AARRG! THE STUPID RATINGS ENTRY PAGE!!!

This drives me INSANE!!! Ambiguous entry fields that I recall from past painful experience can't be reentered once committed. And *NO* instructions - of course! So, can some kind soul with experience or a lot more telepathy powers for reading the minds of the idiots who programmed it please help me out with this thing? Wins, victory points, and number of games played: do these include the finals or not? If not, will there be new fields in which to enter finals victory points later on down the line? Thanks in advance! Fred

Frederick Scott escribi�: > This drives me INSANE!!! Ambiguous entry fields that I recall from past > painful experience can't be reentered once committed. And *NO* instructions - > of course! So, can some kind soul with experience or a lot more telepathy > powers for reading the minds of the idiots who programmed it please help > me out with this thing? > > Wins, victory points, and number of games played: do these include the finals > or not? They do. [...] -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/ http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

"Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:hd9gvu$47g$1...@news.eternal-september.org... > Frederick Scott escribi�: >> This drives me INSANE!!! Ambiguous entry fields that I recall from past >> painful experience can't be reentered once committed. And *NO* instructions - >> of course! So, can some kind soul with experience or a lot more telepathy >> powers for reading the minds of the idiots who programmed it please help >> me out with this thing? >> >> Wins, victory points, and number of games played: do these include the finals >> or not? > > They do. > > [...] Really? Looking at the ratings system page, it says players get "8 RtP for each game won (GW or final round victory)". So is the quote "game win" unquote for the finals actually calculated the same as a preliminary round game win (2 or more victory points and not tied with any other player) or is it basically awarded to the player who won the tournament? Again, thanks for your help. Fred

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:55:57 -0700, "Frederick Scott" wrote: >Really? Looking at the ratings system page, it says players get "8 RtP for each >game won (GW or final round victory)". So is the quote "game win" unquote for the >finals actually calculated the same as a preliminary round game win (2 or more victory >points and not tied with any other player) or is it basically awarded to the player >who won the tournament? If you are using the newest version of the Archon (and why wouldn't you be?), just use the fields exactly as they appear on the VEKN report page. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/downloads/TheArchon1.3.zip Player Num, V:EKN Num, Name, Games Played, Games Won, Total VPs, Rank I find that it is helpful to copy the VEKN Report data onto the Notes page, being sure to Paste Special - Values. Then you can copy/paste from the Notes page into the web-form. http://www.thelasombra.com/tournaments.htm Carpe noctem. The Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com Your best source of V:TES information. Now also selling boxes and individual cards.

On 9 Nov, 16:55, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote in messagenews:hd9gvu$47g$1...@news.eternal-september.org... > > Frederick Scott escribió: > >> This drives me INSANE!!! Ambiguous entry fields that I recall from past > >> painful experience can't be reentered once committed. And *NO* instructions - > >> of course! So, can some kind soul with experience or a lot more telepathy > >> powers for reading the minds of the idiots who programmed it please help > >> me out with this thing? > > >> Wins, victory points, and number of games played: do these include the finals > >> or not? > > > They do. > > > [...] > > Really? Looking at the ratings system page, it says players get "8 RtP for each > game won (GW or final round victory)". So is the quote "game win" unquote for the > finals actually calculated the same as a preliminary round game win (2 or more victory > points and not tied with any other player) or is it basically awarded to the player > who won the tournament? > > Again, thanks for your help. > > Fred Assume that you have 12 players in a 3R+F tournament and that the stantings where: Name Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs Player A 3 10 4 Player B 1 5 1 Player C 1 5 0 Player D 1 4 0 Player E 1 3 0 Player F 0 4 Player G 0 2 Player H 0 2 Player I 0 1 Player J 0 0 Player K 0 0 Player L 0 0 Player A has a total of 4 GW (3 + 1 in the final) and a total of 14 VP (10 + 4 in the final) in 4 games. Player B has a total of 1 GW and a total of 6 VP (5 + 1 in the final) in 4 games. Player C has a total of 1 GW and a total of 5 VP (5 + 0 in the final) in 4 games. ... Hope this helped, though i don't give a damn to the rating calculation, lol! Ricardo Marta Prince of Lisboa Portugal

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3ajgf5p4paivlk476...@4ax.com... > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:55:57 -0700, "Frederick Scott" wrote: > >>Really? Looking at the ratings system page, it says players get "8 RtP for each >>game won (GW or final round victory)". So is the quote "game win" unquote for the >>finals actually calculated the same as a preliminary round game win (2 or more victory >>points and not tied with any other player) or is it basically awarded to the player >>who won the tournament? > > If you are using the newest version of the Archon (and why wouldn't > you be?), just use the fields exactly as they appear on the VEKN > report page. > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/downloads/TheArchon1.3.zip I wouldn't be (before) because I didn't know v.1.3 existed. So I'm trying to move the results from 1.2 to 1.3 and here, the problem is that the seating chart won't fill in the tables automatically - unlike 1.2. Can anyone drop me a clue how that works? I couldn't find anything in the instructions other than what I already knew. (Of course, I can always fill these in manually - but I'd still like to know so I can use the 1.3 version in the future.) Fred

"Powerlord" <powerl...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c040f329-347c-49d1...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On 9 Nov, 16:55, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote > > in messagenews:hd9gvu$47g$1...@news.eternal-september.org... > > > Frederick Scott escribi�: > > >> Wins, victory points, and number of games played: do these include the finals > > >> or not? > > > > > They do. > > > > > [...] > > > > Really? Looking at the ratings system page, it says players get "8 RtP for each > > game won (GW or final round victory)". So is the quote "game win" unquote for the > > finals actually calculated the same as a preliminary round game win (2 or more victory > > points and not tied with any other player) or is it basically awarded to the player > > who won the tournament? > > Assume that you have 12 players in a 3R+F tournament and that the > stantings where: > > Name Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs > Player A 3 10 4 > Player B 1 5 1 > Player C 1 5 0 > Player D 1 4 0 > Player E 1 3 0 > Player F 0 4 > Player G 0 2 > Player H 0 2 > Player I 0 1 > Player J 0 0 > Player K 0 0 > Player L 0 0 > > Player A has a total of 4 GW (3 + 1 in the final) and a total of 14 VP > (10 + 4 in the final) in 4 games. > > Hope this helped, though i don't give a damn to the rating > calculation, lol! It is helping. But the specific question I was trying to resolve is (put in terms of your example above), does player A have a "Game Win" for the finals because he/she score a game win in the same sense as a preliminary round game win is scored (that is, because he got 2 or more victory points and wasn't tied with any other player) or because he won the tournament (had more finals victory points than any other player or had at least as many as any other player AND won the tournament via tiebreakers). And I don't give a damn either. (Don't get me started!) But I feel honor- bound to enter the results for the sake of my players. Fred

