2008 Tournament Reporting

I'm noticing on my own record and that of other players that finalists are continuing to incorrectly receive rankings of 3-5, when all non- winning finalists should place 2nd. As a prince, I always manually enter my tournament results on the White Wolf website, and they appear correctly. However, it seems that most others report by emailing in the Archon, which still reports finalists in places 1-5 to the best of my knowledge. Additionally, at least two North American Continental Qualifiers this year have been mistakenly reported as National Qualifiers. Does Robin or anyone else at VEKN have new advice for princes on how to enter results? Are the existing discrepancies sealed, or is there some chance they might be corrected? Jesse Prince of Northampton, MA

[ quoted text not captured ] Submitting via Archon is fine -- the placements calculated by the Archon are not the final word -- the program calculates the appropriate placements and ratings points.

LSJ wrote: > Submitting via Archon is fine -- the placements calculated by the Archon are not > the final word -- the program calculates the appropriate placements and ratings > points. Evidently it does so incorrectly however. Is there any plan to fix whatever point in the process is generating the errors? Until the reporting database is brought into line with current tournament rules, does it not make sense to encourage princes to manually report their results? It seems to me that the manual reporting system on the website is faster and more accurate than sending in the Archon, and I'd imagine it creates less work for Robin. Am I off base in suggesting that more people use it? Jesse

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, jcrossn...@gmail.com wrote: > Evidently it does so incorrectly however. Is there any plan to fix > whatever point in the process is generating the errors? Until the > reporting database is brought into line with current tournament rules, > does it not make sense to encourage princes to manually report their > results? It seems to me that the manual reporting system on the > website is faster and more accurate than sending in the Archon, and > I'd imagine it creates less work for Robin. Am I off base in > suggesting that more people use it? In case anybody is interested, I wrote a tool a while back that will calculate the number of rating points one should receive for tournament performance. I've just updated so the same number of points will be received for placing 2nd-5th. http://www.io.com/~farquar/ratingscalc.htm Ignore the player name field (or don't, if you prefer). It doesn't do anything. I had originally planned to make this thing handle entire tournaments, but there didn't seem to be a need for such a tool. If it would be useful, I could expand the functionality. The two qualifiers Jesse referred to earlier in this thread that were entered as National Qualifiers instead of Continental Qualifiers were the Mexico qualifier and the New York one. While it's a bit of a bummer that I'm receiving 46 fewer rating points than I should (see how great the tool is!), the real shame would be if the players who should have qualified didn't end up on the qualifier list. I hope that can be fixed at least. Matt Morgan

Matt wrote: > In case anybody is interested, I wrote a tool a while back that will > calculate the number of rating points one should receive for tournament > performance. I've just updated so the same number of points will be > received for placing 2nd-5th. > > http://www.io.com/~farquar/ratingscalc.htm Interesting. On further research, it looks as though the rating points are being correctly calculated despite the fact that rankings are listed incorrectly. That's confusing, but at least it's better than it first appeared.

In article <ad2ccbf3-fbf7-4cb8...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, jcrossn...@gmail.com wrote: > Interesting. On further research, it looks as though the rating points > are being correctly calculated despite the fact that rankings are > listed incorrectly. That's confusing, but at least it's better than it > first appeared. It looks right to me--I just checked me and Dave, and we are both listed as having come in 3rd, which is exactly what happened in the previous tournament I ran and reported; everyone who did not win was listed in the registry as being in 3rd. I think it is 'cause while everyone who doesn't win comes in second, the way the points work out, if everyone is reported as being in 3rd, they get the right amount of rating points (i.e. the average rating point score of 2, 3, 4, and 5th place equals the numbeer of points you get for being 3rd). So while they haven't actually fixed the rating program to reflect everyone getting the right number of points for coming in second, the back door around that is just making everyone third. 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

In article <ad2ccbf3-fbf7-4cb8...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, jcrossn...@gmail.com wrote: > Interesting. On further research, it looks as though the rating points > are being correctly calculated despite the fact that rankings are > listed incorrectly. That's confusing, but at least it's better than it > first appeared. On further inspection, Jesse and Cory are both also listed as coming in 3rd. So everything looks to be in order for the NYC qualifier. [ quoted text not captured ]