Commissioner of Next Year's Players Championship

It is in a tournament thread because we have had discussions about what works (12/80s) and what, according to you, doesn't (24/60) and J-Pav cited going with "standard" tournament events. "Standard" is 12/80. I suppose to press the point further, it is also with a 20% penalty and a DH, but I am not sure there is much of a point of running 5 events all the same and no one is proposing that in reality.

No, it's in a tournament thread because you put it in a tournament thread. This was your original question post:

How does one bring variety to a standard 12/80 league? DH option, waiver penalties, what else?

I initially answered your question as if you were asking about a standard tournament. You then said you only "asked how to apply variety to the standard 12/80." When I explained I mentioned the other league types for the tournament, you (a bit ungraciously) said:

What you said about 12/100s or 12/60s is irrelevant to my question.

However, in your main quote above, you claim that you did ask your question because "we've had discussions of what works and what doesn't," and 12/100s and 12/60s are relevant to that. So either 60/12 and 100/12 leagues were relevant to your question or you were lying in the quote above when you claimed you asked your question because of discussion of "what works" for the tournament. I'm good with either.

Secondly, 24-team leagues don't just not work for tournaments "according to me;" they don't work for the tournament, period. I don't know if you've paid attention to the fifth 24-team league, but it only has 5 players, and it shows no signs of ever filling. And no, you don't have to run 5 similar events without resorting to gimmicks or 24-team leagues nobody mostly plays.

Maybe if we eliminate prizes, we can eliminate the drama...everyone plays for the fun of the competition.

Oh no...

...yikes...

J-Pav, by some strange twist of fate, I find myself agreeing with everything you've posted in this thread...except for the part about mesquiton being commissioner! However, if you take on the job, you can count on me for support and assistance if needed or wanted.

I know you are joking, but you do have a point...I've had a lot of fun here, and the notion of "giving back" makes sense. As you might recall, I've helped out with standings and stuff in the past, and I've tried to assist gbrookes and previous commissioners behind the scenes a bit as well. But, I really can't afford the time the commish job deserves, although I wouldn't rule out taking a turn at it as your successor, if it came to that.

I agree, the last thing we need is a "board" to muddle things up. Just an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, and more opportunity for complications, delays, and nit-pickery, which we also don't need. It's been tried in the past, without success.

Considering the total cash value of the tourney prizes would hardly buy 2 hours of a good attorney's time, I also agree that any concern about "legal" issues for a "paid" contest is pretty silly.

The Barnstormers tourney has a "board" and is run very well. But, that board is really just an advisory appendage to Mighty Moose, he picks it, can veto it, and calls on it for help when wanted, but it's Moose who runs the show, and always has. It's his total hands-on attention and individual dedication and effort that make it such well-run tourney, not the board.

The most efficiently run tourney I've participated in was last year's Mystery Card tourney. Incredibly, all leagues in all events were loaded at the same time, so the standings on the tourney homepage were always current and accurate. Again, this was due to the efforts of a single, dedicated, volunteer commish (visick), not some bumbling board.

Past PC commissioners have always been "chosen" by acclamation on the message boards...and always, as best I recall, from a "pool" of ONE hard-to-find volunteer. I see no reason for that tradition to change, in fact I've always considered the proven ability of the community to come together behind a commish volunteer as one of the more admirable aspects of this tournament.

If gbrookes is ready to pass the torch, and J-Pav is ready to take it, we should all be lining up behind J-Pav and offering support, not debating his merits, which should be obvious to anyone who has observed him here over the years.

I predict that, if J-Pav becomes commish, he will set the new standard for PC commissioners. We should be counting our blessings that such a well-qualified volunteer is willing to take on the job, not debating whether or not he should have it.

Wow.

Thank you!

Now if we could just get Geoff back and know all's good with him on his end, we can end this all on a very high note.

Mesquiton,

I agree, the last thing we need is a "board" to muddle things up. Just an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, and more opportunity for complications, delays, and nit-pickery, which we also don't need. It's been tried in the past, without success.

When I said the tourney can't be "board-free," I meant it can't be free of the message boards and the communications on it. Obviously J-Pav and I were using different meanings for the word "board." As to there being no advisory board, I'm fine with that and always have been.

Considering the total cash value of the tourney prizes would hardly buy 2 hours of a good attorney's time, I also agree that any concern about "legal" issues for a "paid" contest is pretty silly.

You are just wrong here. Complete participation in the tournament costs the participant $100. The prizes are officially announced to be worth $300. That is more than enough financial cost and reward to demand appropriate contest running by the paid contest runner and its representative/commissioner. So, your "attorney's time" anecdote is inaccurate and irrelevant. Whoever becomes commissioner will have to take these legal realities seriously. He can not erroneously dismiss them as "silly" as you just did.

If gbrookes is ready to pass the torch, and J-Pav is ready to take it, we should all be lining up behind J-Pav and offering support, not debating his merits, which should be obvious to anyone who has observed him here over the years.

You're wrong here, too. No manager is required to line up behind any proposed candidate. And people say SOM censors. You have an odd notion of free speech and member contribution, Mesquiton. I have no significant problem with J-Pav, but if I or anyone else did, than he would be right and in his right to express it. His "merits" may be obvious to you, other vets, and his friends, but other players are not required to accept your word on it.

I predict that, if J-Pav becomes commish, he will set the new standard for PC commissioners. We should be counting our blessings that such a well-qualified volunteer is willing to take on the job, not debating whether or not he should have it.

This may be. Although, I think it will be hard to top the job Visick did on the Mystery Tourney. He ran an open and seamless tournament. Again, if everybody wants him to be commissioner, then he should be. However, that shouldn't preclude any discussion or expressed concerns about him and his appropriateness for the job. As I said above, people don't like when SOM censors forum expression. We certainly do not want to do it to ourselves.

Double face palm.

:^)

Double face palm.

:^)

Another mature response from our future commissioner...

If there is any problem or error with what I said, J-pav, then be a grown-up and point it out. You can do that can't you? You've been avoiding addressing my posts throughout the thread. And I always thought you were a capable debater.