On 9 Nov, 17:57, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Powerlord" <powerlord...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > It is helping. But the specific question I was trying to resolve is (put > in terms of your example above), does player A have a "Game Win" for the > finals because he/she score a game win in the same sense as a preliminary > round game win is scored (that is, because he got 2 or more victory points > and wasn't tied with any other player) or because he won the tournament (had > more finals victory points than any other player or had at least as many > as any other player AND won the tournament via tiebreakers). > No, i always presume the player recieves the GW in the Final if he fulfills the same requirements as a normal round, i.e., has at least 2 VP and no one else has the same number of VP's. In the final, if the vp's are: 2-2-1, there is no GW, if it is any other odd combination (5-0, 4-1, 3-2, 2-1-1-1), yeah, sure. > And I don't give a damn either. (Don't get me started!) But I feel honor- > bound to enter the results for the sake of my players. > > Fred Yes i understand, i do the same :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 9 Nov, 17:50, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "The Lasombra" <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] How many rounds? The archon only works "properly" if you have 3R+F. In a 2R+F report you have to fill the tables manually with the players numbers. So the best way is (if you have a draft archon already "filled" with the results) to open both files and on the final report file, write down the number of rounds (ignore the games). After that go to each sheet and manually insert the number of the players of each table and their results, the Archon will end up updating the main page (tournament info sheet). Good luck [ quoted text not captured ]

"Powerlord" <powerl...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2fd907be-df7b-4e81...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... On 9 Nov, 17:50, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > So I'm trying to > > move the results from 1.2 to 1.3 and here, the problem is that the seating > > chart won't fill in the tables automatically - unlike 1.2. Can anyone drop > > me a clue how that works? I couldn't find anything in the instructions other > > than what I already knew. (Of course, I can always fill these in manually - but > > I'd still like to know so I can use the 1.3 version in the future.) > > How many rounds? The archon only works "properly" if you have 3R+F. In > a 2R+F report you have to fill the tables manually with the players > numbers. It is 2R + F - so that could be the reason. It's odd though: v.1.2 works just fine, at least in that sense. It will fill out your tables for you even if you only enter '3' in the "Number of rounds (including final)" field. I wonder why they changed that? Another problem: the link advertised for registering new players seems to be broken. Go to... http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknTournament.html ...and go down to #6. Register Your Players. In the text, there's a link to click to fill out the Player Registration for for each new player after the tournament. The words "Player Registration" are a link but it seems to be broken. Anyone know how to assign new players their VEKN ids nowadays? Is White Wolf aware there's a problem here? Fred

On 9 Nov, 18:34, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Anyone know how to assign new players their VEKN ids nowadays? Is White Wolf > aware there's a problem here? > > Fred Odd, i had the same problem in the 2R+F reports, either with v1.2 or v1.3... Regarding the new players, i do the following: - go to "http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/" - choose under "Prince Resources" the "Add a VEKN Member" option - it will show the following message at the bottom "Next available VEKN ID is XXXXXXX" - I fill the boxes (ask players for a valid email address) and i always place the players password equal to his/her Vekn ID, so if i insert player 3120000, I will assign as his password, the 312000o number - if an error appears stating the email address is already in use, you can always "mistype" the domain, i.e., "pla...@hotmail.com" changed to "pla...@hotmail.pt" (I'm Portuguese so I use PT) - you'll have the account created (though with a wrong email address) - players must go to the WW page and create their own accounts - after players get registed, they should go under "getting started" and "associate <their> vekn ID" - if they have any trouble doing it so, they should send and email to "vtessupport(a)white-wolf.com" stating which is their Vekn ID and to which account do they want to associate with. Usually players have to send the email because the vekn ID association does not retrieve the Vekn Member password inserted previously. [ quoted text not captured ]

Powerlord wrote: > How many rounds? The archon only works "properly" if you > have 3R+F. In a 2R+F report you have to fill the tables manually > with the players numbers. Untrue. The easiest way to use the Archon for 2R+F tournaments is: 1. On the 'Tournament Info' tab, set the Number of Rounds to "4". 2. On the 'Methuselahs' tab, enter in the names of the Methuselahs. 3. On the 'Round 3' tab, delete all the player numbers. You now have a 2R+F Archon tournament. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

[ quoted text not captured ] If you do so, will get a bunch of "#N/A" errors on the "Methuselahs", "Standings" and "VEKN Report" sheets. At least in my version (1.3) of the Archon :P Cheers [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Wow, how terrible. Newer version, less functionality. LSJ, Could you update Archon v1.3 to account for the possibility of the 'Round 3' tab being setup in the fashion described? I don't know Excel well-enough to do it. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > Powerlord wrote: >> How many rounds? The archon only works "properly" if you >> have 3R+F. In a 2R+F report you have to fill the tables manually >> with the players numbers. > > Untrue. > > The easiest way to use the Archon for 2R+F tournaments is: > 1. On the 'Tournament Info' tab, set the Number of Rounds to "4". > 2. On the 'Methuselahs' tab, enter in the names of the Methuselahs. > 3. On the 'Round 3' tab, delete all the player numbers. > > You now have a 2R+F Archon tournament. That typically results in an exceedingly sub-optimal seating. Any two rounds of an optimal-for-three-rounds seating will typically be severely sub-optimal-for-two-rounds as concessions for any pair of rounds will have been made to accommodate the third round. At least until you get well into the perfect range (say, 80+ players). Don't do it. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1fbefbc139a30f7e

[ quoted text not captured ] So your suggestion is to do what, then, for 2R+F tournament seating?

