal problem.

Again, the TO doesn't have to let that player come but Kai or whoever is in his position doesn't have to let them rank the event.

Finally I have to say I'm finding most the chat boring and almost disgusting. People have spoke of "witch hunts" and I find it interesting these only start with certain people where as in the past "problem players" have slipped past. Now part of me applauds that because it means that people had "manned up" had these discussion privately and things moved on. I just find it concerning that seems to happen with some and not others.

Apologies if my latter comment there is "toxic" but honestly...

FFS can we just play Malifaux. Stop being cry babies/gamey or whatever. This stuff, especially when on social media reflects so badly on a community that is genuinely wonderful.

I mean look, I hate everything and still get along with everyone!

Anyway, I'm playing an event in the morning with lots of nice people where I'll inevitably go 2-2.

So good day and good night.

[Joel]

Tim:. If you want a small council to be the arbitrators of these decisions, I'd include Mike Marshall as the guy running the Nationals/Doubles GT/team tournament too. Another level head running the biggest events in the scene.  

Ben: how do you know that there has been no reports of bad behaviour to the TO in this instance or not?  if there has, would you back the TO?

[Oshova]

Well I don't want to speak for Mike, but he has shown a lack of interest in rankings since passing on the torch. He is doing a fantastic job organising all the stuff that he is organising, but none of those events are directly linked to rankings (which is where the standardisation I was talking about lies). In fact, 2 of those events aren't even ranked as they aren't singles events.

Now, of course. It would be great to have Mike (and all other TOs, and attendees) comment on related topics, and be a part of the discussion. But I feel like the people running the Masters and the rankings should have the final say on the people who qualify for each, and the ways in which they do so. Does this mean it will always be the same people? No. The turnaround of people involved in botht he Masters and the rankings has been quite regular over the years, and as such, the people involved in the final decision would also change whenever those people changed.

I think that makes sense... it's early in the morning.

[ProximoCoal]

2 hours ago, Oshova said:

Well I don't want to speak for Mike, but he has shown a lack of interest in rankings since passing on the torch. He is doing a fantastic job organising all the stuff that he is organising, but none of those events are directly linked to rankings (which is where the standardisation I was talking about lies). In fact, 2 of those events aren't even ranked as they aren't singles events.

Now, of course. It would be great to have Mike (and all other TOs, and attendees) comment on related topics, and be a part of the discussion. But I feel like the people running the Masters and the rankings should have the final say on the people who qualify for each, and the ways in which they do so. Does this mean it will always be the same people? No. The turnaround of people involved in botht he Masters and the rankings has been quite regular over the years, and as such, the people involved in the final decision would also change whenever those people changed.

I think that makes sense... it's early in the morning.

I completely agree with Tim. I think there is some confusion about what is intended. I don't think anyone is suggesting some formal council or similar. Making kai, doxey and David making the decisions is just keeping the status quo. They have control of the elements involved so have the final say what happens, just like a TO at their event. Formalising a body for making decisions seems hideous to me. Just talk to Craig about 9th ed.

[Joel]

Then I guess the next step is for those three individuals to get together and contact the TO involved and ascertain the facts of the case. 

[Psientologist]

On 30 July 2016 at 6:16 AM, Joel said:

Ben: how do you know that there has been no reports of bad behaviour to the TO in this instance or not?  if there has, would you back the TO?

I don't know, but I do know the TO has personal issues.

The bad behaviour is dependant, what are they qualifying as bad behaviour would determine where I sit.

As I've said (twice?) I stand by a TO not allowing a player to their event even if I think their reasons are dumb.

Rankings though are open, we have to have some sort of "strike system" rather than just some quiet grumblings.

If the players talking to the TO about bad behaviour want to take it further there are plenty of other people to chat with (Kai, Dave and James), complaining to someone who already doesn't like the player is just making a rather pointless echo chamber.

[Oshova]

2 hours ago, Psientologist said:

If the players talking to the TO about bad behaviour want to take it further there are plenty of other people to chat with (Kai, Dave and James), complaining to someone who already doesn't like the player is just making a rather pointless echo chamber.

Yeah, the reason I started this discussion was to avoid creating an echo chamber, and create a frank and open discussion instead.

[OldManMyke]

Its very difficult when we are still pussy footing around the identity of the two people involved as it can lead to impressions of bias when friends of either make a position statement.  If we are going to do this out in the open then it should be truly open shouldn't it?

Or has the discussion moved on from an individual being banned from a single event to a wider discussion about a more rigid framework about what makes an event eligible to be placed in the rankings - and thus help you qualify for a masters place.

[D_acolyte]

On 7/28/2016 at 0:12 PM, Oshova said:

So, recently a player was banned from an event. This is a player that has never had a warning at an event (and has been to many of them over a long period of time), let alone been Disqualified from any. But it is a player that the TO has a personal problem with. The player bought a ticket for an event the TO was organising, only to be told that the ticket had been refunded and that they weren't welcome at the event or any other events run by that TO. The reason given was that the TO felt that they couldn't in good conscience have that player there and pair them against other players, when they (the TO) wouldn't want to play against them themselves.

Now, there are 2 key parts to this. The validity of banning a player from your event for the reason stated (they don't like playing against them), and having all of this happen behind closed doors, with no discussion with other parties.

Some other key things to consider here are: This is a ranked events, which are supposed to be open to everyone (although reasonable exceptions could be made for disruptive players, or players with bad histories), and the TO is a henchman (so should be acting in the best interest of the community, not in a possibly biased way).

Sounds to me like the TO needs to either elaborate on his stance otherwise it sounds like he is impinging on the players credibility as a player and that the TO should grow up. I believe anytime you ban a person or choose rule base on personal feeling like this it is important that at least to the person you are doing it to that it is transparent to the. Further more if this happened to me I would contact Wyrd with the Henchman's name. Just because you do not want to play him and there for do not want to submit others to him is no reason to ban an individual and as a Henchman and TO the tournament is not just an event it is your job that you should do as unbiased as possible and you should treat it as such.

[mythicFOX]

I think it's time to move the conversation on.   Partly because I don't think there's a lot of disagreement about the high level principals, namely;

• TO's should be free to run their events however they like,
• To be ranked an event must be open to the public,
• There are circumstances where a player can reasonably be barred from events which are still ranked.

 

This to me crystallizes the issue into two questions;

1. What kind of events can be ranked, what are those rules?
2. When there is debate about where an event fits under point one, how is that arbitrated?

 

<modhat> I'm going to close this thread and open a new one to discuss these points, if only to distance us from discussing a specific case in abstract. </modhat>

I'd like to say I've been really pleased with how the community has got through this debate without descending into a bloody civil war.  Thank you all for your maturity in this matter.