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1fbefbc139a30f7e > > So your suggestion is to do what, then, for 2R+F tournament seating? Seat them by hand.

[ quoted text not captured ] I've found for 2R+F, manually (non-computer generated) seating people works better, as you imply. Bring on the 3x5 cards! best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] So, just to make sure I understand, you're saying that some random done-by-hand seating is more optimal for round2 of 2R+F VTES tournaments than using Round2 of an optimally 3R+F tournament for round2 of a 2R+F tournament? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I hesitate to ask as I'm sure you'll be hesitant to define it for me, but what is your definition of "manually seating people" and "works better"? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Get 3x5 cards. Write everyone's name at the top - or have them do it. Shuffle the cards. Lay them out. Round 1, solved, easy. I write down each player's table and position on the card at this time. Round 2 - get everyone's card. Shuffle. Lay them out again. If you hit a same pred/prey relationship, take that card and move it to the bottom of the stack. If you get to the end, and those two have the same pred/prey relationship in round 1, take the last person and switch her with the first player you set down. I also write down their round 2 positions at this time as well. Simple, done. Sufficiently random. best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] [round 1 obviousness snipped] > > Round 2 - get everyone's card. Shuffle. > > Lay them out again. If you hit a same pred/prey relationship, take > that card and move it to the bottom of the stack. If you get to the > end, and those two have the same pred/prey relationship in round 1, > take the last person and switch her with the first player you set > down. > I also write down their round 2 positions at this time as well. > > Simple, done. Sufficiently random. This is more work and I'd bet equally as "optimal" as using ArchonR2. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:hd9u55$t4o$1...@news.eternal-september.org... [ quoted text not captured ] I had been using the Archon 1.2, making no entry into the Tournament Info field for "Number of Rounds (including final):" field, using the spreadsheets for the first two rounds only (totally ignoring the third preliminary round), and then filling out the player #s in the "Table Seating" chart on the final round. If I get what you're saying, I was basically using the three round chart for a two round tournament. (By the way, one of my responses to 'Powerlord' was in error: in fact, this seems to work just as well on the 1.3 Archon as the 1.2 Archon.) The seating chart seems to work just fine AFAICS. Of course, all my tournaments, with one exception, have been 10 players or less. (The one exception was a 13-player tournament which had drops in the second round, so we didn't use the seating chart in the second round.) But is it really that bad to use The Archon seating chart for a 2R + F? Fred

"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message news:hd9u4i$s0h$1...@news.eternal-september.org... > I've found for 2R+F, manually (non-computer generated) seating people works better, as you imply. Bring on the 3x5 cards! Why? What did you find less satisfactory about using The Archon 3R+F seating charts in a 2R+F tournament? Fred

On Nov 9, 6:34 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > This drives me INSANE!!! Ambiguous entry fields that I recall from past > painful experience can't be reentered once committed. And *NO* instructions - > of course! The ratings entry page also drives me up the wall. Annoyances include: * Not being able to fix individual entries if one finds mistakes. * Not being able to view and check submitted data until it's been approved. * I'm relatively certain I've had results from tournaments much earlier in the year disappear (I still need to go through my records to make sure). * Names with an apostrophe appear to break inserting results. * Having to manually copy and paste all the results for The Archon (which is rather error prone given that it's a mindless repetitive task). The ideal solution for me would be a simpler interface which allows me to upload a .csv file that I've saved from a sheet in The Archon. I'm even willing to contribute some time to writing such a solution (someone just has to point me at the code base and be willing to vet and apply patches). Schiavo Simon

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Kevin M. wrote: >>> LSJ wrote: >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1fbefbc139a30f7e >>> So your suggestion is to do what, then, for 2R+F tournament seating? >> Seat them by hand. > > So, just to make sure I understand, you're saying that some random > done-by-hand seating is more optimal for round2 of 2R+F VTES > tournaments than using Round2 of an optimally 3R+F tournament > for round2 of a 2R+F tournament? No. Some hand-optimized seating is more optimal than a severly-subobtimal-extraction of a three-rounder.

Kevin M. wrote: > librarian wrote: >> Lay them out again. If you hit a same pred/prey relationship, take >> that card and move it to the bottom of the stack. If you get to the >> end, and those two have the same pred/prey relationship in round 1, >> take the last person and switch her with the first player you set >> down. >> I also write down their round 2 positions at this time as well. >> >> Simple, done. Sufficiently random. > > This is more work and I'd bet equally as "optimal" as using ArchonR2. Minutely more work. And work that makes the organizer a better organizer. And much more optimal than the severly sub-optimal choice of extracting from a poorly suited source.

[ quoted text not captured ] Their egregious sub-optimalness in many of the sub-50 arrangements.

[ quoted text not captured ] I've never had anyone complain in 12 years in nearly a hundred tournaments. I guess I'll keep using the easiest most convenient sub-optimal seating I can. :P [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:hda82j$nif$3...@news.eternal-september.org... [ quoted text not captured ] Cute. But until this contextual form of optimality is actually defined, not useful.

On Nov 10, 12:36 am, Hodgestar <hodges...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 9, 6:34 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > > This drives me INSANE!!! Ambiguous entry fields that I recall from past > > painful experience can't be reentered once committed. And *NO* instructions - > > of course! > > The ratings entry page also drives me up the wall. Annoyances include: > > * Not being able to fix individual entries if one finds mistakes. > * Not being able to view and check submitted data until it's been > approved. > * I'm relatively certain I've had results from tournaments much > earlier in the year disappear (I still need to go through my records > to make sure). > * Names with an apostrophe appear to break inserting results. > * Having to manually copy and paste all the results for The Archon > (which is rather error prone given that it's a mindless repetitive > task). > > The ideal solution for me would be a simpler interface which allows me > to upload a .csv file that I've saved from a sheet in The Archon. Yup. The current web interface is horrible. To add to the above list of woes: * if you have a large tournament, it times out randomly at some point, leaving some entries entered into the database and others silently dumped. No way to figure out which, of course. This is the reason the Ropecon 2009 tournament (85 players) still isn't in the database: neither me or Robyn is able to enter the results. It's crazy. And of course, after spending an hour-plus manually typing in scores into a huge web form, only to have all that work vanish after you press "submit", is... enough to drive a man to drink. Yes, the sane system would be something that accepted a CSV dump directly from the Archon. It's probably even not very hard to code that, it's not exactly rocket science as far as web systems go. Sigh.

[ quoted text not captured ] ? Cute. It's being used in the only context in which optimal is ever used in regards to seating: Avoiding repeat pred-prey, avoiding repeat table pairs, etc.

As to 2R seating, Jay Kristoff mentioned to me that using round 1 + round 3 works quite well. I haven't looked at it, but I can't accept that there isn't a 2 r optimal seating. David

[ quoted text not captured ] Of course there is a 2R optimal seating. It's been generated quite often by hand (since it's easy enough to do an optimal 2R by hand). For small participation tournaments, creating the seating by hand will produce a better seating than selecting two rounds from an optimal-for-three-rounds seating. And creating the seating by hand is a good exercise for organizers (helping develop the skills necessary to handle drops and adds, even in 3R+F tournaments).

LSJ wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> Frederick Scott wrote: >>>> "librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >>>>> I've found for 2R+F, manually (non-computer generated) seating >>>>> people works better, as you imply. Bring on the 3x5 cards! >>>> >>>> Why? What did you find less satisfactory about using The Archon >>>> 3R+F seating charts in a 2R+F tournament? >>> >>> Their egregious sub-optimalness in many of the sub-50 arrangements. >> >> Cute. But until this contextual form of optimality is actually >> defined, not useful. > > ? Cute. > > It's being used in the only context in which optimal is ever used in > regards to seating: Avoiding repeat pred-prey, avoiding repeat table > pairs, etc. Where does Round2 of an optimally 3R+F Archon do any of this? [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:hdbjsf$1cl$1...@news.eternal-september.org... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, fair enough. But in my experience, the tables in The Archon for 3R+F worked just fine in the 2R+F tournaments in which I've employed them. So, like Kevin said, they seem like significantly less work to me. Perhaps you know of cases where this isn't true but I can only judge from what I know. Fred

On 9 Nov, 21:12, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Kevin M. wrote: > >> LSJ wrote: > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1fbe... > > >> So your suggestion is to do what, then, for 2R+F tournament seating? > > > Seat them by hand. > > So, just to make sure I understand, you're saying that some random > done-by-hand seating is more optimal for round2 of 2R+F VTES > tournaments than using Round2 of an optimally 3R+F tournament > for round2 of a 2R+F tournament? > I think what he meant wasn't for us to set the seating manually, calculating ourselfs the parings, but setting the seating manually after the archon made all the calculations. As I told here before, when preparing the archon, in the "Tournament Info" sheet, choose 4 rounds (3R+F) in the number of rounds. That will set the players seating for the tournament. After that, go to each sheet (Round 1, Round 2) and write down the numbers of the players on a piece of paper or you can open another archon and copy the seating to it. After this, when you change the rounds to 3 (2R+F), it will erase all data, and you can simple copy the seating order back into the archon. This way, you use the parings in the Archon file and you dont need to set it yourselves. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Powerlord" <powerl...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5b219610-cfde-4423...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > As I told here before, when preparing the archon, in the "Tournament > Info" sheet, choose 4 rounds (3R+F) in the number of rounds. That will > set the players seating for the tournament. After that, go to each > sheet (Round 1, Round 2) and write down the numbers of the players on > a piece of paper or you can open another archon and copy the seating > to it. > After this, when you change the rounds to 3 (2R+F), it will erase all > data, and you can simple copy the seating order back into the archon. > > This way, you use the parings in the Archon file and you dont need to > set it yourselves. Actually, I think you'll find it's just easier to leave the "Number of Rounds (including final)" field blank, fill in the player information, and you'll find that the seating tables are filled in when you switch to the pages for entering the preliminary round results. Then, after you run two rounds, just ignore the 'Round 3' page and go straight to the 'Final Round' page and everything should be filled in, ties not withstanding. Then you can just deal with the final round as normal. To restate my self-correction from yesterday, in this regard Archon 1.3 works the same as Archon 1.2. Fred

Powerlord wrote: > On 9 Nov, 21:12, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> Kevin M. wrote: >>>> LSJ wrote: >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1fbe... >>>> So your suggestion is to do what, then, for 2R+F tournament seating? >>> Seat them by hand. >> So, just to make sure I understand, you're saying that some random >> done-by-hand seating is more optimal for round2 of 2R+F VTES >> tournaments than using Round2 of an optimally 3R+F tournament >> for round2 of a 2R+F tournament? >> > > I think what he meant wasn't for us to set the seating manually, > calculating ourselfs the parings, but setting the seating manually > after the archon made all the calculations. No, I meant the first thing you said. > As I told here before, when preparing the archon, in the "Tournament > Info" sheet, choose 4 rounds (3R+F) in the number of rounds. That will > set the players seating for the tournament. After that, go to each > sheet (Round 1, Round 2) and write down the numbers of the players on > a piece of paper or you can open another archon and copy the seating > to it. > After this, when you change the rounds to 3 (2R+F), it will erase all > data, and you can simple copy the seating order back into the archon. > > This way, you use the parings in the Archon file and you dont need to > set it yourselves. You can do what you describe already with just one Archon: Set to 4 rounds. Go and copy each seating arrangement and then "Paste Special: Values" to paste the values in place of the equations. Then set the rounds back to 3. And then manually re-arrange as necessary to remedy any sub-optimality incurred.

In article <z_%Jm.9880$%j4....@newsfe18.iad>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] The Archon uses the incredibly fixed seating chart which results in weird seating arrangements if you just use two of the rounds--at the Storyline this last weekend, we had 12 people playing 2R+F and used the Archon. I didn't notice all the wacky seating, but certainly noticed these two: A) In game 1, my prey was Pete Kapsalis. In game 2, my predator was Pete Kapsalis. B) In game 1, Ben's Akunanse Breed Boon deck's grandprey was Selen's Akunanse perma-bleed deck. In game 2, Ben's Akunanse Breed Boon deck's predator was Selen's Akunanse perma-bleed deck. I mean, not horribly critical or anything (although the vagaries of wacky 2R seating out of a system that was designed to work optimally for 3R certainly meant that Ben was totally hosed), but likely less optimal than, say, a pile of 12 index cards getting shuffled and dealt out. This is not to say that our stalwart tournament organizer James was remotely negligent--we didn't know that was gonna happen, and just went with it, but my experience with the Archon is that, in fact, it is sub optimal for seating a 2R+F tournament, and just a pile of index cards shuffled, dealt out (with illegal seating being noticed and aborted) tends to work much better. 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 <GY%Jm.11187$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > Simple, done. Sufficiently random. > > This is more work and I'd bet equally as "optimal" as using ArchonR2. I dunno man, I'm totally with Shorb on this one. My experience with the Archon for a 2R tournament leads me to be very dubious about it, due to the weird fixed seating arrangements, including that the first round is always: -Table 1: A, B, C, D, E -Table 2: F, G, H, I, J etc. Meaning that the organizer needs to painstakingly randomize the players to put into the system as they register. And if you don't, the first round is always: -Table 1: 5 guys who came in the same car! -Table 2: 5 more guys who cam in the same car! So as you *already* have to essentially manually randomize the first round, using the archon to just generate the second round where we know some people *will* be sitting as the prey of their first round predator and the like, I'm not convinced that the Archon is helping here. I mean, yeah, if you got, like, 50 people playing in a 2R+F tournament, the Archon is going to save a lot of effort. But if you have +/- a dozen people? A pile of index cards (or those convenient VEKN ID cards) likely works just fine, if not better. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> shorb wrote: >>> Simple, done. Sufficiently random. >> >> This is more work and I'd bet equally as "optimal" as using ArchonR2. > > I dunno man, I'm totally with Shorb on this one. My experience with > the Archon for a 2R tournament leads me to be very dubious about it, > due to the weird fixed seating arrangements, including that the first > round is always: > > -Table 1: A, B, C, D, E > > -Table 2: F, G, H, I, J > > etc. > > Meaning that the organizer needs to painstakingly randomize the > players to put into the system as they register. And if you don't, > the first round is always: > > -Table 1: 5 guys who came in the same car! > > -Table 2: 5 more guys who cam in the same car! Since it is randomized from the beginning, this is clearly incorrect, but I'm assuming you're trying to make a broader point than this. > So as you *already* have to essentially manually randomize the first > round, using the archon to just generate the second round where we > know some people *will* be sitting as the prey of their first round > predator and the like, I'm not convinced that the Archon is helping > here. > > I mean, yeah, if you got, like, 50 people playing in a 2R+F > tournament, the Archon is going to save a lot of effort. But if you > have +/- a dozen people? A pile of index cards (or those convenient > VEKN ID cards) likely works just fine, if not better. I have received a 2R seating chart from David Tatu and it looks good. I will post it on my website for anyone that wants to use it: http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/2Rseatingcharts.xls This chart is far more optimally set for 2R tournaments, and I'd love to see a switch in The Archon on the TOURNAMENT INFO tab, that would allow you to set Number Of Rounds to '3' and have it pull 2R seating information from a new tab with this Tatu spreadsheet. Scott, I will pay you cash money to see this happen in Archon v1.4. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <RWGKm.13893$%j4....@newsfe18.iad>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Since it is randomized from the beginning, this is clearly incorrect, > but I'm assuming you're trying to make a broader point than this. But you need to manually randomize in the beginning so that it is randomized in the beginning, see. If you just put people into the Archon in the order they show up, they are sitting in R1 in the order the show up (i.e. if I walk up to the table with Dave, Ben, and Andrew, I'll be sitting at my first round table with Dave, Ben, and Andrew, or at least Dave and Ben, if Andrew is #6 in line or whatever). So as the organizer, to make the first round actually random, you need to manually randomize how you put people into the Archon in the first place. Meaning you need to, like, take everyone's name on a non Archon list and roll dice to determine where you input them into the Archon. Or have everyone registering line up in birthday order or something. Or whatever. The point is that for the first round of the tournament (the one that is arranged A, B, C, D, E; F, G, H, I, J; etc.) to actually be random, you need to randomize it one way or the other by hand. So you already have to, essentially, randomize the first round by hand. As randomizing the second round by hand is (seating wise) likely preferable to using the Archon if you are only doing 2 rounds, I'm not seeing how the Archon is actually saving any effort. > I have received a 2R seating chart from David Tatu and it looks good. > I will post it on my website for anyone that wants to use it: > http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/2Rseatingcharts.xls Ah, see, yeah, that works too :-) If someone has a good 2R+F optimized seating chart that can be used or put into the Archon, that makes everything work the way we all want it to. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Since it is randomized from the beginning, this is clearly incorrect, >> but I'm assuming you're trying to make a broader point than this. > > But you need to manually randomize in the beginning so that it is > randomized in the beginning, see. If you just put people into the > Archon in the order they show up, [snip] I'll just stop you there, since anyone who does this is either unaware of the proper use of the Archon, or dumb. >> I have received a 2R seating chart from David Tatu and it looks good. >> I will post it on my website for anyone that wants to use it: >> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/2Rseatingcharts.xls > > Ah, see, yeah, that works too :-) Good ol' Tatu, nothing beats Tatu! ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-A6D973.0...@feeder.eternal-september.org... > In article <GY%Jm.11187$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad>, > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> > Simple, done. Sufficiently random. >> >> This is more work and I'd bet equally as "optimal" as using ArchonR2. > > I dunno man, I'm totally with Shorb on this one. My experience with the > Archon for a 2R tournament leads me to be very dubious about it, due to > the weird fixed seating arrangements, including that the first round is > always: > > -Table 1: A, B, C, D, E > > -Table 2: F, G, H, I, J Sure. The Archon assumes you randomized who was A, who was B, who was C, etc. So the first round is totally random. > etc. > > Meaning that the organizer needs to painstakingly randomize the players > to put into the system as they register. I'm not sure why you look at this as a hard task. Considering the alternative is to "painstakingly randomize" _every_ round - and then painstakingly RErandomize the glitches wherever they show up, it makes a lot of sense to me to pay attention to the work I'm saving, not the one thing I still have to do either way. > So as you *already* have to essentially manually randomize the first > round, using the archon to just generate the second round where we know > some people *will* be sitting as the prey of their first round predator > and the like, I'm not convinced that the Archon is helping here. I'm not convinced randomization helps any here. For instance, where I've noticed the second-round-predator-was-my-first-round-prey (or vica versa) thing, there doesn't appear to me to be better alternatives. Where it happens, I believe it would also be very likely to happen if the seats were to be determined randomly. And quite possibly, the random seating could turn out a whole lot worse. > I mean, yeah, if you got, like, 50 people playing in a 2R+F tournament, > the Archon is going to save a lot of effort. But if you have +/- a dozen > people? A pile of index cards (or those convenient VEKN ID cards) likely > works just fine, if not better. Better? Certainly not. Once the one randomization thing is done, which you have to do anyway, it's all profit from there. If you like screwing around with index cards and often reseating, rechecking for unacceptable outcomes, rerandomizing, reseating again, rinse repeat, I might accept that it's tolerable. I'm totally missing the boat on how this is better. Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-0BD853.0...@feeder.eternal-september.org... > In article <z_%Jm.9880$%j4....@newsfe18.iad>, > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> What did you find less satisfactory about using The Archon 3R+F >> seating charts in a 2R+F tournament? > > The Archon uses the incredibly fixed seating chart which results in > weird seating arrangements if you just use two of the rounds--at the > Storyline this last weekend, we had 12 people playing 2R+F and used the > Archon. I didn't notice all the wacky seating, but certainly noticed > these two: > > A) In game 1, my prey was Pete Kapsalis. In game 2, my predator was Pete > Kapsalis. > > B) In game 1, Ben's Akunanse Breed Boon deck's grandprey was Selen's > Akunanse perma-bleed deck. In game 2, Ben's Akunanse Breed Boon deck's > predator was Selen's Akunanse perma-bleed deck. That's odd. I just got The Archon out and set it up for 12 Methuselahs. There's no such result in the round 2 seating chart I'm looking at. Assuming the first round is setup like this: A -> B -> C -> D (-> A) E -> F -> G -> H (-> E) I -> J -> K -> L (-> I) ...the second round looks like this: K -> A -> H -> B (-> K) C -> E -> L -> F (-> C) G -> I -> D -> J (-> G) So I'm not sure how that happened. In the above setup, three pairs of players from the first set of tables are seated together on the same table in the second round. (This is the minimum possible, I think, given how few players there are.) A and B are allies, E and F are allies, and I and J are allies in the second round. No pair of players from the same table are predator/prey at all. If anything, the only sub-optimal complaint I can think of is that there's no chance of reversing a predator/prey relationship at all using the tables, whereas with total randomization, there should be a significant chance of it happening. > I mean, not horribly critical or anything (although the vagaries of > wacky 2R seating out of a system that was designed to work optimally for > 3R certainly meant that Ben was totally hosed), but likely less optimal > than, say, a pile of 12 index cards getting shuffled and dealt out. Well, in this case, it doesn't look like The Archon was actually used. At least, not the one I have. I disagree. I think there's likely a decent chance would cause > This is not to say that our stalwart tournament organizer James was > remotely negligent--we didn't know that was gonna happen, and just went > with it, but my experience with the Archon is that, in fact, it is sub > optimal for seating a 2R+F tournament, and just a pile of index cards > shuffled, dealt out (with illegal seating being noticed and aborted) > tends to work much better. Even if James had used The Archon, I still wouldn't agree with this. I'll bet if you laid out index cards randomly (picking up and reshuffling every time an "unacceptable layout" occurred; unacceptable layouts being the repeat of predator/prey relationships), you'll find this happens quite a lot. I haven't analyzed this to the nth degree, but I wouldn't be at all surprised. In the best redistribution of players possible from one round to the next, each table _must_ contain at least one pair of players who were together at a table the previous round. If any of these three pairs of players are seated predator/prey the same way you seated then in the first round, you pick up cards and redeal. So this leaves only three possibilities: they're allies, or their predator prey relationship is reversed, or they were allies in the previous round so it doesn't matter (a 1-in-3 chance for that pair). I don't think this leaves a very high chance that you'd get no reversed pairs, considering that you'll frequently get sub-optimal redistributions of players (aka three or all four from the same table first round go to the same table second round). Fred

In article <89IKm.27878$6c2....@newsfe03.iad>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > That's odd. I just got The Archon out and set it up for 12 Methuselahs. > There's no such result in the round 2 seating chart I'm looking at. > Assuming the first round is setup like this: Huh. Well, it started as a 13 person and someone dropped between rounds. That might have had an impact. Or maybe they went with R1 and R3? Dunno. > Even if James had used The Archon, I still wouldn't agree with this. > I'll bet if you laid out index cards randomly (picking up and reshuffling > every time an "unacceptable layout" occurred; unacceptable layouts being > the repeat of predator/prey relationships), you'll find this happens > quite a lot. Not that I have noticed--I have used the Archon to run a tournament exactly once in my life. I have used the "shuffle cards and deal them out till you have legal seating" dozens of times. The manual method works totally reasonably, and isn't remotely problematic (assuming, like, less than 20 players). [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Since it is randomized from the beginning, this is clearly incorrect, >>> but I'm assuming you're trying to make a broader point than this. >> But you need to manually randomize in the beginning so that it is >> randomized in the beginning, see. If you just put people into the >> Archon in the order they show up, > [snip] > > I'll just stop you there, since anyone who does this is either > unaware of the proper use of the Archon, or dumb. > >>> I have received a 2R seating chart from David Tatu and it looks good. >>> I will post it on my website for anyone that wants to use it: >>> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/2Rseatingcharts.xls >> Ah, see, yeah, that works too :-) > > Good ol' Tatu, nothing beats Tatu! ;) > Except 2 Tatus. best - chris

In article <tSHKm.22724$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I'm not sure why you look at this as a hard task. I don't look at as a hard task. I'm specifically looking at it as an easy task. The point here is that Kevin (I think) more or less said: "The Archon is so much more convenient than manual seating." To which I responded with: "You already have to effectively manually seat the first round (by virtue of having to randomize the players you register into the system). Doing a 2R+F tournament is just one extra manual randomization." > Considering the > alternative is to "painstakingly randomize" _every_ round - Of which there are 2. And you already randomized the first one manually. So you really should be framing that as "considering the alternative is to "painstakingly randomize" _one_ additional_round_." > Better? Certainly not. Once the one randomization thing is done, which > you have to do anyway, it's all profit from there. If you like screwing > around with index cards and often reseating, rechecking for unacceptable > outcomes, rerandomizing, reseating again, rinse repeat, I might accept that > it's tolerable. I'm totally missing the boat on how this is better. If it avoids the suboptimal seating that comes from using 2 rounds of a 3 round system that is designed to be used for 3 rounds, then it is better. LSJ indicates that using 2 rounds of the 3 round system results in suboptimal seating. If doing it manually isn't significantly any more effort (and with a +/- 12 person tournament, it really isn't) than using the Archon, and results in a more optimal randomization, better it is. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <sFHKm.27877$6c2....@newsfe03.iad>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I'll just stop you there, since anyone who does this is either > unaware of the proper use of the Archon, or dumb. Ok. So not the point. Even a little bit. The point you seemed to be making was: "Using the archon is less effort that manually seating people." To which I responded with: "You are already manually randomizing the first round by virtue of putting people into the Archon randomly. So really, doing a 2R+F tournament seating by hand is just manually randomizing one extra round." Which means that if you are running a 2R+F tournament with the Archon, you are saving the effort of manually randomizing one round (as you already had to manually randomize the first round, essentially). If you are running a +/-12 person 2R+F tournament (which I suspect are the vast majority of 2R+F tournament that are run in the world), the effort to manually randomize the second round is incredibly minimal. If the benefit of manually randomizing as opposed to using the Archon is avoiding suboptimal seating, then it strikes me as totally reasonable to do it manually. > Good ol' Tatu, nothing beats Tatu! ;) Second! [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-D73F16.2...@feeder.eternal-september.org... > In article <tSHKm.22724$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad>, > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> Better? Certainly not. Once the one randomization thing is done, which >> you have to do anyway, it's all profit from there. If you like screwing >> around with index cards and often reseating, rechecking for unacceptable >> outcomes, rerandomizing, reseating again, rinse repeat, I might accept that >> it's tolerable. I'm totally missing the boat on how this is better. > > If it avoids the suboptimal seating that comes from using 2 rounds of a > 3 round system that is designed to be used for 3 rounds, then it is > better. I hear the argument. I just can't get anyone to show me what they're talking about that's so "suboptimal". Other than the odd predator-prey reversals - which I assert would happen as much or more often when done randomly - no one ever does that. In my experiences, The Archon tables so used have never seemed to me to be suboptimal. Fred

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> I'll just stop you there, since anyone who does this is either >> unaware of the proper use of the Archon, or dumb. > > Ok. So not the point. Even a little bit. Sure it was. You said something. I responded. If you didn't want that, you shouldn't have said the something. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 11, 11:45 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > Ok. So not the point. Even a little bit. > > Sure it was. You said something. I responded. Yes. But you responded while completely ignoring the context of the statement. If you want to pick random words and statements out of context and arbitrarily respond to them, you can do so all you want, but it isn't really condusive to actually carrying on a discussion. The issue here is not "Is it a problem that people don't know how to use the Archon?" (which is what you seem to think the issue is that I'm discussing. Which it clearly is not). The issue here is "You are already manually randomizing the first round in the Archon, so manually randomizing the second round isn't actually much more work than you were already doing." As you were complaining that using manual seating is much more work than the Archon, and I responded to that by pointing out that you are already manually randomizing the first round. And if the tournament is 2R+F with not a huge number of people, manually randomizing the second round is a trivial amount of work. I did *not* mention the need to manually randomize the first round of an Archon based tournament as an example of people not knowing how to use Archon. Or to imply that this was something that people do, as that has no impact on the discussion. I suspect that if you go and actually read the post you pulled that out of, you'll discover that, lo and behold, you knee jerk reacted to a statement out of context. > If you didn't want that, you shouldn't have said the something. Oh, Kevin. You make me sad sometimes. -Peter

On Nov 11, 6:54 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > That's odd. I just got The Archon out and set it up for 12 Methuselahs. > There's no such result in the round 2 seating chart I'm looking at. > Assuming the first round is setup like this: > > A -> B -> C -> D (-> A) > E -> F -> G -> H (-> E) > I -> J -> K -> L (-> I) I just got out the "Optimal 2R+F" chart that Kevin posted, to look at seating out of curiosity. And if the Tatu chart is similar to the Archon chart, I now see exactly how what happened at our event happened, seating wise (i.e. Player A and Player B as predator prey in game 1 and prey predator in game 2; highly sub optimal seating for player C and player E in games 1 and 2): -Using that chart (which, again, might be different than the Archon, but might not), a given predator and grand prey will be prey and predator in the second round (what happened to Ben and Selen). And as we originally had 13 players, my relationship to Pete Kapsalis (he was my prey in R1 and my predator in R2) was the result of player 13 dropping out, as player 13 was supposed to be sitting between me and Pete. So if the Archon chart works like the Tatu chart, that is what happened, explaining everything. The issue of Player A and Player C in R1 becoming prey/predator in R2 (i.e. my R1 grand prey becomes my predator in R2) is likely a fixed certainty in a +/-12 player event in the Archon at some point. Using manual randomization can result in this, but also can avoid this. > ...the second round looks like this: > > K -> A -> H -> B (-> K) > C -> E -> L -> F (-> C) > G -> I -> D -> J (-> G) Yeah, that is different from the Tatu version. Maybe we used the 3rd round? Dunno. Ooh--but looking at the above game matches, if you are players A and B (predator/prey G1; predator/grand prey G2) (or EF or IJ) and it is a bad deck combo one way or the other, you are sad both games. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Ok. So not the point. Even a little bit. >> >> Sure it was. You said something. I responded. > > Yes. But you responded while completely ignoring the context[...] [snip] This is silly. I didn't ignore anything. >> If you didn't want that, you shouldn't have said the something. > > Oh, Kevin. You make me sad sometimes. Then stop responding with paragraph upon paragraph of detailed explanation which no one needs or wants in an effort to educate where no education is needed as if we were all pre-schoolers. Most of us here work on a higher level. Oh, I'm sure some of you can consider the thread hijacked now, and respond and/or be affected accordingly. Sigh. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:75792c17-30c6-4051...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... On Nov 11, 6:54 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > That's odd. I just got The Archon out and set it up for 12 Methuselahs. > > There's no such result in the round 2 seating chart I'm looking at. > > -Using that chart (which, again, might be different than the Archon, > but might not), a given predator and grand prey will be prey and > predator in the second round (what happened to Ben and Selen). And as > we originally had 13 players, my relationship to Pete Kapsalis (he was > my prey in R1 and my predator in R2) was the result of player 13 > dropping out, as player 13 was supposed to be sitting between me and > Pete. Sure. No chart is going to feature any degree of optimization if you change the number of players between rounds. They can't. They weren't planned for that purpose and preplanning is the whole point of using a chart. If I have a drop between rounds, I expect I'll usually have to give in and just seat the second round manually anyway. > The issue of Player A and Player C in R1 becoming prey/predator in R2 > (i.e. my R1 grand prey becomes my predator in R2) is likely a fixed > certainty in a +/-12 player event in the Archon at some point. Using > manual randomization can result in this, but also can avoid this. ...or it can be even worse. Again, I have a feeling that if you worked out the odds and analyzed this to the nth degree, you'd find that you get more such problems on average from the random table than either of these charts. The order of second round play in The Archon has never looked bad to me in any of the times I've used it. But then, my belief is that some of these sitatuatins (e.g. two allies at a table in a 12-player tournament winding up as predator and prey in the second round) are a LOT harder to avoid than you seem to believe, at least with smaller numbers of players to work with. (18 players, for instance, should be a much different story.) That's probably the root of our differences. Fred

On Nov 12, 10:24 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > This is silly. I didn't ignore anything. You responded to "if you don't manually randomize the initial input into Archon, the first round isn't random. So you need to randomize them manually." with "people who don't do that are stupid". As if that was remotely relevant to the discussion. Which it was not. As the issue was not "whether or not people use the Archon correctly" but instead "you are already manually randomizing the first round." Which you apprently chose to ignore. And instead respond to the point that you decided was germain. When it clearly was not. > Then stop responding with paragraph upon paragraph of detailed > explanation which no one needs or wants in an effort to educate > where no education is needed as if we were all pre-schoolers. Oh, Kevin. You made a faulty post that was irrlevant to the discussion at hand. And continue to act as if it was relevant, rather than simply saying "Huh. I probably should have been paying attention..." -Peter

In article <FUVKm.30787$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Sure. No chart is going to feature any degree of optimization if you > change the number of players between rounds. Oh, absolutely. At this point, I was just trying to figure out what happened. And what happened was something wacky. > But then, my belief > is that some of these sitatuatins (e.g. two allies at a table in a > 12-player tournament winding up as predator and prey in the second > round) are a LOT harder to avoid than you seem to believe, at least > with smaller numbers of players to work with. (18 players, for > instance, should be a much different story.) That's probably the root > of our differences. Yeah, probably. But I'm currently under the impression that LSJ is claiming that the Archon being used for 2R results in wacky results for a reason of some type. But yeah, ok. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] It was relevant. And must be, since you keep beating a dead horse. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> Sure. No chart is going to feature any degree of optimization if you >> change the number of players between rounds. > > Oh, absolutely. At this point, I was just trying to figure out what > happened. And what happened was something wacky. > >> But then, my belief >> is that some of these sitatuatins (e.g. two allies at a table in a >> 12-player tournament winding up as predator and prey in the second >> round) are a LOT harder to avoid than you seem to believe, at least >> with smaller numbers of players to work with. (18 players, for >> instance, should be a much different story.) That's probably the >> root of our differences. > > Yeah, probably. But I'm currently under the impression that LSJ is > claiming that the Archon being used for 2R results in wacky results > for a reason of some type. But yeah, ok. Wow, this is even more obfuscation than you're heaping upon me earlier up in the thread. LSJ has clearly stated, multiple times, why he believes what he believes in regards to the Archon 3R+F seating charts being used for a 2R+F tournament. For you to claim that it's "a reason of some type" goes directly to your credibility, or possibly your ability to read. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 19, 4:32 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > It was relevant. > > And must be, since you keep beating a dead horse. Kevin. I have no need to continue arguing with you about something this stupid. But if you really think that point was relevant, feel free to explain how it was relevant to the discussion at hand. Or not. Whatever works for you. -Peter

On Nov 19, 4:36 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Wow, this is even more obfuscation than you're heaping upon me > earlier up in the thread. "Obfuscation"? Really? You honestly think I'm trying to "obfuscate" something? Like I have some sort of hiden agenda? Really? This is how you react to this discussion? I'm secretly an agent of Big Manual Tournament Seating trying to bring down the Archon industry? Do you see how ridiculous this is? > LSJ has clearly stated, multiple times, why he believes what he believes > in regards to the Archon 3R+F seating charts being used for a 2R+F > tournament. For you to claim that it's "a reason of some type" goes > directly to your credibility, or possibly your ability to read. "A reason of some type" is short hand for "whatever it is was that LSJ was explaining previously, that I tend to agree with, that I don't feel like reiterating right this second". Your ability to pick individual statements out of their context, have them twist your mind up into a little ball of fury, and the react to them never ceases to amaze me. Ok, Kevin. Before, I was just like "Huh. I'm not quite sure why this is enraging Kevin. As it is a stupid point, and I don't know why it is getting his knickers in a twist..." Now, I'm just like "Kevin, what the frak is wrong with you?" -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "A reason of some type" is short hand for "whatever it is was that LSJ > was explaining previously, that I tend to agree with, that I don't > feel like reiterating right this second". For future cases, you may find "<reason X>" to be shorter to type and more like your intended message and less disagreement-inferrable than "a reason of some type".

On Nov 19, 8:44 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > For future cases, you may find "<reason X>" to be shorter to type and more like > your intended message and less disagreement-inferrable than "a reason of some type". Completely true. I'll remeber that next time. -Peter